Political Communication, 17:335340, 2000 Copyright 2000 Taylor & Francis 1058-4609/00 $12.00 + .

00

The Internet and the Democratization of Civic Culture

PETER DAHLGREN

Keywords citizenship, civic culture, identity, Internet, political participation, public sphere

The starting point for my reflections here is a schematic distinction within a democracy between the formal political system, with its institutional structures, laws, parties, elections, and so forth, and a complex, multidimensional civic culture, anchored in everyday life and its horizons. Civic culture both reflects and makes possible this democratic system, while at the same time it is dependent upon the system for its institutional guarantees and parameters. In Habermasian terms, this notion of civic culture can thus be seen as an important region of the life-world, with its negotiation of norms and values. As such, it is certainly vulnerable to colonization from the system of politics and economics, yet can potentially also have an impact on the norms and values that guide those spheres. The political system (but to a lesser degree the economic system) and a civic culture are in principle mutually dependent; both evolve in relation to each other. A civic culture is thus both strong and vulnerable: It generates the normative and cultural resources required for a functioning democracy, yet it sits precariously in the face of political and economic power. It can be shaped by citizens but can also shape them, since various technologies of citizenship, as Cruikshank (1999) calls them, such as government and educationand I would add the mediacan serve to empower or disempower citizens via the civic culture. My intent here is to air a (renewed) concept of civic culture, consider its utility, and then relate this to the Internet, ending with a very brief sketch of a proposed empirical study.

Renewing an Old Concept

Civic culture is not a completely unproblematic concept. It contains both empirical and normative dimensions. It also has a past: Since the ancient Greeks, reflection on the

Peter Dahlgren is Professor of Media and Communication Studies at Lund University. Portions of this article are adapted from a longer chapterMedia, Citizenship, and Civic Culture to appear in J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.) (2000), Mass Media and Society (3rd ed.), London: Routledge. Address correspondence to Peter Dahlgren, Media and Communication Studies, Lund University, Box 114, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden. E-mail: peter.dahlgren@soc.lu.se

335

336

Peter Dahlgren

cultural preconditions of politics has been an integral part of political thought. After the Second World War, American political scientists began to try to draw lessons about democracys cultural variables. Based in the political climate of the Cold War, and using large-scale survey techniques coupled with Parsonian views on social integration, they launched the notion of the civic culture as the foundation of a major cross-national research effort (Almond & Verba, 1963, 1980). In my update, I would like to avoid what I take to be elements of psychological reductionism and ethnocentrism. Also, my view of culture is constructionist and materialist, rather than systemic. In terms of disciplines, I am hovering in the border zone between political communication and cultural studies. To further clear the conceptual terrain, civic culture obviously bears some relationship to what has been termed civil society. But this latter notion, itself slippery and multivalent, generally points to institutional structures and social processes. Civic culture underscores culture, that is, collective meaning making. One could say that civic culture resides within civil society, but this is not the whole story, since civic culture shores up full-blown political participation as well, not just the pre- or proto-political activity normally gathered under the civil society label. Also, civic culture is not equivalent to the public sphere, though one could say that the public sphere is in part made possible by suitable features of a civic culture. We would be more correct to think in terms of civic cultures, in the plural, given the patterns of diversity among citizens, although this would be linguistically awkward in the long run. Normatively, a civic culture does not presuppose homogeneity among its citizens, but in the spirit of civic republicanism, it does suggest minimal shared commitments to the vision and procedures of democracy. A functioning civic culture thus at some level entails a capacity to see beyond the immediate interests of ones own group. Needless to say, this may be a tricky balance to maintain at times. However, different social and cultural groups can express civic commonality in different ways, theoretically enhancing democracys possibilities. Groups and their political positions are always to some extent in flux, and individuals can embody multiple group loyalties; the boundaries of we-ness in heterogeneous modern democracies can shift. The task of making democracy work in societies characterized by pervasive social differentiation, not least along ethnic and cultural lines, is perplexing (Kymlicka, 1995; Spinner, 1994), but a potentially fruitful way to frame the problems and strive for solutions could be precisely via the concept of civic culture. The notion of civic culture thus points to those features of the sociocultural world that constitute everyday preconditions for all democratic participation: in the institutions of civil society, engagement in the public sphere, and involvement in political activity broadly understood. These preconditions involve cultural attributes prevalent among citizens that can in various ways facilitate democratic life (including the processes whereby the definitions of democratic life are translated into politics). As a concept, then, civic culture is not new, and even my reformulation carries over traditional elements from political science/political communication. It is the connection with cultural theory that in my view enhances its utility, connecting perspectives from constructionism and sense-making with the framework from traditional social science. We can distinguish between four dimensionsempirical elementsof civic culture. These can in turn serve as starting points for empirically interrogating the various media salient for modern democracy.

The Internet and Democratization of Civic Culture

337

Four Dimensions
Relevant Knowledge and Competencies. This is obvious; this is basic. People must have access to reliable reports, portrayals, analyses, discussions, debates, and so forth about current affairs. Here the medias role is central yet also problematic. Accessibility has to do not just with technical and economic aspects but also with linguistic and cultural proximity. The sources of knowledge and the materials for the development of competencies must be comprehensible, cast in modes that communicate well with different collectivities. This of course reiterates the need for multiple public spheresor a highly heterogeneous overarching onecharacterized by sufficient autonomy and diversity to address and incorporate different groups. Some degree of literacy is essential; people must be able to make sense of that which circulates in the public sphere and to understand the world they live in. They also must have the ability to express their own ideas if they are to partake in the public spheres processes of opinion formation and/or engage in other political activities; communicative competencies are indispensable for a democratic citizenry. Education, in its many forms, will thus always retain its relevance for democracy, even if its contents and goals often need to be critically examined. Sociological realism tells us that it is unlikely that the necessary levels of knowledge and competence for all members of society can be attained; also, citizens certainly must have the right to not be engaged. However, the principle of universalism underscores that any systematic mechanisms of exclusion in this regard are antithetical to democracy and must thus be challenged. Precisely what kinds of knowledge and competencies are required for the vitality of a civic culture can never be established once and for all but must always be open for discussion. In terms of sense-making via the modern media today, especially if we look at young voters, many questions arise as to what constitutes relevant knowledge in a media milieu where many of the previous boundaries have become problematic (e.g., journalism vs. popular culture, the personal and the political, citizen and consumer; see, for example, Street, 1997; van Zoonen, 1998). Loyalty to Democratic Values and Procedures. Democracy will not function if such virtues as tolerance and willingness to follow democratic principles and procedures do not have grounding in everyday life. Even support for the legal system (assuming it is legitimate) is an expression of such virtue: Democracy will not survive a situation of profound lawlessness. Just what are the best or real democratic values, and how they are to be applied, can of course be the grounds for serious disputeand it is precisely in such situations that the procedural mechanisms take on extra importance. Resolution of conflict, striving for compromise in situations where consensus is impossible, is a key task for a democratic society and requires a commitment to the rules of the game. The media largely tend to reinforce the commitment to democratic values (even by invoking them in sensationalist scandals), and in particular it can be argued that support for the democratic rights of individuals is something that is spreading globally via media representations. In his historical survey of citizenship in the U.S., Schudson (1998) argues that particularly the cementation of the value of the individual offers grounds for a qualified optimism regarding democracys future. Practices, Routines, Traditions. Democracy must be embodied in concrete, recurring practicesindividual, group, and collectiverelevant for diverse situations. Such practices help generate personal and social meaning in relation to the ideals of democracy, and they must have an element of the routine, of the taken for granted, about them if they are to be a part of a civic culture. Elections can be seen as a form of practice in

