icts – instrumentum or locus of transformation?

ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

Yanuar Nugroho

Outsider Theory1

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying

to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” (George Bernard Shaw, 1903)

1. Introduction

The scale and speed at which the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have gone through

ordinary life in almost all aspects is very striking. Civil society organisations (CSOs) as social entities have this

unprecedented opportunity to use the technology to support their quest for a better, more just and peace

world. But, although the tools are in their hands, most of them have not decided yet how to do so. Clearly,

despite the popularity and the rate at which ICTs use has broadened, it is still relatively new to allow much in

the way of retrospective reflection on its nature and impact to society (Graham, 1999), particularly in the

context of social transformation.

The review covers three areas of literatures and their overlapping, i.e. ICTs, CSOs and social transformation.

Fig1. What the paper covers

Civil Society Organisation

ICTs & Society

Appropriation of ICT in CSO for transformation

Social Transformation

1 Outsider Theory, from Habermas-Gadamer debate page, available online at http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/habermas07.htm

1

http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/habermas07.htm


As an analytical means and approach, Giddens’ Structuration Theory (1984) is used to portray these areas and

understand how they interrelate one to another.

Firstly, in the area of ICT and society, this paper sees the dynamics between the two from Internet CMC

viewpoint which reflect the immense power of communication technology (Thurlow, et al., 2004; Graham,

1999), and the emergence of ‘information age’ (Castells 1996, 1997) and ‘modernity’ (Giddens, 1999). Then,

the paper looks closely at CSOs and their roles, as the third social actor after the state and ‘economy, in social

dynamics. Being explanatory, the review exposes the way in understanding society and civil society (Eldridge,

1971; Danermark, et al., 2002) and evaluates the role of CSO as an agent of social transformation (Held and

Mc Grew, 2000) in the context of modern Information Society (Miles, 1996). Further, this review investigates

the landscape for ICTs appropriation by understanding the path from access to appropriation (Surman &

Reilly, 2003) and examines the role of ICT as convivial medium (Illich, 1973) for civil society to foster

democracy and social justice (Riker, 2001; McConnel, 2000). And finally, before reaching conclusion, the

paper offers a closer look at Miles’ ‘competing perspectives’ which shapes information societies (Miles, 1996) and a

complementary view from Giddens’ ‘structuration theory’ to explain societal changes (Giddens, 1984) in the

Information Society.

2. Rethinking ICTs and Society – What interaction?

“Instantaneous electronic communication is not just a way in which news and information is conveyed more quickly. Its existence alters the very texture of our lives.” (Giddens, 1999:3)

The dynamics between technology and society has long been acknowledged as eminent topic in science and

technology study. It started from the ‘technological determinism’, which saw technology as the only driving

force behind much of history and was gleaned from an underlying physical reality, to the classic question

whether technology is socially shaped (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985) or is socially constructed (Bijker, et al.,

1989), which recognises the ‘push and pull’ between technology and society and that technology is a

‘collective product’ of society.

Particularly today, with the emergence of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) especially

the Internet, this issue has become more important for communication –which is central in human life—has

been broadly mediated by computer. As Thurlow (et al., 2004) suggests, although most of theories and

debates on the Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and society come from Western scholars, it is

important to explore beyond what have been in existence since social and cultural transformations are

brought about by the Internet, specifically CMC, which has ability to change and influence identities,

relationships and communities. He says, furthermore, “… whether you own a computer or not –and billions of people

2


don’t—these days everyone’s lives are transformed by new media like the internet, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively.”

(p. 2).

To my mind, opinions about the cultural and social impact of new technologies is initially polarised into

extreme positions. On the one hand, it is those who create a lot of hype about the wonderful, unique

advantages of the technology –this view is referred to as technophilia. On the other hand there are those who

appear more hysterical about the terrible effects they foresee –known as luddites or technophobics.

Following Postman’s conception (1993) about technopoly, a world whose advancement is characterised only by

technological innovation2, Graham (1999) addresses this tension very clearly,

“At the same time, to declare all doubts and questions about the Internet to be luddite, is to run the danger of falling victim to the other extreme, an extreme we might call ‘the ideology of technology’. The ‘ideology of technology’ is most evident in Technophiles: those who believe that technological innovation is a cornucopia which will remedy all ills… Their motivation lay … in the fact that they were intrigued by the technical problems. This is one aspect of the ‘ideology of technology’– technological problem-solving becomes an end in, and of, itself irrespective of larger considerations. To say more accurately, the question of means is the dominant (even sole) consideration and the question of the value of ends to which they are the means is left to take care of itself. A second important aspect of the ideology of technology is its assumption that the most technologically advanced is the best. This might be taken as the defining characteristic of technophilia, in fact. It is also the belief that has ushered in ‘Technopoly’ a world ruled by technological innovation (Graham, 1999:pp.9-10)

In this light, Kling (1996) defines what he sees as the basic beliefs of the ‘utopian’ and ‘dystopian’ visions

people tend to have regarding the effects of ‘computerisation’ on human interaction and social life. The

utopian vision emphasises the life-enhancing, exciting possibilities of CMC with claims for global

connectivity, democratisation and the opening of the frontiers of human experience and relationship. The

anti-utopian vision concerns itself with people’s enslavement to digital technology, their growing dependency

as well as the relentless, unstoppable growth of technology which brings with it information overload and the

breakdown of social structure3.

So too, this may suppose with ICT. The world is indeed being altered by it and will continue to be. But the

scale and depth of the alteration will not be of the sort that either optimists or pessimists predict, and the task

is to explore the perennial issues which need to be understood if we are to make a reasonable assessment of

its value and significance. To my mind, steering a reasoned middle course between luddism and technophilia

requires the following: that we are not swayed by technological innovation for no better reason than that it is

2 Postman (1999) contrasts the modern world, especially in America, with earlier ‘tool using’ societies, when technology was the servant of other

independent purposes and regulated by them. Technopoly, by contrast “eliminates alternatives to itself” (p.48). Although criticised as putting too much generalisation, Postman identifies an important assumption that all that went before is redundant and to be discarded because inferior. With this, also comes another assumption, that countries and individuals who want to increase or preserve their prosperity must invest heavily in hi-tech.

3 With reference to the Internet, Berland (2000) in similar way refers to ‘cyberutopianism’ to explain what she observes as the ‘overly optimistic belief’ often held in society that technology necessarily means progress and, therefore, what is new is always good and always better than what went before. This also assumes that progress is always a good thing, which may explain why many people rush out to buy the latest version of everything.

Sometimes people forget that the new product may not be better but that we are told it is in order to satisfy the interests of hard core commerce. This view, supported by the current practice of neoliberal economy, changes entirely the way society perform. If Descartes were around, he might say “Emo ergo sum” (I shop, therefore I am) instead of “Cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). This is my personal note to this issue, which is published in an English newspaper in Indonesia. See: Nugroho (2002)

3


innovatory, and that at the same time we remain open to its actual character and possible advantages. In other

words, we must be alive both to the possibility that ICT may be a truly new way of doing things with real

increases in value for those individuals and societies who adopt it, and to the possibility that its novelty and its

advantages have been exaggerated.

