By Craig Bellamy
Technology is not good or bad nor is it neutral ... globalisation is not good or bad, nor is it neutral. (Manuel Castells)
For better or worse, "globalisation" has become the most satisfactory descriptive label for the current historical era (Richard Falk)
In this paper, I will briefly attempt to define the concept of globalisation, and then attempt to position my understating of on-line academic networks within it.
The term Globalisation is not easily discussed, but it can be generally understood as a process in which complex interconnections are rapidly developing between societies, their institutions, their cultures, collectives, and individuals world-wide. Globalisation is not inevitable, as it can in part, be traced to the direct result of strategic choices by national governments and trans-national corporations, especially in the past twenty years.
Ideas of globalisation circulate around theories of the post-industrialisation of the major Western economies, the demise of the industrial working class in developed countries, the proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICT’s), and the rapid expansion of global finance with the networking of the global economy. This is not the first time the world has had a global economy, but as argued by Manuel Castells’, in his empirical study, the Rise of the Network Society it is the first time that we have had a global economy that works in real-time. [1] By real time, he means that the majority of the world’s economic activity is now controlled on a twenty-four hour basis by tens of thousands of flickering computer screens in the world’s key financial hubs.
There are of course, continuities between the present period of globalisation and past globalisations. The free-trade movement emanating from Britain in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, and Colonialism and Socialism were enormous globalising forces. Before the First World War, Western Europe controlled most of the world’s landmass, and after the Second World War, communism controlled two-thirds of the world’s people.
Many argue that the present period of globalisation was ushered in the 1970’s with the oil crisis, which abruptly ended the long post war boom and the US gold standard of managed exchange rates collapsed. Since this time, there has also been the spread of the liberal-democratic model, with the fall of the command economies of Eastern Europe that ended the east-west logic and the 80-year ideological wrestle between central economic planning and more rationalist, lassiez faire models.
Globalisation is typically driven by the developed world’s private sector, and as many in the global civil society activist community believe, (as the recent protest at the G8 meeting in Alberta in Canada and in Genoa in Italy the year before is witness) that there has been a shift from nation-state sovereignty to trans-national actors from both non-government and the private sector. [2] The United States, and the European Union define the ideology of globalisation and corporations are the main catalyst. Many corporations are involved in cultural production thus creating their own world culture and value system. There is also a growing interdependence between nations as they are drawn into the global economy and culture. Capitalism has always been international and relied on internationalism to expand; however, this has taken on a new form. [3] As David Morley argues (in his study of global media) that:
"…maintenance of national sovereignty and identity is becoming increasingly difficult, as the unities of economic and cultural production and consumption are become increasingly transnational"
Likewise, the production of academic work is increasingly becoming internationally intertwined. This is partly through the almost real-time exchange of ideas through innovations such as ‘list-serve’ email discussion lists, and through numerous other on-line publishing initiatives.
Perhaps one of the best ways that I can highlight this is through talking about some of my own experiences with on-line networks, most notable through being the editor of a large Australian and New Zealand history list called H-ANZAU, (that is affiliated with H-Net from Michigan State University) and through another list, called Fibreculture, which is broadly concerns Internet criticism.
Much of how I have engaged with the humanities during the course of my postgraduate studies, (which is within a university that is not famous for its investment in humanities education), is through e-mail discussion lists. I use them so readily, that I cannot imagine a time when I could write a page of text without intermittent email interruptions from various corners of the globe. Many of the ideas developed in my project, which is about testing some of the ideas of globalisation within the local community of Fitzroy (in inner city Melbourne), were first tested on email discussion lists. If I have particular theoretical issues that I need some thoughts on, or need to find a particular resource, then I would submit questions or speculative writing to one of the networks for comment
The history list that I moderate (H-ANZAU) has a rather practical exchange of ideas, which works quite effectively and is perhaps indicative of Australian historiography. It usually takes the form of an Historian asking where a certain primary or secondary source can be found, and then a number of individuals reply. Very rarely do list members debate theoretical or historiographical issues or the immediate concerns of Historians. Part of my contribution to the moderation of this list has been to try to introduce to the forum debates that reflect a critical consideration of both the list and some of the other on-line resources available. Although most Historians are aware of on-line documents, a critical culture has still to emerge. The members of the list are mostly within Australia and New Zealand, however there are a quite a few members from other parts of the globe (H-ANZAU has 612 subscribers). I have tried to get list members to reveal how the list may augment or alter their research methodologies (especially for ex-pat Australian Historians), but had little success.