338

Peter Dahlgren

this regard, but a civic culture requires many other practices, pertinent to many other circumstances in everyday life, to civil and political society. For example, how to hold a meeting, manage discussion, even how to argue can be seen as important features of the life-world that have bearing on civic culture. The interaction among citizens is a cornerstone of the public sphere, and the kinds of established rules and etiquette that shape such interaction either promote the practices of public discussion or contribute to their evaporation. (In my view, Nina Eliasophs 1998 study of various discursive practices inhibiting political talk is an excellent analysis of civic culture.) Across time, practices become traditions, and experience becomes collective memory; todays democracy needs to be able to refer to a past without being locked in it. New practices and traditions can and must evolve to ensure that democracy does not stagnate. Again, we can see how the lack of practices and traditions is an obstacle in many societies that are attempting to develop their democratic character. The media obviously contribute here by their representations of ongoing political life, including its rituals and symbols, yet increasingly also take on relevance as more people make use of the newer interactive possibilities and incorporate these as part of their civic culture practices. Identities as Citizens. Traditionally, citizenship is defined as a formal status, although at times questions about which rights (and obligations) are to be accorded may give rise to political conflict. How we define citizenship is inseparable from how we define democracy and the good society. One can say that the formal status of citizenship conceptually frames much of political life in modern democraciesfor example, the struggles to implement genuine universality and equalityand it thus remains contested. From another perspective, citizenship has increasingly become an object of social theory and social analysis (cf. Beiner, 1995; Janoski, 1998; Turner, 1993), not least from the standpoint of feminist horizons and the obstacles to women achieving equality and universalism (cf. Dean, 1997; Voet, 1998). Much of this literature casts citizenship in terms of social agency, as particular sets of practices, and the circumstances around them. Traditional social science research has already done this in some ways, emphasizing the importance of certain values and norms being internalized as a prerequisite for citizenship. More recent work has taken a somewhat different, though largely complementary route. Based in cultural theory (e.g., Isin & Wood, 1999; Preston, 1997) as well as political philosophy (e.g., Clark, 1996; Mouffe, 1993; A. Smith, 1998; Trend, 1996), these contributions have highlighted the dimension of identity as a key to understanding citizenship as a mode of social agency. In short, in order to be able to act as a citizen, it is necessary that one can see oneself as a citizen, as subjectively encompassing the attributes this social category may involve. Just which attributes are relevant is a question that has become more and more complicated. Previously, for example, citizenship was defined by its relevance for the public realm. However, the neat boundaries between public and private have become increasingly problematic (cf. Weintraub & Kumar, 1997). Today, citizenship still generally evokes the notion of a subjectivity positioned publicly, even if a public context can be very small scale. However, with the public and private having become intertwined, citizenship as an identity becomes interlaced with other dimensions of the self. Yet, if citizenship is a dimension of the self, this does not mean that people necessarily give the word citizen a meaning that resonates with them; they may have other vocabularies. From the standpoint of research, one has to be sensitive to peoples own discursive strategies for making sense of and participating in democracy. One of the hallmarks of late modern society is the emergence of the self as a reflexive project, an ongoing process of the shaping and reshaping of identity in response to

The Internet and Democratization of Civic Culture

339

the pluralized sets of social forces, cultural currents, and personal contexts encountered by individuals. Moreover, identity is understood as plural: In our daily lives we operate in a multitude of different worlds or realities; we carry within us different sets of knowledge, assumptions, rules, and roles for different circumstances. Some of these elements reside more in the core of our identity, others more in the periphery. Yet, all of us are to varying degrees composite people. The idea of composite identities also pertains to citizenship. Democracys health is seen as linked to citizenship understood as a significant element of the construction of our multiple selves; Gellner (1994) uses the metaphor modular man [sic] to capture this idea. Peoples identities as citizens (however defined), with their sense of belonging toand perceived possibilities for participating insocietal development, become a crucial element in the life of democracy. To see citizenship as one dimension of identity may also help us to avoid letting our democratic ideals generate a predefined, one-size-fits-all portrait of citizenship that is sociologically and psychologically unrealistic. If democracy were to presuppose that the majority of the population be turned into a corps of adult scouts, the prospects would be bleak indeed. These four dimensions of civic culture should be seen as a circuit of mutually reinforcing factors, not a list of separate items. For people to see themselves as citizens, and for a civic culture to flourish, involves thus the mutual interdependence of knowledge and competencies, loyalty to democratic values and procedures, as well as established practices and traditions. While a civic culture rests upon citizens ways of doing and thinking in everyday life, the media can foster or hinder this circuit.

Net Links
The political trends in modern democracy articulate in complex ways with the evolution of the media. The dimensions of civic culture offer ways to organize analyses of how the media, via their modes of representation as well as the newer forms of interactivity that they offer, are possibly contributing to the decline of traditional political life and the emergence of newer forms of involvement. While empirical and normative ambivalence about these developments remain, we can choose to underscore that individuals and groups are finding new ways of doingand imaginingdemocracy. The civic culture prism does not promise that we will get any easier answers, but it can help us to formulate questions and stake out research directions while also possibly providing an enhanced conceptual toolkit. The Internet has already become an object of intense theorizing and, more recently, of empirical analysis. Two currents are particularly relevant here: the theme of community on/via the Net (cf. Jones, 1998; M. Smith & Kollock, 1999) and the relevance of the Net for politics (e.g., Hague & Loader, 1999). These currents can provide a number of useful signposts, but the focus in this research would be angled specifically at the roles the Internet can play in regard to the four dimensions of civic culture. An important tendency I see emerging in current Net research is a declining emphasis on the on-line/off-line distinction. There is still certainly much to be investigated regarding the specific attributes of cyberspace and how it differs from the world beyond the screen. However, the rampant intermeshing of the Net with so many social institutions, organizations, and everyday settings invites us to consider how this technology is concretely used and integrated in these various contexts, where people are repeatedly moving between on- and off-line activities within the practical circumstances they have at hand. So while one could conceivably analyze some aspects of civic culture by focusing purely on the Net, I would instead choose to see how the Net is used in conjunction with other, off-line activities.