In the area of socio-economic development, the similar debates also exist. The opinions are sharply divided

into two categories. Utopian category, which paints a very beautiful picture, is called ‘silver bullet’ (Sein and

Ahmad, 2001) where ICTs is seen as a catalyst for national development by being the vehicle for

transformation. The rationale is ‘leapfrogging’: by being late adopters of ICTs, developing countries benefit

from declining cost, advances in technology and bypassing the problem associated with new technology. ICTs

is a tool of empowerment and enabling for common people (Hamelink, 1997). Open information flow is

theorised to lead to more open government, broad citizen participation and entrepreneurship. This view,

clearly, is in line with the western view of development –and is in the core of optimistic views4.

This picture is of course examined critically, e.g. by using the dependency perspective of development, to

convey in order not to be entrapped in the dystopian category called ‘doom and gloom’ (Sein and Ahmad,

2001). This perspective argues that as of today there are few links between ICTs and national development.

Referred statistics show increased investment in ICTs in developing countries and all corresponding decrease

in all economic growth indicators (Hamelink, 1997). In contrast to the benefits espoused by the optimists,

this view argues that ICTs can actually lead to more repression by authoritarian governments who now have

more powerful tool to control citizens. In addition, ICTs also magnifies the digital divide, i.e. the difference

between knowledge and technological capabilities of the developed and developing world.

Having been aware of the issue, it seems that what is seen from any technological developments or

innovations is a mixture of hype and excessive optimism on the one hand and hysteria or fierce scepticism on

the other. I would like to take up the discussion about ‘life on the screen’, which introduces the notion of the

‘subjective computer’ (Turkle, 1990), to react. People tend to project on to computers and digital technology

their own individual fears and aspirations. As result, ICTs end up being treated like a ‘Rorschach inkblot’.

Fig 2. Rorschach inkblot

Source: http://photoinf.com/General/Robert_Berdan/Composition_and_the_Elements_of_Visual_Design/image014.gif

4 Note that international organization like The UN also braces this view.

4

http://photoinf.com/General/Robert_Berdan/Composition_and_the_Elements_of_Visual_Design/image014.gif


In psychology, therapists sometimes ask people to imagine what they see when looking at an image similar to

the one above. The idea is that the things people say they see reveal important clues about how the person is

feeling and what is really on their mind. About this, Thurlow (et al., 2004) concludes, “And so, in much the same

way, people talk about technology often says more about them than it does about the technology itself” (p.40).

To bridge this utopian-dystopian vision, Castells (1996) instead raises a ‘dialectical interaction’ between

technology and society. To his mind, technology does not determine society. Instead, it embodies it. But

neither does society determine technological innovation since it uses it. The present phase of capitalism has

become possible because of innovations in microelectronics, telecommunications, digital electronics, and

network computing, which represent the rise of a new technological developments in ICTs – the paradigm

which becomes the basis of socio-economic relations.

“Technological innovation and organizational change, focussing on flexibility and adaptability, were absolutely critical in ensuring the speed and efficiency of restructuring. It can be argued that without new information technology global capitalism would have been a much-limited reality, flexible management would have been reduced to labor trimming, and the new round of spending in both capital goods and new consumer products would not have been sufficient to compensate for the reduction in public spending. Thus, informationalism is linked to the expansion and rejuvenation of capitalism, as industrialism was linked to its constitution as a mode of production” (Castells, 1996:19, my emphasis)

Giddens confirms what Castells proposes by reminding that the changes are happening not only ‘out there’

but also ‘in here’ –in our homes and inside our heads, in how we see the world and our place in it (Giddens,

1999). This consequently implies that as society people have a responsibility to think about and debate the

experiences of these societal transformations. The fact is it is impossible to remain neutral to their

consequences. This is why it is important to see how all the changes are affecting everyday human interaction.

A fundamental question about any technology should be: what is the problem to which this technology is a

solution? This question however presupposes that the desires which technology is intended to fulfil exist prior

to such technology and are independent of it. The problems to which technology is an answer are subjectively

defined and that technology is just a means to an end. These assumptions are in fact questionable. This is also

the case with ICT. One of the most interesting and important speculations about the ICTs is that it will help

establish a world with much greater freedom of expression and democracy. The assumption here is that

democracy is desirable.

We live now in the information age when ICTs and society do interpenetrate each other to an extent that they

cannot be separated anymore (Castells, 1996; 1997). On the one hand, in our society, we see how ICT plays a

role in almost all of its aspects – on the other we know that social arrangement is embodied in the

development of ICT. It may be better to understand the role of technology by conceptualising technology as a

process in which society is reorganising itself into ever new forms dialectically, i.e. while an arrangement of elements (be it

institutional, technical and cultural) stabilises in new technological artefacts, these artefacts provide new

possibilities of doing things and in the process of putting the artefacts to use, they are actuated.

5


Before Castell came into this conclusion, Giddens (1984) actually has confirmed this dialectic in his ‘Theory of

Structuration’ as duality between structure (i.e. in this case: technological structure of ICTs) and agent (i.e. in this

case: end-user individuals within society). The fact that the actor (or, agent) is different from the structure is

obvious. Yet, how do we give notion to this difference? According to Giddens, ‘agent’ is knowledgeable, with

a knowledge of most of the actions he or she undertakes – in the other words, a concrete person within the

continuous flow of actions and events. Meanwhile ‘structure’ is set of rules and resources which are shaping

and in the same time being shaped by the recursive social practices. In the other words, it is recursively

implicated in the institutional articulation of social systems – both structure and agent presume one another.

The duality of agent-structure lies in the process in which the structure is both the outcome of and the

medium (means) of agent’s action. Considering the development and innovation of ICTs as social practices,

we can see how Giddens’ view matches with Castells’ idea.

Moving further, we need to pay attention to the notion of time and space, in which the action and structure in

social practices take place. In Giddens’ view, time and space cannot be any longer understood as an arena or

‘stage’ of social action (i.e. to where we get in and from where we get out – including technological

innovation). Time-space is not only the arena of actions, but also the constitutive and integral element of social

practices (Giddens, 1984)5. The simplest implication is that we cannot understand the social practice today

from what we saw it yesterday. For example, in this modern world societal forms does not lie on the

difference of production modes (as conveyed by Marxism), but in the way each society organises the

relationship within time and space. Modernity, for example, is a phenomenon of ‘disembedding’ time from

space. Globalisation, another example, is a simultaneous act of ‘expanding’ and ‘compressing’ time and space

–in other words, ‘action at distance’ (Giddens, 1999). And precisely, it is the ability to perform ‘separation of

time and space’ that is central to all characteristics claimed by technology, particularly ICTs.

These are all what have been the context of the discussion about the interaction between ICTs and society

today. So, it then seems a good point to move on to rethink the civil society organisations (CSOs) as part of

society and their roles in social transformation.

3. Rethinking CSOs – Agent for social transformation?

“We are challenged to break the obsolete social and economic systems which have divided our world into the haves and the have-nots. We, all, the government leaders or the protestors, the businessmen or the labours, the professors or the students, are to be responsible for this situation. We have failed to understand how the important changes of the societal ideas and structures are able to be undertaken.” (Ivan Illich, ‘Celebration of Awareness’, 2002)

5 This point gives birth to the latest social theory, The Theory of Structuration (Anthony Giddens). The name of this theory, as the suffix ‘isation’,

points the process: time-space as the constitutive element of social phenomena (e.g. modernisation, urbanisation, de-human-isation, etc.)

