I found Andrejevic’s argument about the government’s post 9/11 surveillance tactics in chapter 6, very interesting. In fact it was his use of the word ‘framing’ (Pg. 163) to describe how the government presents the notion of terrorism, that caught my attention. This is because framing is something that the media does to outline how events are interpreted. When Andrejevic used this terminology it was as if he was implicitly telling us (the reader) that government was trying to control how we will view terrorism.
As I read on I began to see how the government framed terrorism. We were made to believe that we are constantly at danger and the only way to participate in the ‘war on terror’ is by giving up our privacy and submitting to surveillance (Pg. 164-5). What I got from the book is that the government exploited terrorism in order to get the green light for turning the USA into a country wide neighborhood watch program and we are so blinded by it—we believe it is a good thing. Additionally, we open the doors for capitalist enterprises to cash in on our vulnerability and offer us “the 29.95 survival skill manual” (Pg. 166) that we rush to buy because we are told we need it in order to fight terrorism.
Moving on to chapter 7, Andrejevic starts off by talking about the potential of technology to fuel democracy primarily because it allows for the ease of access to information, deliberation, and accountability which are things Andrejevic attributes to a successful democracy (Pg. 190). I agree with Andrejevic because it is technology is giving power back to people we no longer have to wait around to find out what is going on, we can find it ourselves. The revolution in Egypt is a great example as to how technology facilitated democracy. The people in Egypt were able to organize and get information out through the use of technology, without it I highly doubt they would have been as successful as they were.
Andrejevic then shifts his focus to the way new technology is being used merely for political ends. Andrejevic argues that politicians use technology as a form of surveillance to get an idea on how/where to recruit voters (Pg. 192), similar to that of commercial enterprises. To be honest I do not see the harm of using technology for political ends, especially since technology according to Andrejevic himself “allows for the ease of access to information, deliberation, and accountability,” so would not the use of technology for political ends be a better way for people to actually know what the people they elect into office are really about.
On the political side, you might think about this: there is a difference between a government or a political party crafting a message and them responding to the concerns of citizens. The former involves trying to get voters to do what they want; the latter involves citizens getting government to respond to their concerns and issues.
ReplyDelete