340

Peter Dahlgren

In formulating a research project, I would begin by identifying a number of specific groups that are actively engaged in some way within civil or political society and reside at the forefront of the newer developments of civic culture (rather than, say, some sort of representative selection)and that have a strong outward presence on the Net or, alternatively, make considerable use of the Net for their own internal activities. The point is to see what is the value added for civic culture that Net use carries with it. The number of groups selected would of course be dependent upon the resources available, but ideally I would like to see a comparative design where similarities and differences could be delineated. Among the many possible categories: a relatively new, place-bound local activist group; an organization that has an orientation to a particular theme or issue and operates in a European or global context, such as an established NGO working with humanitarian relief; and a social movement within the area of the environment or feminism. Mapping the interplay of knowledge, competencies, values, practices, and identities would involve individual and group interviews, observation, and, not least, analysis of Net texts. The material must be gathered in ways that capture both what these citizens strategically do and the construction of meaning that emerges in the process. The practical challenges such research poses should not be underestimated.

References
Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Almond, G., & Verba, S. (Eds.). (1980). The civic culture revisited. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Beiner, R. (Ed.). (1995). Theorizing citizenship. Albany: State University of New York Press. Clark, P. B. (1996). Deep citizenship. London: Pluto. Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Dean, J. (Ed.). (1997). Feminism and the new democracy. London: Sage. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gellner, E. (1994). The conditions of liberty. London: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press. Hague, B. N., & Loader, B. D. (Eds.). (1999). Digital democracy. London: Routledge. Isin, E. F., & Wood, P. K. (1999). Citizenship and identity. London: Sage. Janoski, T. (1998). Citizenship and civil society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jones, S. G. (Ed.). (1998). Cybersociety 2.0. London: Sage. Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. London: Verso. Preston, P. W. (1997). Political/cultural identity. London: Sage. Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen. New York: Free Press. Smith, A. M. (1998). Laclau and Mouffe. London: Routledge. Smith, M. A., & Kollock, P. (Eds.). (1999). Communities in cyberspace. London: Routledge. Spinner, J. (1994). The boundaries of citizenship. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Street, J. (1997). Politics and popular culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Trend, D. (Ed.). (1996). Radical democracy: Identity, citizenship and the state. London: Routledge. Turner, B. (Ed.). (1993). Citizenship and social theory. London: Sage. van Zoonen, L. (1998). A day at the zoo: Political communication, pigs and popular culture. Media, Culture and Society, 20, 183200. Voet, R. (1998). Feminism and citizenship. London: Sage. Weintraub, J., & Kumar, D. (Eds.). (1997). Public and private in thought and practice: Perspectives on a grand dichotomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Political Communication, 17:341349, 2000 Copyright 2000 Taylor & Francis 1058-4609/00 $12.00 + .00

Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information Environment

MICHAEL X. DELLI CARPINI

Keywords civic engagement, civic infrastructure, Internet, political efficacy, political knowledge, political participation, volunteerism, young citizens

What follows is an exploratory examination of the current disengagement of young Americans from public life, some thoughts on the roots of this disengagement, and speculations on the ways in which new technologies such as the Internet might be used to improve this state of affairs. It is meant to be a starting point for discussion.

The Civic Disengagement of Americas Youth

While the decline in civic engagement over the past 30 years is evident among all age groups, it is particularly acute among the young. Put simply, Americas youth appear to be disconnecting from public life, and doing so at a rate that is greater than for any other age group. A review of the standard indicators of civic engagement reveals a consistent and disturbing picture.1 Whether compared with older Americans or with younger Americans from earlier eras, todays young adults are significantly: Less trusting of their fellow citizens. Young adults under the age of 30 are significantly more likely than are those over 30 to say that most people cannot be trusted and that people are more likely to look out for themselves than to try to help each other (Rahn, 1998). Less interested in politics or public affairs. Only 19% of those between the ages of 18 and 29 say they follow politics and government most of the time, as compared with 51% of those 50 or older (Zukin, 1997). Only 27% of college freshmen (in 1997) think keeping up with public affairs is very important, as compared with 59% of college freshmen in 1966 (Sax, Astin, Korn, & Mahoney, 1997). Less likely to feel a sense of identity, pride or obligation associated with American citizenship. Less than 20% of 18- to 29-year-olds say they are very proud of how
Michael X. Delli Carpini is Director of the Public Policy Program of the Pew Charitable Trusts, and formerly was Professor of Political Science at Barnard College, Columbia University. Address correspondence to Michael X. Delli Carpini, Public Policy Program, Pew Charitable Trusts, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19103-7077, USA. E-mail: mdellicarpini@pewtrusts.com

