Young People in Internet Politics?
Following the recent earthquake and consequent nuclear disaster in Japan, a diverse range of individuals with little or no personal connection with the country have worked hard to raise funds for victims. In Brussels, young people hosted a concert in their living room, whilst across the Atlantic over 4,000 youngsters ran the length of Santa Monica beach in a “Youth Run 4 Japan”. Personally, I have followed events in Japan and international responses in the news, yet have only given €1.50 to the cause and have yet to organise a cake sale. I didn’t demonstrate for International Women’s Day; nor did I sign the petition to free Aung San Suu Kyi. I count these all, however, as worthy campaigns and consider myself an active citizen. Yet my capacity for passive interest in causes that I deem important is a common malady amongst young people.
More young people are today connected across more countries than ever before, enabling even the smallest political campaign to become international news. This interconnectedness should make young computer literates more interested in campaigning, whilst the internet should make it more accessible. The level of personal connection with natural disasters, environmental degradation or political repression abroad is often related to how one responds. Yet the response of the young generation of “digital natives” to such challenges is divided.
Some young people pour tremendous energy into rallying for change or solidarity when the outcome will have no impact on their daily lives. These banner-waving, money-raising saints sharply contrast with those who never go beyond reading the news or discussing how the word could be different. The internet not only provides useful tools for campaigning, but also access to greater political and social capital. As my own example illustrates, many young people still shy away from taking a protagonist role in pushing for change.
The internet allows abundant information and comment regarding local or national issues to pass to the international sphere. This might lead individuals to believe that challenges surpass their capacity to enact change. Just like feeling powerless is linked to political apathy, inaction in the era of the internet can be linked to the fact that the “global community” it creates is too superficial to provoke a response equal to the coverage of problems. Although via the internet I can access the Facebook profile of a student at the University of Libya who I don’t know, I would be more likely to accept an invitation to go and protest against political repression in Belarus, having stayed with a nice Belorussian I met through using the internet site Couchsurfing. The technology of the internet creates impersonal relationships which perhaps only become instrumental in evoking action if individuals meet one another.
The impersonal nature of internet-based relations may also encourage young people to hesitate in taking responsibility for social and political action. In cyber space, all are equal and anyone can start a campaign blog or organise a demonstration, if they have access to the technology. Knowing that someone else could take action perhaps feeds the notion that someone else will assume responsibility for a cause or rally for it more effectively, and with a better publicity campaign. This can influence my decision to do nothing.
"Political participation" is now possible at via one "tweet" on Twitter or by forwarding one email. It is thus not true to say that youth campaigners are dissuaded by an overwhelming number of causes. Rather, the normalisation of political action as a minimal effort task has maybe encouraged a culture whereby active citizenship is played out in front of a computer screen, rather than by taking to the streets. I refuse to write off young people as lazy or dispassionate. Quite the opposite: I see a open-minded and motivated generation, for whom the internet enables new kinds of political action. Political and social actors should seek to understand the impact of the internet on participation, in order to use it as a tool to engage a new generation of philanthropic entrepreneurs.
It is indeed important to get young people out from behind their computer screens and onto the streets. But I’ll just check my Facebook profile once more before I go, ok?
Anna Fawdry is Policy Thinker at ThinkYoung, the first think-tank concerned about young Europeans.
Following the recent earthquake and consequent nuclear disaster in Japan, a diverse range of individuals with little or no personal connection with the country have worked hard to raise funds for victims. In Brussels, young people hosted a concert in their living room, whilst across the Atlantic over 4,000 youngsters ran the length of Santa Monica beach in a “Youth Run 4 Japan”. Personally, I have followed events in Japan and international responses in the news, yet have only given €1.50 to the cause and have yet to organise a cake sale. I didn’t demonstrate for International Women’s Day; nor did I sign the petition to free Aung San Suu Kyi. I count these all, however, as worthy campaigns and consider myself an active citizen. Yet my capacity for passive interest in causes that I deem important is a common malady amongst young people.
More young people are today connected across more countries than ever before, enabling even the smallest political campaign to become international news. This interconnectedness should make young computer literates more interested in campaigning, whilst the internet should make it more accessible. The level of personal connection with natural disasters, environmental degradation or political repression abroad is often related to how one responds. Yet the response of the young generation of “digital natives” to such challenges is divided.
Some young people pour tremendous energy into rallying for change or solidarity when the outcome will have no impact on their daily lives. These banner-waving, money-raising saints sharply contrast with those who never go beyond reading the news or discussing how the word could be different. The internet not only provides useful tools for campaigning, but also access to greater political and social capital. As my own example illustrates, many young people still shy away from taking a protagonist role in pushing for change.
The internet allows abundant information and comment regarding local or national issues to pass to the international sphere. This might lead individuals to believe that challenges surpass their capacity to enact change. Just like feeling powerless is linked to political apathy, inaction in the era of the internet can be linked to the fact that the “global community” it creates is too superficial to provoke a response equal to the coverage of problems. Although via the internet I can access the Facebook profile of a student at the University of Libya who I don’t know, I would be more likely to accept an invitation to go and protest against political repression in Belarus, having stayed with a nice Belorussian I met through using the internet site Couchsurfing. The technology of the internet creates impersonal relationships which perhaps only become instrumental in evoking action if individuals meet one another.
The impersonal nature of internet-based relations may also encourage young people to hesitate in taking responsibility for social and political action. In cyber space, all are equal and anyone can start a campaign blog or organise a demonstration, if they have access to the technology. Knowing that someone else could take action perhaps feeds the notion that someone else will assume responsibility for a cause or rally for it more effectively, and with a better publicity campaign. This can influence my decision to do nothing.
"Political participation" is now possible at via one "tweet" on Twitter or by forwarding one email. It is thus not true to say that youth campaigners are dissuaded by an overwhelming number of causes. Rather, the normalisation of political action as a minimal effort task has maybe encouraged a culture whereby active citizenship is played out in front of a computer screen, rather than by taking to the streets. I refuse to write off young people as lazy or dispassionate. Quite the opposite: I see a open-minded and motivated generation, for whom the internet enables new kinds of political action. Political and social actors should seek to understand the impact of the internet on participation, in order to use it as a tool to engage a new generation of philanthropic entrepreneurs.
It is indeed important to get young people out from behind their computer screens and onto the streets. But I’ll just check my Facebook profile once more before I go, ok?
Anna Fawdry is Policy Thinker at ThinkYoung, the first think-tank concerned about young Europeans.