The
nation state as an important aspect of world relations has in days gone by,
been at the fore of many significant events such as; the unifying of differing ethnic
or cultural groups of people, conflict between countries, and trade. However in
the modern day nationalism is seen to be noticeably receding due to the rise of
Globalisation- with some going so far as to claim it will result in the ‘demise’
of the nation state. The causes of nationalism being a decreasing factor in
world relations is many and varied, however as Smith puts it; this has come
into effect due to:
“The massive acceleration of Globalising trends- of economic interdependence,
total militarization, mass migration, global communications and the diffusion
of consumerism…” (pg 16, 2007)
It may be noted that in terms of the very basic differences of strong
nationalism, and modern globalisation, is that they are fueled by fundamentally
different needs; nationalism- when it is important for a state to consolidate
itself from within in order to achieve a common unity, and globalization when
freer trade relations and communications are desired (Green, Crashcourse, 2012).
This is just globalisation in terms of trade and communications however, what
the focus should also question is; to what extent does this interconnectedness also
extent to possible political homogeneity?
Machin & Van Leeuwen examine the role cultural imperialism, and state that when
using this term it is more accurately referring to ‘American Imperialism’ (pg
23, 2007), that is to say not particularly imperialism in the traditional sense
of physical conquest and subjugation; but instead the gradual acquisition and influence
on global media outlets. It would seem then, very fair to assume this mass
influence over media the U.S has accrued over the years must then extend to
political influence and homogeneity, however, it is countered that this ‘Global
Village’ has not yet been achieved due to the ever apparent instances of ideological
opposition and conflict still prevalent throughout the world (Machin & Van
Leeuwen, pg 24, 2007).
Of course more broadly it is still contentious exactly just what globalisation is,
what is driving it, and whether it is ultimately a good think in the political
and social sphere of the world. Shaw argues that globalisation has helped bring
about as a natural process the democratisation, of countless countries around
the world since WWII and the Cold War ended- and by extension, that the world
is in a period of transition, of a global revolution (2003, pg 170-2). He also characterises
the resistance against this being a power struggle of local elites and groups
trying to hold on to power or identities which they feel are threatened by this
change, and attempt to slow said changes through ‘nationalist authoritarian counter-revolution’
(Shaw, 2003, pg 172). Through this it could be argued that cultural homogeneity
is indeed a concern for people the world over, whether or the reality is as
straightforward as ‘American Imperialism’ or a much more complex system of
interactions played out through modern communications and technology, presented
with varying levels of agency the world over.
New
Media in the present day is constantly the topic of analysis and scrutiny in
regards to its impact on communication and potential to up the level of
interaction between people throughout the world. This scrutiny appears to be
most appropriate as by the standards of media formats ‘New’ Media is still very
much in its infancy, and this provides a context from which discussion of its
impact on different areas becomes highly interesting; particularly in the case
of politics.
Mayer & Cornfield (pg 319, 2008)
argue with the numbers of internet user rising dramatically since the end of
the 90s and throughout the 21st century, the masses have had
exposure to a variety of media forms (blogs, videos, interactive sites etc)
which is providing a challenger to Television’s role as key centre for
information during elections. This coupled with internet’s ability to counter ‘top
down’ structures of information dissemination allows it to encourage public
forums and political debates to go back and forth; not just between media and
political figures, but the general public themselves (Mayer & Cornfield, pg
319-20, 2008). This potential for a greater spectrum of political discourse
provides the opportunity for a more level playing field in terms of who has a
voice in elections and political matters.
Social media has also become an important tool for politicians in the last 10
years or so, with Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter’s potential for not only addressing
the masses a factor, but also in its ability to target specific interest groups
within this framework (Ridout, pg 83-4). Ridout also notes that social media
has helped to evolve election campaign practices and in effect overcome
declining viewing of broadcast media by and battling voter apathy by reaching
out to alienated voters (pg 84). In terms of voter apathy we, could be seeing a
shift in the attitudes of many people (including particular minority groups) to
engage in the political process and turn out in higher numbers. Pearson
Education’s Database shows that voter participation for U.S presidential
elections was at the level of 49.1% (of eligible population) in 1996, and has
rose to 56.8% in 2008 with subsequent rises in the elections prior to that one
(Pearson ed, citing http://elections.gmu.edu,
2013). This view is also backed up with the claim by Jenkins & Thorburn (pg
1, 2003) that by 2000, 90% of American internet users were also registered
voters; showing perhaps there being some substance and correlation between the
use of online media, and political polarization.
The potential for New Media to have a role in a liberal democracy is not
however just limited to election campaigns; with the everyday political
landscape being shaped and formulated by online experience. The White House
itself has a YouTube channel with over 370,000 subscribers, and as such can
filter information straight to the people who want to hear it most without any
need for first directing it through established media platforms and companies.
All in all, while there may be some other weaknesses to the shift of political
engagements to New Media formats, it cannot be said however that it is not
aiding in capturing the attention of voters out there and bringing them into
political conversations and campaigns.