341

342

Michael X. Delli Carpini

democracy works in the U.S., as compared with over 50% of those 50 years old or older. Young adults are also significantly less likely than older adults to feel that citizenship is an important part of being an American (Rahn, 1998). Only 26% of those between the ages of 15 and 24 believe being involved in democracy and voting is extremely important, and only 28% mention civic obligation or duty as a reason to vote (National Association of Secretaries of State, 1998). Less knowledgeable about the substance or processes of politics. Only one in 10 young Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 can name both of their senators, as compared with one in five of those between the ages of 30 and 45 and one in three of those over the age of 45. On a 50-item quiz about national politics, young adults could correctly answer only one in three questions, as compared with one in two correct for those 30 or older (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996). Lack of knowledge was cited by 18- to 24-year-olds as one of the two most important reasons why young people do not vote (National Association of Secretaries of State, 1998). Less likely to read a newspaper or watch the news. Thirty-six percent of young adults (18 to 29) say they follow the news every day, as compared with 52% of those between the ages of 30 and 50 and 67% of those over 50. On any given day, just over 40% of 19- to 29-year-olds watch the news on television, as compared with 55% of those 30 to 50 years old and 65% of those over 50. Less than 20% of young adults read the newspaper on any given day, as compared with about 40% of those between the ages of 30 and 50 and 60% of those over 50. Newspaper readership among young adults is less than half what it was for this age group in 1965 (Zukin, 1997). Less likely to register or vote. Turnout in the 1996 presidential election among 1824year-olds was 28%, as compared with well over 60% for those 35 or older. This is the lowest turnout on record for this age group (42% of 1824-year-olds voted in 1972, the first year that 1820-year-olds were eligible).2 Less likely to participate in politics beyond voting. Approximately 50% of those between the ages of 18 and 29 say they engaged in at least one political act beyond voting (worked in a campaign, contacted a public official, participated in informal community activities, attended a community meeting, and so forth) in the last year, as compared with over 70% of those between the ages of 30 and 69 (Schlozman, Verba, Brady, & Erkulwater, 1998). Less likely to participate in community organizations designed to address public problems through collective action or the formal policy process. Thirty percent of those between the ages of 18 and 29 (and only 20% of those between the ages of 18 and 24) are affiliated with an organization that takes a public stand on at least one policy issue, as compared with 55% of those between the ages of 30 and 69 (Schlozman, Verba, Brady, & Erkulwater, 1998). Only 14% of young Americans (15 to 24 years old) have ever joined a club or organization that deals directly with government or politics, while 64% have joined a nonpolitical club or organization (National Association of Secretaries of State, 1998). Less likely to connect individual efforts to help solve problems with more traditional, collective forms of civic engagement. Traditionally, different forms of participation reinforce each other: Whether one first becomes involved through volunteering, voting, or participation in community organizations, it tends to increase the likelihood that one will subsequently participate in other ways (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). Among todays young adults, this connection appears to have weakened. Indeed, one study found that for 18- to 24-year-olds, there was no statistical relationship between voluntary activities such as working in a soup kitchen, tutoring, or helping to

Gen.com and the New Information Environment

343

clean up a local park or river and participating in more traditional ways such as voting (National Association of Secretaries of State, 1998). The evidence that young Americans are disconnected from public life seems endless. In a recent survey, a majority of high school students could not name a single government or non-government public leader who had the qualities they most admired: caring about average people, consistency in beliefs, strong leadership skills and experience, ethical values, and good communication skills (the most named person was President Clinton, who was selected by only 7% of those polled) (Close Up Foundation, 1999). Sixty-one percent of 18- to 24-year-olds believe that todays political leaders have failed them. Only one in four young Americans 15 to 24 years of age think government or elected officials have a major impact on their day-to-day life. Young adults are significantly less likely than older adults to think their participation in politics would make a difference (for example, 45% feel their vote does not matter regardless of who wins an election) (National Association of Secretaries of State, 1998). A majority of those under the age of 29 believe that the Social Security system will not exist by the time they are old enough to need it and that they will have to fend for themselves for basic social services when they are older. Young adults express declining interest in serving in appointed or elected government positions or in pursuing careers in other public-sector jobs such as teaching, public law, or the nonprofit sector (for example, in one recent survey of U.S. teenagers, 70% said they had no interest in jobs related to government or politics). Enrollments and majors in political science courses are declining, as are applications for public policy and public affairs graduate programs. Two additional factors make the patterns summarized above particularly unsettling. First, while young adults historically have been less engaged in many of the more traditional aspects of public life (for example, voting, knowledge of politics, or reading newspapers) than have older Americans, the extent of this disengagement and the participation gap between young and old are far greater today than in the past. Second, it appears that young Americans are not increasing their participation in public life as they grow older at anything like the rate for previous generations. In short, the current civic malaise that has engulfed Americas youth appears to be an ingrained generational characteristic rather than a stage in the life cycle that will remedy itself with time.

Identifying the Roots of the Current Disengagement of Young Americans

Peopleyoung or oldchoose to become engaged in public life when they have the motivation, opportunity, and ability to do so. The motivation to participate derives from a number of sources: a sense that it is your responsibility to do so; the satisfaction that comes from participating with others for a common purpose; the identification of a public problem that affects you or those you care about; and the belief that your involvement will make a difference. Motivation alone does not ensure engagement, however. Citizens must have the opportunity to become involved in public life in meaningful ways. Opportunities are determined by the civic infrastructure: from the structure and processes of elections to the number and type of civic and political associations. Finally, citizens must have the ability to take advantage of the opportunities that are available. The specific abilities necessary to participate vary depending on the kind of participation in question, but can include time, money, information, and certain kinds of organizational, communications, and leadership skills.

344

Michael X. Delli Carpini

The decline in civic engagement among young adults can be traced directly to each of these three factors. As discussed below, young Americans do not lack for problems that concern them and express a strong if sometimes ambivalent desire to be more engaged in public life. What is missing is the belief that becoming involved in public life in any way that involves politics, government, or organized collective action (for example, joining an organization that is attempting to effect policy change, working for a party or candidate, voting, running for office) is likely to be effective or satisfying. This lack of faith in the efficacy of civic involvement results from the systematic devaluing of the public sector over the past 30 years. Beginning in the early 1970s with the Watergate scandal and the resignation of Richard Nixon and continuing through the sex and financial scandals leading to the impeachment of President Clinton, government and politics have come to be viewed as irrelevant and ineffective at best and corrupt and the source of many of our problems at worst. Adding to this perception is a growing faith in the private sector and the market as the best way to address the nations and the worlds public concerns. This devaluing of the public sector was initially limited to the formal institutions and processes of government, but has spread over time to include most forms of collective public problem solving (e.g., interest groups and civic associations), all of whom are increasingly painted with the broad and negative strokes of special interests.3 What has made these attacks so powerful is that many of them are rooted in reality: Government has often failed in its mission; candidates and elected officials have engaged in inappropriate behavior; organized groups have often put narrow interests over the public good; the private sector and market approaches to solving problems are often superior. The fact remains, however, that government plays a central (even growing) role in the lives of Americans, and many of the nations most pressing problems cannot be effectively addressed without a healthy public sector that includes the regular participation of citizens. The importance of the government in peoples day to day lives, the positive benefits we all enjoy because of policies enacted by government, the ways in which lives and those of our fellow citizens could be improved by future government action, the ability of civic action to effect meaningful changeall of these messages are either absent or drowned out by the larger, antipublic sector chorus. The disconnection of young adults from public life also results from the lack of meaningful opportunities to become engaged. True, young adults have the right to vote, to participate in campaigns and elections in other ways, to join organizations, and so forth. But most of the formal institutions of public life either ignore young adults and the issues that matter to them or are ill equipped to attract young adults and provide them with meaningful opportunities to participate. Parties and candidates see little reason to devote their resources to reaching out to young Americans given that this age cohort is less likely to vote than older Americans. Government officials are unlikely to listen to young Americans, knowing that there is little risk that they will be punished for their neglect at the polls. The news media is aimed at an older and increasingly shrinking audience. Traditional civic organizations and interest groups are dominated by issues, governing structures, policy solutions, and/or civic styles that are anathema to younger Americans raised in a faster-paced, entrepreneurial, mass-mediated, and global environment. The schools, while increasingly acknowledging their responsibility to provide students with opportunities to become involved in public life, have largely limited their efforts to narrow definitions of public service such as one-to-one volunteerism. And those school programs and civic organizations that are effective at reaching young adults struggle at the margins of public life and lack the resources and visibility to have a significant impact.

