Friday, January 20, 2006
Global Village?
In 1962 Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase, "global village" in his book The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. The idea of a global village was further developed in his 1964 book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. According to McLuhan, the development of television and satellite communication networks was offering coverage of events across the globe in real time, thereby collapsing time and distance, which was turning the world into a global village.
McLuhan's prediction of a global village created by television did not come true. However, there are some who believe that the Internet will create such a place. However, for such a village to exist, the Internet will have to erode cultural differences and create a singular world culture. Yet, is a global village something everyone on the planet should aspire to create in the name of "one world, one people"? If so, for what reasons? Would it expand American cultural hegemony?
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal there is an interesting article by Christopher Rhoads entitled, "In Threat to Internet's Clout, Some Are Starting Alternatives". The subtitle is "Rise of Developing Nations, Anti-U.S. Views Play Role; Pioneer Sounds the Alarm. A 'Root' Grows in Germany." A memorable quote is made by Khalad Fattal, who is head of a "nonprofit organization dedicated to making the Internet multilingual." Mr. Fattal says, "'There is no such thing as a global Internet today. ... You have only an English-language Internet that is deployed internationally. How is that empowering millions of Chinese or Arab citizens?"
A central issue concerns who has control of the Internet. As the article explains, the U.S.-based nonprofit organization Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) and the U.S. Department of Commerce have the sole power over what domain names are used and who controls each name. However, "[a]s the Internet's role grows around the world, some are uneasy with the notion that a U.S.-based body overseen by the U.S. government has sole power over what domain names are used and who controls each name. Other countries such as China also say Icann is too slow in forming domain names in non-Roman languages, hindering the development of an Internet culture in those countries." Last November at a United Nations summit in Tunis the U.S. delegation was challenged by "more than 170 countries to give up unilateral oversight of Icann." The U.S. countered by arguing that "the Internet is too valuable to tinker with or place under an international body like the U.N." At the same time, the article notes fears that "Washington could easily 'turn off' the domain name of a country it wanted to attack, crippling the Internet communications of that country's military and government." One could add that it would not have to be a military attack, but it could be an economic one as well.
McLuhan's prediction of a global village created by television did not come true. However, there are some who believe that the Internet will create such a place. However, for such a village to exist, the Internet will have to erode cultural differences and create a singular world culture. Yet, is a global village something everyone on the planet should aspire to create in the name of "one world, one people"? If so, for what reasons? Would it expand American cultural hegemony?
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal there is an interesting article by Christopher Rhoads entitled, "In Threat to Internet's Clout, Some Are Starting Alternatives". The subtitle is "Rise of Developing Nations, Anti-U.S. Views Play Role; Pioneer Sounds the Alarm. A 'Root' Grows in Germany." A memorable quote is made by Khalad Fattal, who is head of a "nonprofit organization dedicated to making the Internet multilingual." Mr. Fattal says, "'There is no such thing as a global Internet today. ... You have only an English-language Internet that is deployed internationally. How is that empowering millions of Chinese or Arab citizens?"
A central issue concerns who has control of the Internet. As the article explains, the U.S.-based nonprofit organization Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) and the U.S. Department of Commerce have the sole power over what domain names are used and who controls each name. However, "[a]s the Internet's role grows around the world, some are uneasy with the notion that a U.S.-based body overseen by the U.S. government has sole power over what domain names are used and who controls each name. Other countries such as China also say Icann is too slow in forming domain names in non-Roman languages, hindering the development of an Internet culture in those countries." Last November at a United Nations summit in Tunis the U.S. delegation was challenged by "more than 170 countries to give up unilateral oversight of Icann." The U.S. countered by arguing that "the Internet is too valuable to tinker with or place under an international body like the U.N." At the same time, the article notes fears that "Washington could easily 'turn off' the domain name of a country it wanted to attack, crippling the Internet communications of that country's military and government." One could add that it would not have to be a military attack, but it could be an economic one as well.