6


What is civil society organisation (CSO) and how it differs from non-governmental organisation (NGO)?

Many literatures seem to have used both terms interchangeably and put little attention on their difference (e.g.

Eldridge, 1971; Danermark, et al., 2002; Hill & Sen, 2002; Bennet, 2003, among others) and thus analysed

them as a single entity. Yet, according to Clayton (et al., 2000), doing so is an analytical mistake, since,

“Civil society constitutes a vast array of associations, including trade unions, professional associations, religious groups, cultural and sports groups and traditional associations, many of which are informal organizations that are not registered. Nonetheless, despite the huge variety of different types of organizations that are found in the developing world, most of the funding from international sources for service provision is channelled through non-governmental organizations. The NGO sector in most developing countries is formally organized and often subject to certain government regulations, and has developed considerable capacity and experience in the delivery of development projects. For this reason, although it is important to keep the terms CSO and NGO analytically distinct, in practice the majority of CSOs involved in service provision are NGOs (pp.1-2)

Based on my personal involvement in Indonesian social movement, I share the same view with Clayton, that

CSOs should be distinguished from NGO. To my mind, the term CSO should be used as a broad category

that takes into account any organisation outside of both the state and business, and operates on a non-profit

basis –including NGO. Uhlin (2000) supports this preposition:

“Civil society is a public sphere in which different kind of groups –which have some degree of autonomy in relation to the state, economic entities and the family, but constantly interact with institutions of these other spheres– develop identities, articulate interests and try to promote a specific political agenda” (p.10)

This distinction is important since NGO, as its name implies, is a CSO built upon identity merely as a non-

state, or non-state-apparatus, actor. Whereas, there are other groups, formally organised or not, whose

identity is not, or not only, built upon such position. The emergence of student movement groups, anti-

globalisation movements, urban poor groups, anti-business/anti-TNC (transnational corporation) movement,

among others, are simply proofs that using the term ‘NGO’ to label this kind of groups or organisations is

inadequate, although NGO is the most visible and vocal subset of CSO6.

Suffering from inability to find more scholarly literatures addressing this distinction, particularly in Indonesian

context, I take deliberately Ibrahim’s (et al, 2003) position to justify my arguments above as he puts it more

clearly, that:

“In Indonesia, the term NGO means organizations that focus their activities toward social and economic empowerment through poverty alleviation programs and policy changes through advocacy programs. The terms CSO is conceptually wider than NGO; CSO also includes the academic community such as student organizations, universities and research agencies that function as think tanks, the media (independent newspapers, radio and television), community organization, social religious organizations and labor unions.” (p.130)

This is the position which this literature review (and my PhD thesis) would adapt in differentiating NGO

from CSO, and vice versa. 6 I come to this temporary conclusion after reflecting my involvement in Indonesian social movement since I was a university student activist in

1990 to my close work with many other organisations, particularly NGOs and student movement during Indonesian reform (1997-1999). Having established my own NGOs, i.e. a developmentalist-then-research-based NGO (www.elsppat.or.id), a political NGO (www.unisosdem.org) and an advocacy-and-research-based NGO working in business accountability issue, I gradually understand the importance of this distinction.

7

http://www.elsppat.or.id/

http://www.unisosdem.org/


The recent study (SustainAbility.com, 2003) reveals that as a working sector, NGO globally is worth over US$

1 trillion and employs 19 million people. Meanwhile, the World Development Indicator (2003) reports that

NGOs in OECD countries have channelled around US$ 10.5 billion in grants to their partners in non-OECD

countries in 2001. This could easily be understood since 83.6% of international (or internationally-oriented)

NGOs are located in OECD countries (WDI, 2003). As an employment sector, while the number brings

optimism among CSO workers, is it something worth praising with regards to their role as a social

transformer? Surely, we need sharp analytical views to answer.

Amy Chua criticises the role of CSO activists as the ‘retailer’ of liberal democracy a la USA, which in turn

would contribute to the emergence of tribal conflicts, which has been evident in Asia, Africa and Balkan

(Chua, 2002). The similar view is also addressed by James Petras who sees current CSOs’ role as ‘moderating’

the fight against capitalism and even taking part in establishing the global capitalist infrastructures in the

Southern countries (Petras, 1997). This perspective is actually tuned to Edwards & Hulme (1996) who view

CSO as a ‘magic bullet’ which delivers ideology and social infrastructure far more effectively compared to

state, corporations or religious institutions. Moreover, what is trivial is the fact that CSOs, particularly NGO

could be ‘used’ by any other political as well as economic actors, mostly from foreign (or more developed)

countries, without they even realise it. Is it a new imperialism done through CSOs/NGOs?

So far reviewed, there are two basic, grand theories to explain this phenomenon. The first one is what is

referred by Kunio Yoshihara as post-colonialism ‘soft power era’. This is the era when discourses originated

from the northern (developed, rich, capitalist) countries are blindly ‘transplanted’ to the southern (developing,

poor) ones through CSOs, particularly the ‘developmentalist’ NGOs. Therefore, there will be always what-so-

called ‘discourse dependency’ of the south on the north following ‘erzats capitalism’ phenomenon (Yoshihara,

1988).

The second theory comes from Fukuyama (1993), who is like Huntington (1993), is unclear if he predicts or

otherwise provokes about the democratic system of liberal capitalistic as ‘the end of the history’. The claim of

the arguments is that the mushrooming issues of good-governance, human-rights, and the likes promoted by

CSOs are part of democracy to streamline the investment. So, while the CSOs get their legitimacy of their

existence, they might not realise that the issues they are promoting is within a big scenario to expand

capitalism through wider investment in the developing countries (Fukuyama, 1993)

These theories have brought about new ‘awareness’ among CSO activists and they have started criticising

themselves, their organisations, and their activities in transforming the society (Uhlin, 2000). In developing

countries context, like in Indonesia, this can be seen even much clearer from the point that the birth of

NGOs took place in the time of ‘grant booming’ (purposed for poverty alleviation) and became intensely by

the time ‘developmentalism’ fostered by states.

8


This awareness is inevitably part of the history of social movement itself. And, as Giddens (1984) proposes

when emphasising the importance of actor (agent) in order to change the structure, it becomes extremely

important nowadays for CSO activists (as agent of social movement) to reflect the direction and ‘setting’ of

their action: whether they let themselves to be utilised by capitalist or otherwise shift to the more radical and

strategic program against social and economic injustice. Because, it is the ‘discursive consciousness’ of the

agent (i.e. the CSO activists) which can cause the ‘de-routinisation’ of social practices (i.e. NGOs/CSOs as

agent of capitalist) that can change the structure (i.e. NGOs/CSOs as agent of transformation) (Giddens,

1984).

The question is then: what transformation? And how is it formulated?

To answer this is firstly by paying particular attention to the problem of democratisation and social change

(structure). Toepatimasang (1993) and Holland & Henriot (2002) develop a basic sociological model below.

MODEL CONSENSUS CONFLICT Line of Thoughts DEVELOPMENTALIST LIBERAL/REFORMIST TRANSFORMATIVE

Social Structure The result of consensus, subject to preserve, not to be questioned

The result of power domination, thus need to be scrutinised

The Problem of Democracy

Lack of education, poverty, uncivilised society, etc.

