Ethics and Technology in Politics, Social Change, and Globalization - Term Paper Example

Ethics and Technology in Politics, Social Change, and Globalization Technology is definitely a by-product of the efforts of human beings to make life more comfortable and convenient. As the immediate result of man’s scientific research, its original and fundamental aim is to develop the means of production in order for society’s basic needs, such as food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and communication, are met. As such needs begin to increase along with the growth of the population, further technological advancements are prompted. Another major factor that led to the rapid improvements of technology is the desire to boost the growth of profits, a perspective that is possessed and promoted by the private owners of the said means of production. As this development of technology occurs, however, certain ethical questions also begin to arise. These concerns are often based not on concept that technology and its continuous development are necessary but on the issues regarding its application by human beings. The morality and ethics of technology is always attributed to what particularly is its product and how it impacts humans as a whole. When it comes to the social impact of technology, there are actually two major areas where it has recently become very prominent. This is in the field of politics, as well as social transformation, and cultural connections in the era of globalization. The use of technology in production has paved the way for industrialization, which is basically meant to satisfy economic demands. Recently, however, technology has been playing a more socially relevant role. With the rise of computers and the internet or of information technology and computer science (ITCS), it has become easier for people to communicate among themselves and to share ideas regarding society and culture. This facilitates the galvanization of people into action. They have become more politically active. In fact, there have been very prominent cases in which ITCS essentially became a vehicle for revolutions and uprisings, for social transformation. Without ITCS also, such domestic upheavals would not have a profound impact on the rest of the world. However, it is because of technology, in the form of ITCS, that cultural connections are established among major participants in social change. This has contributed to the phenomenon of more countries experiencing political catalysis, particularly regime changes. The use of technology for politics and social change as well as for cultural connections among peoples based in different parts of the globe has not been free of ethical debates however. It is clear though that such debates are reflective of the opposing standpoints when it comes to social transformation. Basically there are two political forces that exist in society; one that seeks change and one that wishes to maintain the current order. These two camps have opposing ethical views on the use of technology. Technology, Politics and Social Change One of the very first events in history which saw the importance of technology in conducting political struggles, particularly protest actions, was what happened in Seattle in 1999 during the meetings of the World Trade Organization. The meetings of the WTO were deemed by the protestors as an attempt to forge agreements that would put the poorer countries and even the ordinary peoples of the economically advanced nations at a disadvantage. The protestors deftly used mobile communication technology as well as the internet in order to organize their ranks and to mobilize on the actual day of the WTO meetings. The organizers of the protest movement “used mobile phones and web sites to coordinate swarming—clusters of demonstrators who emerged from the general crowd to shut down traffic at specific locations at agreed times, then melt back into the crowd” (Rheingold, 2008, p. 230). This proved to be an advantage as the police was caught unprepared for this more sophisticated approach to political protest actions. The heavy use of mobile technology became prominent again in the political struggles in the Philippines, particularly in the ouster of President Joseph Estrada. In the ouster movement that snowballed in just a few months, protestors coming from the anti-Estrada camp made use of the SMS. Texting is very popular in the country and this proved be to a very potent tool for political propaganda and mobilization. In the more recent years, the regime changes that occurred in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen, as well as the continuing protest actions and anti-government mobilizations in several Arab countries have largely relied on modern telecommunication and ITCS for coordination and propaganda. Given the fact that most of the cases mentioned resulted in the downfall of unpopular regimes or the exposure of economic and political policies that are detrimental to the interests of the people, the use of technology in politics and social transformation may be beneficial. The mere fact that governments in countries where democracy is either token or absolutely non-existent have already displayed apprehensions over the accessibility of the internet and the availability of mobile phones only proven this point further. In China, for example, the government is actually employing thousands of people just to monitor websites, emails, online community discussions, and even individual SMS messages (Rheingold, 2008, p. 232). Nevertheless, people have been able to find ways to circumvent the repressive policies also by employing innovations in ITCS and mobile telecommunication technology. Apparently, the rise of these technological innovations has made it even more difficult for authoritarian regimes to