Gen.com and the New Information Environment

345

Finally, young adults often lack the ability to become involved in public life. Most important in this regard is lack of informationfrom general knowledge about how government works to specific knowledge about how to register and vote. And while young adults today are no less likely to have basic organizational, communications, or leadership skills than in the past, they are much less likely to apply these skills (or see their relevance) to collective public problem solving. This decline in civic ability can be directly traced to the relative lack of attention paid to young adults and the issues that matter to them by the media, candidates, and officeholders. It can also be traced to the poor quality of civic education in the schools and the ineffectiveness of civic organizations at reaching out to this age group. While this 30-year decline in the civic infrastructure has affected both young and old, its effects on younger Americans have been particularly devastating. The years from early teens through early twenties are extremely important to the formation of civic habits. Early socialization is critical to the development of ones political worldview. Since particular age cohorts share a set of common social and political experiences, each new generation tends to develop its own civic style or set of deep-seated attitudes and practices. While these attitudes and behaviors can change to some degree over time, new issues and events tend to be interpreted through these generationally shaped lenses. As a result, dramatic shifts later in life in the overall level of civic engagement of a particular generation are rare. Rather, increases in participation as generations age tend to be gradual and directly tied to initial rates of civic engagement. In short, while older Americans have the ability to put the current anti-politics environment in perspective, drawing on experiences of effective public-sector policy, of respected public-sector leaders, and of meaningful collective action, for Americans under the age of 30, the current environment is all they know. Never having experienced a period in which their own participation has effected meaningful change on an issue that mattered to them, and raised in an environment that regularly tells them such action is unlikely to succeed, it is hardly surprising that they are disinclined to participate in public life. Young Americans are not disengaged because they are satisfied with the current state of affairs, because they are apathetic, or because they do not care about their fellow citizens. Rather, they are disengaged because they are alienated from the institutions and processes of civic life and lack the motivation, opportunity, and ability to overcome this alienation. Indirect support for this argument can be found through a closer look at what young people say themselves. Surveys suggest that, despite their popular image, Americas youth want to be connected to public life in some meaningful way and lament the sense of disconnectedness they feel. A 1996 poll revealed that 70% of young adults were worried and concerned about the future of the country. Nearly nine in 10 young adults agree that voting is one of the most important rights we have as Americans, and three in four agree that the decline in voting among the young is a serious national problem. Over 60% say that goals such as being involved and helping their community become a better place or being a good American who cares about the good of the country are important to them. Majorities say they have at least a fair amount of interest in volunteering for charitable causes (63%), voting (60%), and following the news about public policy issues of the day (57%) (National Association of Secretaries of State, 1998). And young adults are as likely as or more likely than older adults to believe that there are important public problems facing the nation that need to be addressed (Project Vote Smart, 1999). While many of these sentiments are contradicted by other opinions and by much of

346

Michael X. Delli Carpini

the actual behavior of young adults, at a minimum they suggest that young adults are struggling to find their place in public life and are ambivalent about their current disconnection from the public world. The tension produced by this ambivalence is perhaps best exemplified by current rates of volunteerism among the young. Student volunteerism is at record levelsin 1997, 73% of high school seniors performed volunteer work of some kind, up from 62% in 1989 (Sax, Astin, Korn, & Mohoney, 1997). While some of this increase is attributable to the increase in high school programs that encourage or require this kind of behavior, it is a clear indicator that Americas youth are willing and able to participate in public life, given the incentive and opportunity to do so. At the same time, however, it is also reflective of the individualistic, anti-politics ethic that has dominated public discourse over the past 30 years. Civic engagement has become defined as the one-on-one experience of working in a soup kitchen, cleaning trash from a local river, or tutoring a child once a week. What is missing is an awareness of the connection between the individual, isolated problems these actions are intended to address and the larger world of public policy; a sense that these problems might be addressed more systematically and (at times) more effectively through other forms of civic engagement (from joining a community group to voting); the belief that politics matters.

Can the Internet Increase the Civic Engagement of Young Americans?

A new communication environment, driven largely by the growth in the Internet and World Wide Web, is rapidly changing the economic, social, and political landscape. According to a recent survey, 55% of Americans have access to the Internet, with over a third of wired Americans (or 20% of the general public) going on-line five or more hours a week (Nie & Erbring, 2000). While these changes affect all age groups, they are particularly significant for young Americans, who are more quickly embracing this new technology1829-year-olds are significantly more likely to have access to the Internet and to go on-line. In addition, one recent survey found that 70% of 18- to 25year-olds saw the Internet as a useful source of political and issue information (as compared with 48% of those over 25). Indeed, this survey suggests that this age group saw the Internet as the most useful source of such information, outstripping television news, newspapers, radio, magazines, personal conversations, and direct mail (Project Vote Smart, 1999). Given the exponential growth in both the use of the Internet and the availability of news, political, and public affairs oriented sites, it is natural to wonder whether this new form of communications might offer opportunities for increasing the civic engagement of younger Americans. To do so, however, this new communications medium must effectively address the root causes of motivation, ability, and opportunity discussed above. Is there any reason to think this is or could be the case? The first step in attempting to answer this question is to consider what is different about the new information technology. There are a number of now familiar characteristics of the Internet (and related new communications technology) that distinguish it from earlier media. In particular, the new media environment (a) increases the speed with which information can be gathered and transmitted, (b) increases the volume of information that is easily accessible, (c) creates greater flexibility in terms of when information is accessed, (d) provides greater opportunity and mixes of interactivity (one to one, one to many, many to one, and many to many), (e) shifts the nature of community