Malfunction of order (pol-ec-soc-cult)

Unjust and undemocratic order (pol-ec-soc-cult)

The Root of the Problem The fault of the actors The lack of opportunities to share the participation and access.

Unjust social structure

Problem Solving Changing the value and norms (culture and mentality)

Providing and expanding opportunities of participation and access to the group/society

Structural change

The Model of Changes

Mentality and cultural change

Functional & structural change Conflict management

Motivation Duty Human Rights enforcement, including law, and constitution

The capacity of society to undertake and to manage the change.

Actor Elites (government and business) Society

Style of Leaderships Bureaucracy Technocracy-Bureaucracy Populist, participating, providing ways to bottom-up leadership.

Paradigm Developmentalist Reformist Liberalist Liberal Transformist Table 1. Sociological Model to Understand the Problem of Democratisation and Social Change

Source: Adopted from Toepatimasang (1993) and Holland and Henriot (2002) Then, categorising CSOs (as agents) based on this sociological model, to figure out the paradigm(s) they

embrace. Toepatimasang (1993) calls this categorisation as ‘Five basic paradigms of CSOs activities’ as presented in

the table below.

9


MAIN PARADIGM CHARITY DEVELOPMENTALIST LIBERAL / REFORMIST RADICAL TRANSFORMIST

View about the cause of social problem

Situation and condition beyond human control. E.g. natural disaster, disease, etc.

The low education level, life standard, the scarce resource of money/resource.

Malfunction of structures: education, service & farming

Repression, control & domination.

Improper structure.

Medium Lessening the suffering of the target groups

Increasing the production, to conquer the nature

Fixing the current structure ‘s performances

Challenging and changing the current structure

Reconstructing the new structure: economics, politics, laws, education.

Forms of Activities

Food aids for the refugees, handicapped, orphans, curative clinics.

Technical training on: farming, small industries, credits, income generation and health.

Supporting services: LBH, extra class

Trade Unions, protesting movement, awareness program

Awareness Program, alternative structures, new forms of education program.

Types of Changes

Functional Changes

Consensus Model

Structural Changes

Conflict Model

Types of Leadership

Believe in the authority Consultative Participative, equal

responsibility

Bottom up & delegation of authority, high discipline.

Animation, participatory guidance, equal responsibility

Inspiration/ Motivation

love, helping the poor

Helping people to be independent

The equality of rights & opportunities

Cursing the bad and preaching the good

Renewal by all, together

Table 2. Main paradigms of CSO activities Source: Adopted from Toepatimasang (1993)

What is emergent from the model is that social transformation idealised by CSOs is straightforwardly hitting

the issue of repression, social injustice, undemocratic governance. The transformation consequently is

achieved through structural change with a proper ability to manage the conflict counting on the capacity of

the social to undertake and to manage the change. What is important is also the way society in general is

involved through populist movement, participatory action which provides ways to possibly lead from the

bottom.

Although developed in the Indonesian context7, the view above, to my mind, is valid to be applied to analyse

the dynamics of CSOs in other developing countries for they are sharing the common social problem of

severe poverty, human rights violations and critical economic inequality. This model helps not only to

categorise CSOs in a clearer taxonomy based on their paradigm but also to map the social change that takes

place.

Yet, as a critique, using structuration analysis (Giddens, 1984), I found the models above to be ‘structure-

biased’. What does it imply? If the discursive consciousness as well as practical consciousness is merely

targeted on the structure, it discourages the enactment of agents and only raises dilemma. The failure of

Leninist model which suggests the proletariat political party as the structural way to change the capitalist

world, to my mind, is undeniable proof which may bring impasse in social transformation.

7 Holland and Henriot and particularly Toepatimasang base most of their works in Indonesian context.

10


Therefore, despite that dilemma may be seen an obvious part of social movement, the discursive

consciousness and practical consciousness must also be targeted to empower the agents, i.e. the CSO

activists, through whom the transformation as a result of ‘de-routinisation’ can be facilitated. Only through

this route can Giddens, in my view, come to the ‘renewal of social democracy’ as an alternative (although

probably speculative) to the old tension between capitalism-socialism which was tried to be bridged by ‘old

version’ of social democracy (Giddens, 1998). To put it simple, regardless circumstances, it is the act ‘to take a

side’ that can be freely done by the agent, even when it is against the structure’s objectives. This is the central

of social transformation, which can take place through any variants of CSOs.

With this, I would like to conclude this part by clearly stating that what is firstly needed in a true social

transformation is the awareness and consciousness of the agents, i.e. social activists, on both what they are

doing that enforces the structure and what the structure is influencing that has an effect on them. Only in this

light the use of any theory of social movement can be properly referred when addressing social

transformation for theory is not the sole guidance of action from the external, but needs to be constructed

into the internal.

Therefore, the option for achieving social transformation does not necessarily mean to be within the

framework of proletariat movement (which has been proven to fail) but open to CSOs as the basis of the

action. In fact, recently there has been growing acknowledgement of the important role of CSOs in the social

change. Yet, a perpetual internal reflection needs to be undertaken towards what have been achieved by

CSOs, because otherwise CSOs are in the real danger of being opportunistic and thus utilised (e.g. by donors)

to gain other objectives than a true social transformation.

What is implied with regard to the Indonesian context is that we should be more optimistic when assessing

the CSO movements, i.e. those which are the likes of peasants/rural movement or labour/urban movement.

Yet, the role of NGOs is indeed significant as that they are not just part of the CSO movement, but their role

can be constructed (as they are more organised and educated). What is not needed is the absence of

continuous reflection on the roles of CSOs, which may result them to be only the ‘caretaker’ or even worse,

‘dish washer’ of the ‘capitalist agenda’. Thus, it may be seen as naïve if we consider NGO as only a

compromising form of CSOs aiming at social transformation for we ignore the capacity of actors of NGOs

to ‘reform’ themselves.

With these all in mind, let us now focus on how CSOs, in fostering the transformation they aspire, use their

resources –one of which is the access to ICTs.

11


4. Landscape for ICTs appropriation – Convivial medium for CSOs?

“Because informationalism is based on the technology of knowledge and information, there is an especially close linkage between culture and productive forces, between spirit and matter, in the informational mode of development. It follows that we should expect the emergence of historically new forms of social interaction, social control, and social change.” (Manuel Castells, 1996:18)

The problem with talking about the ‘use of ICTs by CSOs’ is that ‘use’ has more than one meaning to many

people. Some would think of having access to physical equipments linked to a network, other would point to

the use of basic communication application or software, and still others would refer to the strategic use of

communication technology for own purpose. So, how can we mark they way organisations must travel across

different kind of ‘use’ as they are exposed to new technologies? Camacho (2001) and Surman (2001)

introduce ‘spectrum of use’ of ICT among CSOs below.

Appropriation

Adoption

Access

Constraints to access / slow adopters

Most transnational CSOs and some local CSOs Pioneers and innovators

Fig 3. Access/Adoption/Appropriation Ladder

Source: Surman & Reilly, 2003 Therefore all perspectives of ‘use’ make sense as they fit along the ‘spectrum of use’ above, which presents

three steps in a ‘ladder’, i.e. access, adoption and appropriation.

The lowest step of the ladder is basic access, i.e. to make available ICT infrastructure to perform a networked

communication (e.g. Internet connection to an office computer, a mobile phone with SMS, internet café).