maintain its dominance in the political and cultural life of the people that these rule over. It is not only in China that governments are faced with the greater challenge from popular opposition due to the advantages provided to them by technology. The regimes in the Arab countries are also facing serious problems because of it. Governments may have the support of legislative and judicial branches and these may have the loyalty of the armed forces but the political consciousness and unity of the people were more decisive. Technology, particularly ITCS and mobile communications, has been very instrumental in raising consciousness and forging political unity among the people. This has also been a key factor in coordinating the mass actions and other forms of struggles that would eventually lead to the downfall of unpopular regimes. This is clearly the great advantages that technology has provided to people. However, if technology has been accessed easily and employed by non-government entities for political purposes, so does the government relies on it in order to perpetuate its power. In fact, there have been ruling cliques in many countries that have also employed technology in their efforts to cling on to power and they have been able to do so because they actually more control on the facilities for ITCS and telecommunications. This follows the reinforcement hypothesis which “holds that ICTs support the existing distribution of political power because influential individuals and organizations already active in the political process are able to control the diffusion, design, and use of new technologies to support their entrenched interests” (Stanley & Weare, n.d., p. 3-4). If this is the case, then it is clear that the reason why the political opposition to the government has been able to make use of technology is that they may still have enjoyed a certain degree of freedom in accessing the internet and employing mobile technology. If the government tightens its noose on the political opposition and deprives them of access to it, then the use of technology for the anti-government actions would be more difficult to do. Another disadvantage with the advances made in ITCS is that getting information which may be considered confidential has become easier. This works against both those in power and those struggling to oust them. The government can create dossiers of their political enemies by using the internet while, as in the case of Wikileaks, the opposition could access, illegally or not, information that are supposed to be state secrets. It is clear that ITCS and mobile communication technology has been employed by various groups to achieve social change in their respective countries. To some extent, the employment of these technological innovations has actually resulted in the success of such movements. However, it is definitely not just the political opposition to those in power who have taken advantage of technology. In fact, considering that they have more leverage when it comes to the control of the facilities for ITCS and telecommunications, those who are dominant politically have the advantage. It is at this point that ethical question regarding the use of such forms of technology emerge. Technology, as in the times when it was meant to improve production, has always been meant to improve the economic conditions of a country. Recently, however, it is observed that technology is also being used to disrupt the normal scheme of things in society. On the other hand, those who are favored by the status quo have also employed technology to protect their interests and to remain in power. Technology has become a common tool for the opposing camps to pursue their respective agenda. This puts it in a position where people in politics become subordinate to technology. This is the technological regime that Schmidt and Marratto described when they pointed out that people in politics have become “dependent on experts to develop and implement policy and law, which in turn are developed in the light of liberal society’s commitment to technological progressivism” (2008, p. 162). Technological progressivism is actually the source of debate. According to Schmidt and Marratto, technological progressivism violates the ethical principle that people are not the means but ends. This means that the development of technology should not be ultimate goal. Instead, it is the total development of the human being. Technology should be developed and utilized for the purpose of human and social development. In the struggle for and against social change, however, technology also becomes a weapon of the opposing camps. It should be pointed out though that technology per se takes no sides. In fact, it is intrinsically good, if its original purpose of total human development is to be referred to. From a utilitarian point of view, its ‘goodness’ may be relative. It is good if it serves the interest of the forces of social change and it is bad if it is employed by the reactionaries. A utilitarian perspective therefore would appreciate the value of technology because of its practicality. Technology, Cultural Connections and Globalization While there may be internal basis for social movements to emerge and grow, which eventually would effect changes in society, the fact that there are also external contributors cannot be ignored. This is all the more true with the internet and mobile communication technology. An example of how technology is used to transcend cultural differences in order to promote a common agenda is the series of protest movements that occurred in the Arab world, known as the Arab Spring. The first upheaval took place in Tunisia but it did not take long before the people of Egypt also rose against President Hosni Mubarak and eventually ousted him. Soon other countries also