Up-side down Civility
A critique and analysis of the network society must consistently remember the reality and power of injustice and domination
by Christine Parker
Zadok Perspectives Issue No. 64
Winter 1999

Using the Tools of the Communications Revolution

BATSTONE STATES THAT "A world is coming into being that is as different from the past as the industrial age was from its agricultural predecessors." In fact, the network society that he describes is very much the culmination of the industrial age, rather than a radical departure from it. The transition from 'Gemeinschaft' to 'Gesellschaft' was analysed in the work of the earliest sociologists, especially Ferdinand Tönnies, as they sought to understand the disruption is social relations caused by the industrial revolution. Allan Johnson, in The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, (Blackwell) describes it thus:

Gemeinschaft relations are based on a relatively homogenous culture and tend to be intimate, informal, cooperative, and imbued with a sense of moral obligation to the group most often associated with kinship ties . . . In contrast, gesellschaft relations tend to be formal, goal-oriented, heterogenous and based on individual self-interest, competition and a complex division of labour.

Gemeinschaft relations are more common in hunter-gather and small scale horticultural societies while gesellschaft relations are more common in late agrarian and industrial societies.

Batsone says, "As the millennium turns, 'net' replaces 'community' as a meaningful way to name our existence as citizens. What matters are the forms of intelligence to which one is linked, the practical support those connections afford, and the costs those connections exact. To place oneself in a net locates yet does not promise; associates yet does not homogenise; brings connection yet does not demand belonging." This is an excellent summary of the nature of gesellschaft social relations as described in 1887 by Tönnies. It is a description of what makes it possible to participate in industrial, capitalist society.

The communications revolution has provided the technology to carry this out fully. It is possible for me to sit in my office and use my computer screen and fax to write a book with my international colleague while ignoring my Australian workmates. A wife can conduct an affair via e-mail while her husband cooks dinner in the next room. If the network society means that it is conceivable to relate to anyone, have a partnership with any one regardless of national, institutional, class, race and gender boundaries, then that is the natural place to which gesellschaft has been moving since before agricultural workers stared moving to the cities to take advantage of the job opportunities offered by the new factories.

In the agricultural age people were born into a community and stayed in it all their lives. In the modern age we have much more choice over with whom we associate and build community. This does not mean that there is no such thing as community in our age. Batstone is right that there is no idyllic vision of community that can save us from the uncertainties of the network society. But this is because idyllic community never existed in the first place-not even in small town America (think of Salem witch trials). Just and good social relations are always a struggle, and community is always something that we must work at and build in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. It does not have to mean local neighbourhood community-these days community is built at the office, in the church, among friends separated by geography or in playgroup. Westerners have struggled with an apparent loss of community since the dawn of the industrial age. What Batstone's hints do point to is a whole new sets of tools provided by the communications revolution that can both help us to build community and just social relations, but can also break those things down.

There is no just government, no law, no friendship, no community without meaningful communication. In contemporary Western society we have more ability to build communities that we want to be part of and influence our governments than ever before using contemporary communications tools. Christians need to think about the responsibilities this places on us as God's friends and representatives to do as much as we can to build communities and influence institutions to reflect God's values, God's justice and God's love for the world. Batstone reminds us that "it will be entirely up to citizens to seize this historic chance to build a more humane and just body politic". He is correct to point out the unique opportunities for free association and assembly and free speech that are available in the network society, and the ability this gives us to challenge arbitrary state power. Like many political theorists, he under-estimates the need to challenge unaccountable private power, especially of profit-driven business enterprises in his calls for the scaling back of the state to foster enterprise. Christians will want to include, not just challenging arbitrary public and private powers but constructing community, friendship, love and peace, among the objectives to which the communications revolution can be applied. There is no reason why we should be any worse at this now than ever before.

Christine Parker Christine Parker is Postdoctoral fellow in Lawe at the University of new South Wales. She researches in the areas of law and social theory, legal ethics and corporate social responsibility. She lives in Sydney and attends Petersham Baptist Church.