The middle ladder is the adoption, i.e. the use and development of necessary basic skills to perform ICT in

the ways in which it was intended (e.g. writing memos and notes with a word processor, notify colleagues

with an email client application). The highest point of the ladder is appropriation, i.e. the strategic use where

an individual or an organisation turns ICT to their own purposes, utilises it to achieve their own objectives

and makes it their own (e.g. uploading local content on the web in local languages, specific application design

for specific need).

The research is focussed on the appropriation and strategic use of ICT, not because the access and adoption

is unimportant, but it is at the level of appropriation that CSOs turns ICT to their own ends, creating political

and social impact. In Illich’s conception, it is where CSO turns ICT into a ‘convivial medium’ to achieve their

goals. It is a level where people are not any longer subordinated by technology, but have full control over it

and use it for their own purpose (Illich, 1973).

“For a hundred years we have tried to make machine work for men and to school men for life in their service. Now it turns out that machines do not “work” and that people cannot be schooled for a life at the

12


service of machines. The hypothesis on which the experiment was built must now be discarded. The hypothesis was that machines can replace slaves. The evidence shows that, used for this purpose, machines enslave men. Neither a dictatorial proletariat nor a leisure mass can escape the domination of constantly expanding industrial tools. The crisis can be solved only if we learn to invert the present deep structure of tools; if we give people tools that guarantee their right to work with high, independent efficiency, thus simultaneously eliminating the need for either slaves or masters and enhancing each person’s range of freedom. People need new tools to work with rather than tools that “work” for them. They need technology to make to most of the energy and imagination each has, rather than more well-programmed energy slaves.” (p.10)

One can probably think of this assumes that access to technology (in this case ICT) is relatively not any

longer a problem. Or in the other words, appropriation can only be discoursed when full access is available.

Yet, it is not always true. As Surman & Reilly (2003) posits:

“Ignoring the question of how we appropriate these technologies – or even subjugating this question to the issue of access – threatens to leave us in the same boat. Unless we move beyond the role of information consumers to also act also producers and participants, those technologies that have powerful potential today may quickly become the consumer mush of tomorrow.” (p.10)

In particular context of CSOs and social movement, although their access to ICTs sometimes is still problem

or not fully available time to time, CSOs must learn the principle of appropriation. That is that ICT is not

only a technology that can quickly pass memos and reports to colleagues, but it also has the potential to be a

‘platform’ for organising strategic activities of CSOs.

Among possible appropriations are building and strengthening the identity of CSOs in cyber-civic space for

social reform (Lim, 2002, 2003) through coalition building (Rucht, 1989; Diani 1990). This can be done by

creating networks of opposition (Osa, 2003) which to some extent can be of important factor in leading to a

creation of ‘insurgent space’ (Lim, 2002). International CSOs have been proved to appropriate ICTs for

establishing collaboration, publishing (campaign), mobilization and observation (watchdog activities) (Surman

& Reilly, 2003). ; Camacho, 2001; Lim, 2004)

As alternative media (Bennet, 2003) to foster social movements as networks linking a multiplicity of actors

(Gerlach & Hine, 1970; Curtis & Zurcher, 1973; Anheier, 2003) which is necessary for facilitating

democratisation (Uhlin, 1998, 2000) and taking initiatives for conflict resolution in volatile areas with

continuous fighting among tribes as well as civil groups (Hill & Sen, 2002). To put it short, appropriation of

ICT for social transformation would be optimum when it is addressed strategically towards movement

development and organisational networks.

Yet, given possibilities of such an appropriation, the actual use of ICT among CSOs seems to be seriously

lacking behind what they actually can benefit from ICTs. This is, by all accounts, not only the problem for

CSOs in developing countries whose limited access to ICTs, but CSOs world wide in general (Surman &

Reilly, 2003) which is characterised that:

“…in many cases, they are simply using them without any thought about where and how these technologies fit into the political work for which they feel so much passion. It is not that these organizations use networked technologies completely without question or critique, but rather that they don’t take the time to consider how they can be using these technologies most strategically.” (p.1)

13


To them, lacking of time to learn how to appropriate ICTs may be a valid problem –given other dimensions

of CSOs activities. While it is true, another problem arises: what is the embedded character of ICTs that

makes them on the one hand not as convivial as it is expected, but on the other hand have the potential to be

a truly convivial medium for transformation? Nicolas Garnham gives clue that it is the ‘communicative

power’ or ‘information politics’ in the ‘social dimensions of the technical’ of ICTs that makes it so (Garnham,

1999). To his mind:

“ICTs have raised question of social power ever since their birth with the invention of forms of writing. One communication expanded beyond face-to-face interaction and the natural endowments of speech and gesture, the question of who commanded the cultural and material resources for communication –and for what purposes—became central to an understanding of the social order. I refer this as ‘information politics. The differences between individuals and groups in their ability to mobilize communicative power on pursuit of their goals have always been intertwined with ICTs. Since we also know historically that those patterns of power distribution only change slowly, rarely and with difficulty, it would be safe to assume that the so-called new ICTs are unlikely to be either as new or as dramatic in their impact, for good or ill, as technologically focussed approach assumes. And we should not let this focus distract us from attending to more fundamental questions concerning the unequal distribution of communicative power.” (p.78)

It seems, in order to properly understand the landscape of appropriation of ICTs, we must take into account

both the dimension of control and change. And as suggested by Garnham above, we cannot but enter the

discourse area of power relation in the modern society we are living now – the information society.

5. Constructing the Information Society as social practice

“Not all developments will involve the new technologies, but often they will be central. Standing still is rarely an option. Although beleaguered services and individuals may resent being told about the need to adapt, a sea change is taking place – hence the importance of elucidating and understanding competing views of the information society.” (Ian Miles, 1996)

Advances in ICTs have generated many perspectives (be it theoretically or otherwise) on the formation of the

‘information society’ (IS). ICTs that help to perform many human activities are a significant progress on

earlier technologies and offer great possibility for transforming the ways in which we produce and use

information and thus the way we transform our societal life.

Here, as Ian Miles (1996) addresses that,

“… developments in ICTs are at the heart of the process shaping the ‘information society’ and the many important unanswered questions about it. For example, some people believe that the widening of political support for public services is the result of developments and improvements stemming from the application of ICTs. They regard the likely alternatives to be new forms of social inequity and continuing decay of the welfare state. However, the choices offered are not open-ended, nor are the individuals and groups concerned anything like equal players. Inequalities between the information-rich and information-poor may grow if commercial interests gain undue precedence over citizens’ groups and voluntary associations as new services proliferate.” (p.38)

To him, there are two important dimensions underlying the debate on the social implications of ICTs in

constructing the IS, i.e. dimension of depth and width.

14


In the dimension of depth, it is the speed and extent of ‘change’ which is very much influential. At one

extreme, ‘continuists’ (which have a ‘more of the same’ view) regard that all claim about IS and ICTs are

overstated –some continuists even rejected the concept of the IS. In this extreme, main features of society

and basic power structures are unlikely to change. On the other extreme, ‘transformists’ (which have a

‘something different’ view) view the IS as a major historical shift which is able to change the bases of political

power and social classes and ICTs as revolutionary technology with practical benefits.