followed. It cannot be denied that technology played a very important role in the series of mass actions and anti-government protests that happened in many countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa. In Tunisia, the spark that started the fire, “the protests were kickstarted by a Facebook campaign run by the opposition ‘April 6 Youth Movement,’ which generated tens of thousands of positive responses to the call to rally against government policies” (Stepanova 2011). Obviously, there were cultural similarities among the countries were anti-government mass actions took place. Aside from the fact that they were confronting a common problem of tyranny and corruption, they people also shared the same language and religion. These common grounds however would not have resulted into a more widespread movement for democracy. Indeed, there were already cultural connections even before the internet arrived. With the arrival of the internet, however, it has become more convenient for the peoples of the different countries in the Arab world to sympathize with each other and to acquire more determination to prompt regime changes. This is a classic example of how cultural connections were firmly established and highlighted for the purpose of inspiring other countries to launch democracy struggles respectively. In this case, the spirit of democratic struggles was globalized through the utilization technology. Centuries ago, the spread of ideas and cultural beliefs and practices had been done through mercantilist trade and colonization. As a result, only those nations with greater naval capabilities were able to spread their culture to other parts of the globe. Nowadays, however, cultural globalization can be done by just relying on the internet. As a result, people who just browse the internet could learn much about the cultures of other countries. The may also decide to assimilate some of the practices that originally came from other countries and races. To some extent, this cultural globalization has some advantages. It disseminates knowledge and makes peoples around the world forge unity and tolerance. In other words, international diplomacy ceases to be the only avenue for people of different countries to have dialogues. International relations are no longer the sole domain of the government as even ordinary people could establish relationships with those of other countries and cultures. The negative implication here though is that whoever is the dominant technological power in the world also has the advantage of spreading its own cultural influence on the rest of the globe. A glaring example of this is the United States. The US is undoubtedly the current world leader when it comes to information and communication technology. Because of this, it definitely has an edge over the other countries that may be considered as cultural influencers also. Under such conditions, cultural convergence is not really the marriage of two cultures but the assimilation of one by the other. According to Lule, “cultural convergence suggests that media and globalization will bring about a homogenization of cultures, and that Western culture, especially American culture, will overwhelm local traditions” (2012). The negative impact of technology in this regard is not because of its being inherently bad but because it is dominated by a singular cultural force. The ethical debates that ensued in the use of technology in cultural connections and globalization are rooted not on what technology is but on how it is applied. As in the cases mentioned above it is clear that technology could be used for purposes that are beneficial for all stakeholders or for all countries and cultural groups involved. However, it could also be used for the benefit of only one party. The ethical considerations on the issue are basically utilitarian. Technology is a means that would be used for the benefit of a country with a distinct culture. The issue of being ethical or being morally right though would depend on whose perspective it is taken from. From the point of view of the country that that is disseminating its culture because it has an impact on its economic interests, technology is good. However, for those whose culture is at risk of being led to extinction because of the over-assimilation of foreign culture, technology could is a problem. Technology, particularly information and communications technology, is by itself could not be categorized as good or bad. Its value to society, after all, depends on who are the people using it. Therefore, ethical debates surrounding it are just reflections of the struggle between the forces that employ it for their respective interests. Another important point is that people who do not have control over the production and ownership of technological products clearly have a disadvantage. References Lule, J. (2012). Globalization and Media: Global Village of Babel. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Little Publishers. Rheingold, H. (2008). Mobile Media and Political Collective Action. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies (pp. 225-237). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schmidt, L. and Marratto, S. (2008). The End of Ethics in a Technological Society. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press. Stanley, J. and Weare, C. (n.d.). The Effects of Internet Use on Political Participation: Evidence from an Agency Online Discussion Forum. Retrieved April 17, 2012 from CITESEERX website: http://www.citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.92.6903.pdf Stepanova, E. (2011). The Role of Information Communication Technologies in the “Arab Spring”. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo No. 159. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/ponars/pepm_159.pdf Read More