Gen.com and the New Information Environment

347

from geographic to interest based, (f) blurs distinctions between types of media (print, visual, and audio), (g) challenges traditional definitions of information gatekeepers and authoritative voices, and (h) challenges traditional definitions of producers and consumers of information. All of these characteristics have potential implications for the motivation, ability, and opportunity to become engaged in public life, though the nature of this impact is hotly contested. One way of thinking about the utility of the Internet for affecting civic engagement is to distinguish among various types of actual or potential civic actors. For political elites (candidates, officeholders, organized interests, nonprofits, the media), the Internet offers new opportunities for creating new networks, easing organizational communications, reaching new audiences, targeting particular audiences, tailoring messages, and so forth. For example, an organization such as the YouthVote 2000 Coalition (a coalition of over 50 youth-oriented organizations committed to increasing the voter turnout of young Americans) uses its Web site and e-mail to facilitate the coordination of its various efforts around the country, to recruit new volunteers, and so forth (http:// youthvote2000.wego.com). And Youth Service America is using e-mail and the Web to coordinate its extensive network of local, state, and regional nonprofits into a national campaign to encourage young adults who already volunteer for community service to also vote (http://www.ysa.org). In short, if part of the reason young adults tend to eschew politics is the unwillingness or inability of political elites and organized groups to effectively reach them, the Internet provides opportunities for increasing their ability to do so. For engaged citizens, the Internet provides ways to lower the costs of their engagement, improve its quality, and/or increase the types of activities engaged in. For example, on-line sites such as Project Vote Smart provide relatively easy ways to obtain information about the issue stands of local, state, and national candidates and allow citizens to compare their own views with those of the candidates (http://www.vote-smart.org/yip). The Rock the Vote site provides on-line voter registration (http://www.rockthevote.org). A number of environmental groups now share their membership lists, allowing for the sending of targeted e-mails to citizens who have expressed an interest about one type of environmental concern and providing information about a related issue (along with easy ways to contact public officials about the issue or get involved in other ways). The recent experiment with on-line voting in Arizona eliminates the need to go to a polling place, lowering the cost of participation. The Youth Service America site allows citizens interested in volunteering to identify opportunities to do so in their own communities. In short, for those who are already likely to be engaged, the Internet and related technologies provide ways for sustaining, expanding, and improving the quality of this engagement. In addition to the impact of the Internet on organized elites and engaged citizens, there is also reason to believe it could be effective at reaching interested but inactive citizens. Most surveys suggest that more citizens express concern or interest in public issues than actually act on these issues. To the extent that the Internet can reach this segment of the youth population, provide information on how to translate this interest into action, and provide relatively easy, attractive ways to do so, it is possible that some percentage of this group could become more engaged. For example, technologies such as Web TV allow people who view a program on homelessness or school violence to easily connect to sites that can provide additional information and specific ways to act, and to do so at the moment they are most likely to be motivated. And a number of environmental groups have used an approach called viral campaigning in which mass and chain e-mails are sent to Internet users informing them about a particular issue or policy and providing easy ways for interested citizens to contact the appropriate office-

348

Michael X. Delli Carpini

holder or government agency to voice their opinions. In short, the Internet and related technologies provide new ways for tapping existing interest in particular issues and using this interest to motivate and facilitate action. All of the groups and segments of the population described above are either already engaged or have some interest in public issues. The most difficult group to reach are those who are neither engaged nor clearly motivated. Since motivation (interest, attention, efficacy, and so forth) is the sine qua non of participation, the question is whether the Internet can be a useful means for increasing these attributes among young adults. One might argue that the same approaches used to translate existing interest into action could be used to increase interest itself. For example, Web TV provides the possibility for an audience of a popular television show (for example, Party of Five) in which an episode addresses a social issue like violence in schools to both become more interested in the issue and link easily to sites that provide ways to act. Similarly, e-mail campaigns can target nonpolitical communities of interest (say, those interested in fishing or hiking), connect these recreational interests to more political ones (for example, the degradation of marine habitats, coral reefs, or national forests), and then provide ways for converting this new interest into action. Popular Web sites such as that of MTV also provide opportunities for connecting young people who go to the site for nonpolitical reasons to public issues in ways that could also increase interest and motivation (http:// www.mtv.com). And school based programs such as the Student Voices project piloted by the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania suggest that Web-based information gathering and interactions can increase high school students knowledge of and interest and engagement in local elections. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that the ability of new technologies to increase the motivation to act appears to be the least well-theorized and understood aspect of the potential for increasing civic engagement.

Concluding Thoughts
This brief and admittedly speculative think piece is designed to stimulate discussion on the potential for new technologies such as the Internet to increase the amount and quality of civic engagement among young adults. What these technologies seem clearly to provide is access to young adults, an increased ability for organized interests to more effectively reach young adults, and new or easier opportunities for already engaged (and perhaps interested but not yet engaged) young adults to participate and do so more effectively. Less clear (but still possible) is that the new technology can also serve as a way to increase the motivation of currently disinterested and disengaged young adults. In thinking further about these issues, it is important that we remain open to three additional complicating factors. First, the Internet and related technologies are changing with such rapidity that it is important to think about not only how the Internet is currently being used but also how it might be used in as yet untested ways. Second, it is possible that the central impact of new technology will be to encourage new forms of engagement that are sufficiently different from our traditional indicators to fall beneath our radar screen. Finally, one could ultimately argue that even if the potential impacts described in this paper are real, they are or will be overwhelmed by the more negative impacts (fragmentation, manipulation, consumerism, the further dominance of entertainment over public affairs, the paralyzing impact of information overload, the devaluing of certain kinds of participation, and so forth) of this new information environment.

Gen.com and the New Information Environment

349

Notes
1. The statistics and trends regarding young Americans reported in this paper are based on surveys and aggregate data that vary to some degree in the particular age groups they refer to, but (unless otherwise noted) are generally representative of young adults currently between 18 and 29 years old. I also include some data on younger Americans (generally 15 to 17 years old). 2. The statistics were provided by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. 3. Of course, all participation is ultimately driven by some special or particular interest (e.g., health care, the environment, etc.). What I refer to here is the increasing tendency to paint such participation as inappropriately encouraging the interests of a minority of citizens against some broader notion of the public will or general good of society.

References
Close Up Foundation. (1999). High school students attitudes toward government and politics. Washington, DC. Survey by Hart-Teeter, Inc. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. National Association of Secretaries of State. (1998). New Millennium Project: Why young people dont vote. (1998). Washington, DC. Survey by the Tarrance Group, Inc. and Lake, Shell, Perry, and Associates. Nie, N., & Erbring, L. (2000). Study of the social consequences of the Internet. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society, Stanford University. Project Vote Smart. (1999). General population and youth survey on civic engagement. Phillipsburg, MT. Survey by The Program for Governmental Research and Public Service, Washington State University. Rahn, W. (1998). Generations and American national identity: A data essay. Paper presented at a workshop on Communication in the Future of Democracy, Washington, DC. Sax, L. J., Astin, A., Korn, W., and Mahoney, K. (1997). The American freshman national norms for fall 1997. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., Brady, H., & Erkulwater, J. (1998). Why cant they be like we were? Understanding the generation gap in participation. Unpublished manuscript. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zukin, C. (1997). Generation X and the news. Washington, DC: Radio and Television News Directors Foundation.

