tVPN were commissioned to provide input to the Council of Europe’s 2011 exchange on religious dimension of intercultural dialogue. The focus of the 2011 meeting was:
Media, Beliefs and Religions
“The role of the media in fostering intercultural dialogue, tolerance and mutual understanding: freedom of expression of the media and respect towards cultural and religious diversity”
- Agenda
Text of tVPN Submission….
The Internet, Convergent Media and Intercultural Dialogue
“Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.” Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
In its work on ‘The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue’, the Council of Europe has stressed in its various reports and recommendations (CoE 2008; Whittle 2010) that all parties should engage in dialogues based on mutual tolerance underpinned by a respect for fundamental human rights. The European Commission, in its work on the Information Society, has stressed the importance of the internet as a social and democratic tool.
We are all aware that the internet provides a platform for both mutual understanding and mutual hatred. Sites exist that inspire intolerance and division – in this respect the internet is a reflection of the society we live in for good and ill.
A wider question that we must face is whether, on the whole, the internet is a tool for greater understanding or division. There is no clear answer to this. Popular writers such as Shirky and Leadbeater (Shirky 2008; Leadbeater 2009) and before them John Seely Brown (Brown & Duguid 2000) have talked optimistically about the power of networks to allow individuals to organise in new and interesting ways. This has been taken into the governmental sphere, especially in the US, by influential individuals such as Beth Noveck who served in the Obama Administration and Tim O’Reilly the writer, publisher and organiser of the Gov2.0 Summit (O’Reilly 2010; Noveck 2010). Faiths too have adopted the internet and modern social media which has added a new dimension to the notions of faith practice and faith community (Friesen 2009; Rice 2009; Campbell 2010).
Others however are sceptical of these trends. Keen, for example, suggests that as new media take over from old, we are losing respect for expertise and celebrating the Amateur, to our cultural detriment (Keen 2007); Putnam argues that digital media isolates us rather than bringing us together (Putnam 2001); and Hindman argues that Digital Democracy is a myth (Hindman 2008). Possibly worse given the cluster of faith communities that exist online is Cas Sunstein’s argument in Republic 2.0, that online communities tend to collect around similar views and then polarise them against what is perceived as the opposite opinion (Sunstein 2009) – Sunstein is currently in the Obama Administration’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
What this tells us is that the internet is not magic. The internet does not, in and of itself, promote beneficial dialogue. It can – but we have to work at it, and there are a number of pre-conditions to such a dialogue.
First, people need access to the internet. There are global, regional and national programmes needed to increase both internet penetration and the capacity-building technical and governance resources. However, even in the relatively prosperous European Union (EU), only 70% of households in the region as a whole have access to the internet, the maximum penetration being in the Scandinavian area with 90% of household, but also a number of countries being below 50% (source: EU Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2011).
Second, people need both the technical skills to access the internet proficiently and the media literacy skills to understand and use the information to which they gain access. Again, there is a wide discrepancy even within the EU and within individual states. Even in states such as Norway where around 90% of people have some internet skills, this leaves 10% with no skills and 25% ranked as having ‘low skills’ (source: EU Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2011).
But access and skills are not sufficient – there also need to be spaces for dialogue and positive interventions to create a culture of meaningful practices, not simply two or more groups typing at or about each other else Sunstein’s thesis is perpetuated.
The good news is that new media is no longer so ‘new’. For decades scholars and practitioners have studied the dynamics of internet communities and how these can be managed and, yes, manipulated. Writers such as Kim have created templates for the management of online communities such as online forums (Kim 2000). Theorist practitioners such as Ian Bogost have examined how digital games help people and communities engage with complex and problematic issues (Bogost 2007; Bogost et al. 2010). Practitioners such as Jane MgGonigal have used a mixture of online and offline gaming to create global communities to look at issues such as fossil fuels, for example www.worldwithoutoil.org (McGonigal 2011); and the US State Department have used a range of digital interventions to generate intercultural dialogue, for example the Understanding Islam through Virtual Worlds project (King & Fouts 2009). What all of these have in common is a mixture of technology and skilled individuals with a clear understanding of how to use digital tools for positive communal outcomes.
So digital tools can and do offer new opportunities for communities to engage in dialogue and reach new levels of understanding. However, we must actively work to create spaces for dialogue, and then keep these spaces open to a plurality of views, while at the same time maintaining the rights and mutual respect we have resolved to uphold.
References
CoE, 2008. White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue “Living together as equals in dignity,” Council of Europe. Available at: http://book.coe.int/ [Accessed November 14, 2011].
Bogost, I., 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames, The MIT Press.
Bogost, I., Ferrari, S. & Schweizer, B., 2010. Newsgames: Journalism at Play, MIT Press.
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P., 2000. The Social Life of Information, Harvard Business School Press.
Campbell, H., 2010. When Religion Meets New Media 1st ed., Routledge.
Friesen, D.J., 2009. Thy Kingdom Connected: What the Church Can Learn from Facebook, the Internet, and Other Networks 1st ed., Baker Books, a division of Baker Publishing Group.
Hindman, M., 2008. The Myth of Digital Democracy, Princeton University Press.
Keen, A., 2007. The cult of the amateur: how today’s internet is killing our culture, Currency.
Kim, A.J., 2000. Community Building on the Web: Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities 1st ed., Peachpit Press.
King, R.J. & Fouts, J.S., 2009. Understanding Islam through Virtual Worlds, Carnegie Council. Available at: http://dancinginkproductions.com/2010/06/22/understanding-islam-through-virtual-worlds/ [Accessed November 14, 2011].
Leadbeater, C., 2009. We-Think: Mass innovation, not mass production 2nd ed., Profile Books.
McGonigal, J., 2011. Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world, Jonathan Cape.
Noveck, B.S., 2010. Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful Reprint., Brookings Institution.
O’Reilly, T., 2010. Government As a Platform. In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma, eds. Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. O’Reilly Media, pp. 11-39.
Putnam, R., 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New edition., Simon & Schuster Ltd.
Rice, J., 2009. The Church of Facebook: How the Hyperconnected Are Redefining Community New., David C Cook.
Shirky, C., 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organisation Without Organizations, Allen Lane.
Sunstein, C.R., 2009. Republic.com 2.0, Princeton University Press.
Whittle, S., 2010. 2010 Council of Europe Exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue (Ohrid, 13-14 September 2010) –Report by Stephan Whittle, General Rapporteur, Available at: https://wcd.coe.int/ [Accessed November 14, 2011].