In the dimension of width, it is the extent of ‘control’ that matters. ‘Concordists’ deems access to information

liberating and communication systems promoting decentralisation and democratisation. To this view, ICT

and IS is characterised by greater democracy, devolution of power and personal choice and expression. In

contrast, ‘antagonists’ associated the IS and ICTs to increasing social and political control through greater

surveillance characteristic of the powerful toward the powerless.

For both dimensions, Miles (1996) offers his structuralism approach to remedy the ills by looking for

synthesis. He proposes ‘structuralism’ as it recognises that a diversity of actors confront a multiplicity of

choices which lead to many possible outcomes. In the ‘change’ dimension, structuralism recognises barriers to

change and openings for innovation in which outcomes depend on actors and interests shaping ICTs with

uneven diffusion of technology. In the ‘control’ dimension, the view treats the IS as a shift between different

regimes of social actors with unequal opportunities to intervene but all whose actions have consequences.

Miles diagrammatises the typology of views of ICT and the IS below.

CONTINUISM I: Shallow, Broadening Social change is essentially steady and generally benign. New technology slowly introduced with the little upheaval

II: Shallow, Narrowing

Social structures remain frozen. New technology and social innovation leave major

problems and inequalities

CONCORDISM STRUCTURALISM a synthesis

ANTAGONISM

Rapid move to information activities as the basis for more egalitarian, participative political and economic life. III: Deep, Broadening

Inequalities grow. New technologies used for

manipulation and social control in a more divided society.

IV: Deep, Narrowing

TRANSFORMISM Source: Ian Miles (1996: 41)

Why is it important to search for synthesis? Miles departs from his concern about the classic debate on

‘consensus versus conflict’ which has long been pathological in social science and literature about ICT and

the IS8– and also about the prominent theme of expanding information opportunities versus growing

information inequalities. Structuralist analysis implies that there is not simply one future outcome of the IS.

8 Interestingly, this ‘debate’ in social theory is instead seen as ‘spectrum of paradigm’ in social action as proposed by Holland and Henriot

(2002) and Toepatimasang (1993) when mapping the characteristic of CSOs and its activities. See the 3rd part of this essay.

15


Rather, there are many possible ISs. How can Miles arrive at this synthesis? It is because “the significance of the

structuralist perspective as a focal point encompassing both dimensions comes from the way that it seeks to find a synthesis of these

competing views, rather than the middle ground.” (Miles, 1996:40)

For those concerned in the notion of transformation as structural change of society, while Miles’ approach

offers synthesis of the opposite sociological position to explain what change can be made, it may not be clear

enough to explain how the change takes place. I would like therefore to refer back to Giddens’ (1984) theory

of structuration to complement Miles’ (1996) structuralism in explaining the social change.

The basic domain of study of social sciences, according to structuration theory is neither the experience of

the individual actor nor the existence of any form of societal totality, but ‘social practices’ ordered across

space and time. This is based on two theses, i.e. (1) social practice is constitutive of social life –it constitutes

us as actors and embodies and realises structures, (2) as result, social practice is the mediating concept

between agency and structure, between individual and society. This is the duality of agency-structure, i.e. the

structure is the medium and the outcome of the agent’s actions9. Since social practice constitutes us as actors

and simultaneously embodies and realises structure, actor and structure thus become two modes of

considering the same relations: social practice.

For agent (the dynamic aspect of actor) is distinct from agent’s activity (actor’s action) and is knowledgeable

(has practical consciousness as well as discursive consciousness) with a knowledge of most of action

performed, Giddens emphasises that structure do not act behind the back of the actor. The voluntaristic

element is strengthened by the discursive capacity of the agent – and discursive reflexivity around the action,

besides enabling to provide explanation, connotes the possibility of changing the pattern of action. In

addition, social systems are explained as both temporarily and spatially binding and time-space constitutive (Giddens,

1984).

Now, let us apply the IS as structure and the act of constructing it as social practice and social change. While

all actions in constructing the IS imply change, the system of IS –understood as relations which are produced

and reproduced by various types of actors (individual, organisations, etc as users of ICTs)—which is

‘anchored in time and space’ change over time. When analysing social change in the IS, the duality of

structure requires taking into account the level of strategic conduct (the actor aspect, e.g. strategic use, proper

appropriation of ICT) and the institutional level (the structure aspect, e.g. ICT policy, development of

infrastructure).

9 It is Giddens’ emphasis that social science concerns itself with a universe which is continually being constituted, produced, and reproduced by

active acting subjects. To him, the concept of social practice is defined in a long theoretical movement in which the concepts of agent, power, action, structure, system, and time-space are redefined so that they come to constitute practice. That is correct therefore that Giddens’ contribution is by defining the concepts in terms of each other so that they together can define practice.

16


When individual actor acts, it is often based on practical consciousness. Reproduction of action connotes only

the repetition of the same actions and structures. Yet, change can also occur even when actions are

reproduced as actions often have unintended consequences resulting in social change. For instance, Microsoft

wants to save the money by subcontracting software production to software houses in India, but fails to

notice that this makes people there become more computer-literate and in the end many more people choose

open-source software rather than Microsoft’s. That people use open-source software is an unintended

consequence of Microsoft’s intended action10. Take another example: an individual CSO activist improves his

use of email to distribute news to other colleagues. Other activists take up the idea and using email for

distributing news becomes the standard within CSO activities with major consequences as result.

But, not only do the unintended consequences of the agents’ actions contribute to changes of structures and

systems. The agent’s ability to comprehend various conditions in life can also mean that the agent changes his

or her pattern of action. This can occur when the agent’s consciousness moves from practical to discursive

level. Of course, the degree of discursive consciousness can be linked to occupation, education or other social

position. Higher education, for example, can entail more resources and thereby more power to act. Thus,

both the amount of resources and the degree of discursive consciousness can contribute to alterations in

social practice.

Here, we can understand that potential of ICTs are vital factors in constructing the Information Society. The

importance lies not only in the technological character of ICTs, but that in terms of social change, ICTs has

become a revolutionary resource. Together with conscious agents, ICTs can be strategically used and can

result in enormous change in the IS. In case of ICTs appropriation for social transformation, therefore it is

clear that what is needed is not only the access to ICTs available for CSOs with transformative mission and

action plan, but also CSO activists whose reflexive ability and discursive consciousness influences the way they use

ICT as ‘social practice’ and eventually change it into better appropriation.

With this, to conclude as well as to maintain our discursive consciousness, let us bear in mind the following

factors conveyed by Thurlow (et al., 2004) when discussing the involvement of technology (like ICTs) on

people’s lives: [a] what the technology is supposed to do (i.e. its design and commercial ideologies), [b] what

the technology allows people to do (i.e. its practical or material affordances) and [c] what people actually do

with the technology (i.e. its uses and gratifications).

Yet, it is not enough to me. All those factors above will only escort us to the heart of appropriation if we are

also continuously aware what people can do with the technology (i.e. its strategic use) that constructs a better

societal life. 10 But it can also be this way. Bill Gates, say, wants to invest in semiconductor plant in China. To do so, plants are built and many people are

employed. In the opening speech, Gates says “I am pleased that Microsoft provides jobs for local people here”. While the intended action is investing money to get profit and the unintended consequence is building factory and employing people, he clearly mistakes the unintended consequence as intended action. The ex-post is claimed as ex-ante.

