Politics of hate and hope onthe Web

“XLI The Annual Conference of Political Scientists”

12­13 March 2009 University of Tampere

Tapio Häyhtiö (tapio.hayhtio@uta.fi)Jarmo Rinne (jarmo.rinne@uta.fi)

http://www.edemokratia.uta.fi/Department of Political Science and

International Relations, University of Tampere

The impact of Web 2.0 on politics 1

n Narrow & broad perspectives: politics isnecessary and unavoidable structure­oriented politics doesn’t catch thechanging nature of political activity

n activity by the people instead of activityfor the people: action­oriented politics

n Personal broadcasting  / narrowcasting emergeon websites and Web 2.0. platforms user­generated de­medialisation

The impact of Web 2.0 on politics  2

n Politics emerges reflexively from issuespecific questions/conflicts throughindividual political judgement based onideological stances and/or subjective viewsand values.

n CMC could be employed both to advancethe good intentions (politics of hope) and topursue evil deeds (politics of hate).

n Political environment fractures into diverse,complex and multi­spatial networks utilisingvarious platforms

The impact of Web 2.0 on politics 3n CMC enables citizens to promote their own

political visions, and challenge the other“political truths”¡ Personal is political PiP1¡ Political is Personal PiP2

n In politics of hate/hope the aim is to harnesscollective belonging (sense of collectiveidentity)

n computer­mediated communication: a politicaltool, channel, forum and virtual community

n enables people to transcend the normal (spatio­temporal) limits and constraints of politics

Consequences to the architecture ofpolitical participation

l Involvement from below: actionist citizenshipcitizens’own public action

l “Light­activism”: creating causes and invitingpeople to join in groups, events and activitiesswarming effect may cause meshworkingcollectivity likeminded people bunching uparound issue­specific questions/themes/topics

l Reflexive politics: individualised civic watch(Tehotuotanto.net), political consumerism(Carrotmob), ideologically/quasi­ideologicallybased actitivities (racist hate groups, schoolshooting communities, religious fundamentalism)

The dimensions of hate andhope in politics

l web­communities representing variation ofcontrasting approaches to their politicalintentions with regard to humanity.

l Focus on the political hope and hate emergingon the Internet.

l new motivational digital divide, in which theweb­communities can use the potential of theInternet either to build up or tear down thefabric of society and its' basic values.

Virtual hate communitiesl Communities where the ideas unacceptable to the

social, cultural and political mainstream flourish.l Often these groups form peculiar subcultures of their

own, in which extreme opinions and attitudes, suchas nihilism, misanthropy, religious fundamentalismand hate are dominant.

l The Internet as an open communicative spaceenables the formation of civic hate­cultures, wherean individual, or group, can stand for a larger groupof likeminded people mirroring their ideas, values,and opinions.

The politics of misantrophy andthe Internet

Group of people actingand strengtheningbelonging within thegroup. The reason to actis being part of the group.

Group of likemindedpeople acting andstrengthening belonging

within the group

Collectivistic

Individual action based onpersonal causes not incoherent world view

behind the action

Individual action havingsome groundings onideology: an individualpossess certain world

view and act accordingly

Individualistic

Non­ideologicalIdeological/quasi­ideological

The politics of misantrophy andthe Internet

Gang fights, criminalorganisations (Mafia,motor bike clubs)

School Shooting fanclubs, nazis, racistFacebook groups

Collectivistic

School shooters,mentally disturbed

School shooters,individually actingterrorists(Myyrmanni,Oklaholma CityBombing)

Individualistic

Non­ideologicalIdeological/quasi­ideological

Concluding remarks 1•Web 2.0 offers multi­spatial networks to

partipate and act• topics are addressed to universal or

particular audiences to pursue social orpolitical aims or ends

• contrast between the “big politics”from above and small “do­it­yourself”politics.

• individual’s personal responsible taking

Concluding remarks 2• Actionist politics may not be realised due

to marginalisation, despite of some”success stories”.

• Motivatinal drives could be issue­specific,situation­bounded or ideologically sound,based on subjective political judgement.

• De­medialised net­environment hastransformed participation and activitymore networked and individual­based