Political Communication, 17:351355, 2000 Copyright 2000 Taylor & Francis 1058-4609/00 $12.00 + .00

The Internet and Civic Engagement: The Age of the Citizen-Consumer

MARGARET SCAMMELL

Keywords Internet, civic engagement, citizen-consumer, citizenship, consumer, corporate responsibility, globalization, political involvement

Dr. Railly, you are giving alarmists a bad name . . . the planet cannot survive the excesses of the human race . . . proliferation of nuclear weapons, pollution of land, sea and air, the rape of the environment. In this context, isnt it obvious that [the alarmist] represents the sane vision and the [optimists] model, lets go shopping, is the cry of the true lunatic? (Twelve Monkeys, starring Bruce Willis) Business has overtaken politics as the primary shaping force in society, which means consumers are voting every time they flex their spending muscle, and that in turn makes the vigilante consumer into a powerful consumer, capable, as we have seen, of humbling even the likes of Shell and Monsanto. (Anita Roddick, owner of The Body Shop) The proposition to be argued is this: The act of consumption is becoming increasingly suffused with citizenship characteristics and considerations. Citizenship is not dead, or dying, but found in new places, in life-politics, as Anthony Giddens (1991) calls it, and in consumption. The site of citizens political involvement is moving from the production side of the economy to the consumption side. As workers, most of us have less power now for all the familiar reasons: technological revolution and economic globalization, abetted by the deregulating governments of the 1980s and 1990s that systematically dismantled many of the legal rights of labor unions. As consumers, though, we, at least in the developed North, have more power than ever. We have more money and more choice among a wider variety of options of how to spend our hard-earned cash and precious leisure time. We are better-informed shoppers than ever before. Consumer rights and interest groups and their advice are now daily in our mainstream mass media. Environmental lobbyists and activists are no longer left-field, but have a clear
Margaret Scammell is Lecturer in Media and Communications at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Address correspondence to Margaret Scammell, Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK. E-mail: M.Scammell@ lse.ac.uk

351

352

Margaret Scammell

and central place in public debate and have demonstrated their ability to score direct hits against the multi-nationals: Shell and dumping of waste in the oceans, Monsanto and genetically modified foods, Nike and the pay and working conditions in its Third World suppliers factories. Just as globalization squeezes orthodox avenues for politics, through the state and organized labor, so new ones are being prized open, in consumer power. It is no longer possible to cut the deck neatly between citizenship and civic duty, on one side, and consumption and self interest, on the other. They are not at opposite ends of the spectrum: The citizen is politically interested, informed, and outward-looking, while the consumer is self-interested, isolated, and inward-looking. Typically, the citizen is the hero figure of democracy, active, public-spirited, and rational. But what of the consumer? Probably few of us now would accept Adornos biting critique of the culture industry, with its power to create false needs and dull the brains of vulnerable citizens: The culture industry, essentially, reduces citizens to consumers. Yet, equally the nerve he hit still nags away. Consumption, if not anti-citizenship, seems at best a hollow consolation for the absence of real political autonomy. Consumer-style critique, says Zygmunt Bauman (2000), is all that is left to us in a society that no longer recognizes any alternative to itself, and thereby feels absolved from the duty to examine, demonstrate, justify . . . the validity of its unspoken and tacit assumptions (p. 23). It is still hard to see how consumption, except at the activist margins, can quite be authentic politics. That, however, is precisely my case: that we, as consumers, are increasingly aware of our political power and increasingly willing to use it. The modern citizen-consumer is not quite the maximum-utility calculator of Anthony Downss economic model of citizenship. Downs lays a consumer model over citizenship and argues that this best captures voter behavior. My point takes an almost opposite trajectory: A model of citizenship, with some of the classical republican dimensions of civic duty, public-spiritedness, and self-education, is an increasingly apt description of consumer behavior. This is most obvious in the upsurge of politically conscious environmental, consumer watchdogs and action groups. It is clear, too, in the deliberate harnessing of consumer power to political projects, of which the lesbian and gay movement, and the pink dollar, is a strong example. However, such examples are really more symptom than cause of the age of the citizen-consumer. We are not talking here simply about groups of activists and progressive entrepreneurs at the margins, but the day-to-day activity of increasing millions of ordinary folk whose regular conduct of leisure and consumption has an ever-stronger political edge.

Politics and Consumption

Could the answer to our contemporary complex of political crises really be, lets go shopping? Of course, the marketing utopia of a virtuous cycle of citizen-consumers, ethical business, and profits is just that, a utopia. Those realist democratic theorists, the pluralists, Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom, first gave the clues some 30 years ago to our present age of citizen-consumers. Democracy and markets need each other, Dahl argued, but it is a tempestuous marriage of continual conflict. Democracy has not survived anywhere without markets; equally, capitalism flourishes best in democratic states. Yet the short-term logic of profit threatens the rights and welfare of citizens. Without restraints from government, markets inevitably will inflict harm. In fact, the market gives economic actors powerful incentives for ignoring the good of others if by doing so they themselves stand to gain. Conscience is