Another list in which I am involved with is called Fibreculture and was co-founded by the Dutch net-activist Geert Lovink (who now lives in Sydney). This list is a little different from h-ANZAU in that the moderation process does not go through a gate keeping system (like the H-Net lists). Anyone can directly post to this list, which means the at times the lists’ etiquette is a little rough and the focus of the list subject to tangents. Usually if the list is way off course, one of the moderators will post to the list or to an individual directly to bring them back within the lists’ raison d'etre.
This type of list moderation is less formal, which perhaps fits the subject matter, which is more experimental. Net criticism is a speculative and less defined area of knowledge, comprising of individuals from eclectic disciplinary frameworks. On Fibreculture, subscribers are invited to submit papers and writings for the other members to critique. In this way, a text can be enhanced by the broad criticism of ‘multiple authors’ in a forum that these particular individuals would be otherwise, unlikely to meet and exchange ideas.
The production of my own thesis, which in part includes a large on-line multimedia document, is being built with the assistance of on-line email lists (sort of like building a ship whilst it is at sea). I include links to a number of archived email posts in the on-line version of my thesis to reveal the ‘coming into being’ of the final document. Apart from making work available to broader audiences, the on-line environment through hypertextual linking can reveal the evolution of the writing. Personal papers are usually relegated to the task of archival research; these are the private words imbued with the special charm of creativity in action. [4] However, here I reveal the influences within the on-line creative building site, so that the final text is given a new dimension of transformation and depth. It helps to reveal the processes involved in scholarship in an on-line ‘global’ network environment.
The Internet may be altering parts of academic culture but it is a technology that has developed so fast that we have little time to reflect on its impact. Academics have perhaps always been global in their outlook, but never before have we had the tools to exchange and test ideas with our peers both in local and global settings, so rapidly.
From my experience of lists (and there still needs to be a lot of qualitative research to be done in this area), lists that have pre-existing cultural networks, based on an established fields or established academic relationships are most likely to succeed. Theme based lists or international lists where it is harder to imagine the international audience, or the field or sub-field has poor international links, are least likely to succeed.
There is still a need for researchers to investigate how research relationships are augmented what type of lists succeed, how we actually measure success in a networked medium. However, this is no easy task, considering that large lists such as h-Net already has 250,000 subscribers and over 600 lists globally (that post many millions of emails each month). Nevertheless, the interesting feature about most on-line academic lists is that all the correspondence is archived so this may mean that in the future Historians will be able to determine what networks flourished and why, and what networks have fallen into decay. We will perhaps be able to view the development of ideological and political networks, networks of resistance, and perhaps the seeds of the formation a globally networked civil society.
1. Castells, Manual The Rise of Network Society, Blackwell, Massachusetts, 1999
2. Luca Toschi “Hypertext and Authorship” in Geoffrey Nunberg (ed.) The Future of the Book, The University of California Press, Berkeley, 1996, pp.200-210.
3. Everand, Jerry Virtual States: The Internet and the Boundaries of the Nation State, Routledge, London, 2000.
4. Morley, David and Kevin Robbins, Spaces of Identity: Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural Boundaries, Routledge, London, 1995
On-line Resources
[1] Manual Castells, The Rise of Network Society, Blackwell, Massachusetts, 1999.
[2] Jerry Everand, Virtual States: The Internet and the Boundaries of the Nation State, Routledge, London, 2000.p45.
[3] David Morley, and Ken Robins, Spaces of Identity: Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural Boundaries, Routledge, London, 1995, p.59.
[4] Luca Toschi “Hypertext and Authorship” in Nunberg (ed.) The Future of the Book, p.200.