17


6. Conclusion

Having arrived to this point, I realise to have walked a full circle from mapping the relation between

technology and society, to understanding social transformation, to drawing landscape of appropriation of

technology for social change and finally back to understanding societal changes affected by technology. Let

me now offer some points as final notes.

Firstly, although access to ICTs may remain a problem for certain condition in our society, the quest for

appropriation is of paramount importance, since:

““We have passed the stage of the one-way ‘technology transfer’ and arrived in the age of global collaboration. This is not to say that worldwide economic inequality has all but disappeared overnight due to the arrival of the computer. However, the image of the ‘digital divide’ is a much too passive description for the titanic turmoil caused by proliferation of new technologies on a planetary scale. The drive to communicate and exchange, even under the very difficult circumstances (wars, ethnic conflicts, economic crisis, poverty) is such a powerful one. It is creating instant ‘cultures of access’, either in the urban sprawls or in the deprived remote areas.” (Sarai-Waag, 2000)

Appropriateness can lead to a meaningful transformation, yet, we must remember that we will never ‘arrive’ at

the nirvana of appropriation since as social practice, appropriation is not only an outcome but also a process.

Secondly, from literatures discussing the potentials of ICTs, its ability to shrink space and time is often

viewed instrumentally (Surman & Reilly, 2003; Riker, 2001; McConnel, 2000; 2003c; Uhlin, 2000; Hill & Sen,

2002), i.e. as being merely the ability to decrease by degrees the ‘distance’ separating communicator and the

communicant, without in any significant way altering the way of communication. In fact, in ICTs, this time-

contraction is not only instrumental for, but is also constitutive of, the subjectivity of the users/actors.

Because, ICTs’ resources for time-contraction have profound implications for how actors/agents experience

their subjectivity, for their understanding of who they are as subjects. It is this understanding that is extremely

important to construct an Information Society –in which transformation could take place from the

appropriation of ICTs as the result of communication technology innovation—because the understanding

entails a meaningful meaning that enables and enacts the actor to perform a change.

In this light, here I think important to recall the classic debate between Habermas and Gadamer, which

principally concerns the status of epistemic and normative claims to discovering and interpreting meaning in the social

and human disciplines (Simpson, 1995).

Gadamer, a master of hermeneutic (i.e. the art of interpretation to discover meaning) emphasises that there is

an “authority” from which any understanding must proceed and “tradition” which is not itself a product of

reflection, but the working of historical context, which become sources of discovering and interpreting

meaningful meanings. To Gadamer, modern technology and its underlying rationality conspire to deny to

human practical life and to human self-understanding – it is precisely the destroying forces of technology that

partly eliminate this possibility. However, we need to understand Gadamer as one of the pillars of the Old

18


Frankfurt School, the first generation, who (like Herbert Marcuse, Theodor W. Adorno and Max

Horkheimer) had strong suspicion of technology.

Suspicious of such appeals to authority and to context, Habermas, the second generation of Frankfurt School,

is primarily concerned with insuring the possibility of maintaining and justifying critical perspective on

tradition and authority. If Gadamer criticises technology because it undermines authority and traditional context

of meaning, Habermas criticise it because it has become authority. Habermas argues that science and

technology become self-legitimising in such a way that practical questions are being subordinated to (and even

replaced by) technical questions, i.e. question concerning the most efficient means for the realisation of ends,

where those ends appear to be beyond our reflective control. He proposes Theory of Communicative Action (1985)

to remedy the gloomy diagnoses espoused by the first generation of Frankfurt School thinkers like Gadamer.

Habermas aims at rescuing the collapse of ‘lebenwelt’ (lifeworld), i.e. to find ways to preserve and protect from

the encroachment of instrumental imperatives, a space for an autonomous, rational and communicatively

achieved consensus about issues of practical life. And technology, whose inherent working is of instrumental

rationality, is detrimental to the re-birth of lifeworld – because it is a means that has become an authority

itself.

Finally, it must be remembered that it is a fact that ICTs as new technologies have been involved entirely in

the whole of society and all levels of production in different sectors as well. Consequently, this causes and

requires new practices in production, as characterised by Castells (1996).

“The emergence of a new technological paradigm organized around new, more powerful, and more flexible information technologies makes it possible for information itself to become the product of the production process. To be more precise: the products of new information technology industries are information processing devices or information processing itself. New information technologies, by transforming the processes of information processing, act upon all domains of human activity, and make it possible to establish endless connections between different domains, as well as between elements and agents of such activities. A networked, deeply interdependent economy emerges that becomes increasingly able to apply its progress in technology, knowledge, and management to technology, knowledge, and management themselves. Such a virtuous circle should lead to greater productivity and efficiency, given the right conditions of equally dramatic organizational and institutional changes” (p. 67).

Taking this into account, we may now understand that that ‘network of ICTs’ in the Information Society is

no longer simply an ‘instrumentum’ but the ‘locus’ wherein/whereby transformation takes place. (***)

Manchester, 11 February 2005

***

19


REFERENCES

(Anheier, 2003) HK. Anheier, Measuring Global Civil Society. LSE Yearbook, London, 2003. Retrieved

from www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Yearbook/Pdf/Measuring.pdf

(Bennett, 2003) W. Lance Bennett, New Media Power: the Internet and Global Activism, in Nick Couldry and James Curran (eds), Contesting Media Power, Rowman and Littlefield: 2003

(Berland, 2000) Jody Berland, Cultural technologies and the ‘evolution’ of technological cultures, in A. Herman and T. Swiss (eds), The world wide web and contemporary cultural theory (pp.235-58), New York: Routledge, 2000

(Bijker, et al., 1989) Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989.

(Camacho, 2001) K. Camacho, The Internet: A tool for social change? Elements of a necessary discussion, Working Paper for the Project Evaluation of the Social Impact of the Internet in Central America: The Case of Civil Society Organisation, January 2001. http://www.acceso.or.cr/publica/socialchange.shtml

(Castells, 1996) Manuel Castells, The rise of network society: The Information Age – Economy, Society, and Culture – volume I, Oxford: Blackwell, 1996

(Castells, 1997) Manuel Castells, The power of identity: The Information Age – Economy, Society, and Culture – volume II, Oxford: Blackwell, 1997

(Chua, 2002) Amy Chua, World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability, Doubleday Books, 2002

(Curtain, 2004) Richard Curtain, Information and Communications Technologies and Development: Help or Hindrance?, Virtual Colombo Plan, AusAID, Melbourne: 13 January 2004

(Curtis & Zurcher, 1973) RL. Curtis and LA. Zurcher, Stable resources of protest movements: The multi-organizational field, Journal of Social Forces, (52):pp.53-61

(Clayton, et al., 2000) Andrew Clayton, Peter Oakley and Jon Taylor, Civil Society Organizations and Service Provision, Paper No. 2, UNRISD Programme On Civil Society And Social Movements, New York: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), 2000

(Diani 1990) Mario Diani, The Italian Ecology Movement: From Radicalism to Moderation in W. Rudig (ed.), Green Politics, vol.1, pp.153-76., 1990

(Danermark, 2002) Berth Danermark, Mats Ekstrom, Liselotte Jakobsen and Jan Ch. Karlsson, Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences, London: Routledge, 2002 (first published in Sweden, 1997).