The Age of the Citizen-Consumer

353

easily quieted by that seductive justification for inflicting harm on others: If I dont do it, others will (Dahl, 1998, pp. 174175). The pluralists warned that the greatest threats to contemporary democracy came not from the state, as liberals might have it, but from large corporations. They had used their power both to secure special privileges under the law and, through their control of advertising and media, to skew the public agenda such that the question of corporate power was a nonissue, causing scarcely a ripple of public concern or media inquiry (Lindblom, 1977). The warning foreshadows contemporary debates about globalization. From left and right we see similar analyses of the power of global corporations to escape from politics, as Beck puts it (2000, p. 1), to undermine the restraining influence of the nation-state, cutting across its pillars of sovereignty, policing, and tax-raising. The transition to . . . globalization has crept in on velvet paws, under the guise of normality, rewriting societal rules of the gamewith the legitimacy of a modernization that will happen come what may (Beck, 2000, p. 4). National sovereignty, and what is left of it in the era of globalization, is at the heart of modern European politics both in practice and in theory. Less remarked, though, are the highly politicizing effects of globalization. Lindblom was right in 1977 to describe corporate power as a nonissue, outside the political left. That is not the case now. Globalization makes corporate power explicit. In part, the corporations themselves and their political supporters are responsible for this, through the rhetoric of market triumph. By drawing attention to their capacity to escape state regulation, they inadvertently highlight their own responsibility for good or ill. They are no longer disguised as an almost nonpolitical fact of life, as they were in the welfare democracies, where the state is the focus of all politics. In the process, they politicize consumption. The first signs of this came from the phenomenal success and popular appeal of the environmental activists such as Greenpeace. They held to public account individual companies, naming and shaming them for acts of environmental destruction and reckless cruelty. It is a very different politics from the class analysis of the traditional left, which sees capitalism as the undifferentiated pursuit of profit, or traditional political analyses, which in the pocketbook models of voting behavior see consumption as the undifferentiated pursuit of individual self-interest. They opened possibilities for the citizen-consumer, differentiating between ethical trade and crass exploitation. Questions of corporate responsibility are now spreading from the activist fringes to the shopping centers and the talk shows. Witness the example of Monsanto: European governments were unable or unwilling to stop the import of genetically modified (GM) foods, but consumers were reluctant to buy goods whose effects upon health and environment were unsure. Monsantos refusal to label genetically modified foods sparked a wave of activist protest. Supermarkets and restaurants advertised widely their non-GM credentials, and eventually Monsanto bowed to pressure, announced its commercial abandonment of the infamous terminator gene, and committed itself to public dialogue over the risks and benefits of bio-technology. Smart entrepreneurs have helped along the process of politicization of consumption. The Body Shop, Ben and Jerry, and Richard Bransons Virgin, to name but three, have made fortunes out of a combination of aesthetically pleasing products and marketing strategies contrasting their social responsibility to big corporate greed and immorality. They appealed to us directly as cool citizens, people who were not green purists, who enjoyed the choice and pleasures of consumer society but did not want to support the bully over the little guy, trample over human rights, pollute the planet, and treat animals to wanton cruelty. The success of companies that incorporate social responsibility into

354

Margaret Scammell

the brand identity, the boom in socially screened investment funds, the growth of organic food and Fair Trade salesall these have signaled a fundamental change in marketing attitudes. For the first time human rights, concerns could become a major marketing issue and tool for manufacturers, wrote clothing industry consultant David Burnham in a Wall Street Journal editorial (April 9, 1996). Ethical considerations about the environment, health, human rights and workers conditions are moving inexorably from the campaigners den to the boardroom, according to The Economist business editor, Edward Carr (1999, p. 130). Mere compliance with the law or even corporate charitable giving may no longer be enough to maintain reputation, corporate consultants now warn (McIntosh, Leipziger, Jones, & Coleman, 1998). Whether through enlightened self-interest, pure opportunism, or fear of public shaming by consumer and environmental activists, commercial success in affluent markets is increasingly linked to the treatment of the consumer as a concerned citizen. The consumer-style critique, then, is indeed characteristic of our times. But it is not, as Bauman and other pessimists imply, simply a symptom of an apolitical age, of hedonism and me-first materialism, and the waning appetite for social reform. On the contrary, consumer critique is fundamental to citizenship in the age of globalization. It brings into the daylight the dangerously hidden issue of the political power of corporations. In this sense, todays activism goes significantly beyond the consumer boycotts or the identity politics of the 1970s and 1980s. Consumer activism is a response to the corporate hijacking of political power and to the brands cultural looting of public and mental space, in the words of Naomi Klein (1999, p. 340). It cuts to the heart of global structures of power in a way that identity politics did not, with the latters focus on representation and inclusion within generally accepted national institutions. Above all, it exposes the potential power of consumers as citizens and provides incentives to business, which regulation increasingly does not, to mind corporate responsibility to and dependence on democracy. This prospect relies on neither extreme of optimism nor pessimism but is rooted in the relationship of mutual interdependence and tension that exists between markets and democratic rights.

Citizen-Consumers and the Internet

The Internet, we hear constantly, will change everything. Thus far, however, the evidence for politics is rather small. We see vastly expanded information sources for citizens, new delivery systems for political institutions, greater opportunities for politics at the margins. But mostly we see the same old electoral and institutional politics with no evidence of huge new communities of participating citizens. Perhaps we are looking in the wrong places. The Internet is opening up new worlds for the citizen-consumer. This message came through loud and clear at the spring 2000 World Economic Forum in Davos. The two dominant themes of the meeting were the Internet and the Seattle demonstrations against the World Trade Organization. The themes are linked. The real lesson of Seattle was not that some 20,000 people gathered to offer motley protests at the commodification of the planet, but how severely it shocked the corporate and political leaders of globalization. In the history of protest, after all, this was not a particularly big event. Yet, corporate business is simply not used to such spectacular (bad) publicity in the worlds media. It served as a wake-up call that big business is now in the spotlight and that corporate reputations, carefully nurtured by years of public relations, may be easily undermined.

The Age of the Citizen-Consumer In the communication age, it is increasingly difficult for companies to hide dubious actions just because they occur in far away places. NGOs often have grassroots supporters on the ground capable of posting information on the Internet at the first sign of questionable corporate behavior. (Piggott, 2000)

355

The Internet is the tool of choice for information and organization of consumer, anticorporate, and environmental activism, according to Naomi Kleins investigation (1999, p. 393). Some of the most celebrated, and arguably successful, consumer actions were led on the Net: the Nike campaign, for example, and the actions against Shell Brent Spar ocean dumping. The lesson for many company directors, according to Piggott (2000), was that good corporate behaviour has become a paramount concern. E-commerce, management guru Peter Drucker predicts, will eventually kill the multinationals. Who can say? For certain, though, the Internet will greatly expand consumer choice and information and create opportunities for global exchange for communities of interest, leisure, and consumption. Perhaps greater consumer choice will appear at times, as it already has in the U.S., as harassment from clamorous competitors. As this happens, so choice will be simplified according to trust in the corporate brand: Reputations will count as never before. So possibilities for power shift to the citizen-consumer.

References
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Carr, E. (1999). Earthly rewards. The world in 2000. London: Economist Publications. Dahl, R. (1998). On democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Klein, N. (1999). No logo. New York: Picador. Lindblom, C. (1977). Politics and markets. New York: Basic Books. McIntosh, M., Leipziger, D., Jones, K., & Coleman, G. (1998). Corporate citizenship: Successful strategies for responsible companies. London: Financial Times Management. Piggott, C. (2000). Global warning. World Economic Forum. Available URL: http://www.weforum.org