(Edwards & Hulme, 1996) Michael Edwards and David Hulme, Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World, Kumarian Press, 1996

(Eldridge, 1971) J.E.T. Eldridge, Max Weber: the Interpretation of social reality, London: Michael Joseph, 1971

(Fukuyama, 1993) Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, London: Penguin, 1993.

(Garnham, 1999) Nicolas Garnham, Information Politics: The study of communicative power, in William H. Dutton (ed.), Society on the line: Information politics in the digital age, pp.77-78, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999

20

http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Yearbook/Pdf/Measuring.pdf

http://www.acceso.or.cr/publica/socialchange.shtml


(Gerlach & Hine, 1970) L. Gerlach and V. Hine, People, power, change: Movements of social transformation, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill

(Giddens, 1984) Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, London: Polity Press, 1984

(Giddens, 1998) Anthony Giddens, The Third Way: Renewal of Social Democracy, London: Polity Press, 1998

(Giddens, 1999) Anthony Giddens, Globalisation: The Reith Lectures, London: BBC News Online. Available (April 2003) online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week1/week1.htm

(Graham, 1999) Gordon Graham, The Internet: A Philosophical inquiry, London: Routledge, 1999.

(Habermas, 1985) Jurgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, Beacon Press, 1985

(Hamelink, 1997) CJ. Hamelink, New Information and Telecommunication Technologies: Social development and cultural change, Discussion Paper No. 6, Geneva: UNRISD, 1997

(Held and McGrew, 2000) David Held and Anthony McGrew, The Global Transformation Reader, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.

(Hill & Sen, 2002) David T. Hill and Krishna Sen, Netizens in combat: Conflict on the Internet in Indonesia, International Journal of Asian Studies Review, No. 2, Volume 26, June 2002, pp. 165-187

(Holland & Henriot, 2002) Joe Holland & Peter Henriot, Analisis Sosial & Refleksi Teologis (Social Analysis & Theological Reflection), Pustaka Teologi, Ed. 9, Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 2002.

(Ibrahim, et al., 2003) Rustam Ibrahim, Abdi Suryaningati and Tom Malik, Indonesia – Background Paper, Asia Pacific Philanthropy Conference (APPC), 5-7 September, 2003

(Illich, 1973) Ivan Illich, Tools for Conviviality, New York: Harper and Row, 1973.

(Korac-Kakabadse, et al., 2000) Nada Korac-Kakabadse, Alexander Kouzmin & Andrew Korac-Kakabadse, Information

Technology and Development: Creating ‘IT harems’, fostering new colonialism or solving ‘wicked’ policy problems?, International Journal of Public Administration and Development, No. 20, 2000, pp. 171-184

(Kling, 1996) John R. Kling, Hopes and horrors: technological utopianism and anti-utopianism in narratives of computerization, CMC Magazine, February. Available online at http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1996/feb/kling.html, viewed April 2003

(Lim, 2002) Merlyna Lim, Cyber-civic space: From panopticon to pandemonium?, International Development and Planning Review, Liverpool University Press, 24 (4), 2000, pp. 383-400

(Lim, 2003) Merlyna Lim, The Internet, social networks and reform in Indonesia, in N. Couldry and J. Curran (eds), Contesting Media Power: Alternative media in a networked world (pp. 273-288), London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003

(Lim, 2004) Merlyna Lim, Un-negotiated Truth: the Polarization of Identity through the Internet and the Struggle for Democracy in Indonesia, Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication.

(MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985) Donald A. MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman (eds), The Social Shaping of Technology, Bristol: Open University Press, 1985.

(Mansell & Steinmueller, 2002) Robin Mansell and Edward Steinmueller, Mobilising the information society: Strategies for growth and opportunity, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002

21

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week1/week1.htm

http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1996/feb/kling.html


(McConnell, 2000) Scott McConnell, A champion in our midst: Lessons learned from the impacts of NGO’s use of the Internet, Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, http://www.ejisdc.org, 2 (5), 2000, pp. 1-15, viewed 2/01/05

(Miles, 1996) Ian Miles, the Information Society: Competing Perspectives on the Social and Economic Implications of Information and Communication Technologies, in William H. Dutton, Information and Communication Technologies: Visions and Realities, pp. 37-52, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

(Nugroho, 2002) Yanuar Nugroho, Descartes might say: 'I buy, therefore I am', The Jakarta Post – Opinion and Editorial, 10 July 2002

(Osa, 2003) M. Osa, Solidarity and contention: The network of Polish opposition, 1954-81, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003

(Petras, 1997) James Petras, Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America, Monthly Review, 49, No. 7, pp.10-27., 1997. Available online at http://www.monthlyreview.org/1297petr.htm, viewed January 2005.

(Postman, 1993) N. Postman, Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology, New York: Vintage Books, 1993

(Riker, 2001) James V. Riker, Using Information Technology to foster democracy: The promise and perils of civil society advocacy in Asia, paper for the 2001 Independent Sector Spring Research Forum, The Union Institute, 2001

(Rucht, 1989) D. Rucht, Environmental movement organizations in West Germany and France, in B.

Klandermans (ed.), Organising for change. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1989

(Simpson, 1995) Lorenzo C. Simpson, Technology, time and the conversations of modernity, New York: Routledge, 1995

(Sein & Ahmad, 2001) MK Sein and I.U. Ahmad, A framework to Study the Impact of ICTs in Developing Countries: The Case of Cellular Phones in Bangladesh, Proceeding, BitWorld 2001, Cairo, Egypt: 2001

(Surman, 2001) Mark Surman, From Access to Application, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, 2001. http://www.volunteersonline.ca/news/environmentalscan.htm

(Surman & Reilly, 2003) Mark Surman and Katherine Reilly, Appropriating the Internet for social change: Towards the strategic use of networked technologies by transnational civil society organisations, Social Science Research Council, 2003. Available online at http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/ as viewed 28/01/05

(Toepatimasang, 1993) Roem Toepatimasang, Lima Paradigma Dasar Organisasi (Five basic paradigms of CSOs activities), LP3ES Journal, Jakarta: LP3ES, 1993

(Thurlow, et al., 2004) Crispin Thurlow, Laura Lengel and Alice Tomic, Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet, London: Sage, 2004.

(Turkle, 1990) Sherry Turkle, The psychology of personal computers, in T. Forester (ed), The information technology revolution (pp. 287-304), Oxford: Blackwell, 1990

(Uhlin, 2000) Anders Uhlin, Towards an integration of domestic and transnational dimensions of democratisation: Regime transition in Indonesia, paper prepared for the ECPR Joint Sessions, Workshop 4: Democracy and Development: Theoretical gains and challenges, Copenhagen, Denmark, 14-19 April 2000

(WDI, 2003) World Development Indicator, United Nations, 2003

22

http://www.ejisdc.org/

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1297petr.htm

http://www.volunteersonline.ca/news/environmentalscan.htm

http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/


(Winters, 2002) JA Winters, The Political Impact of New Information Sources and Technologies in Indonesia, Gazette, April 2002, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 109-119(11), London: Sage, 2002

(Yoshihara, 1988) Kunio Yoshihara, The Rise of Ersatz Capitalism in South-east Asia, Manila: University of Philippines Press: 1988

***

23

icts – instrumentum or locus of transformation?

Documents