My definition of a network society, from the all made up Nkay-tionary, is a group or groups of people connected via the world wide web commonly known as the Internet, from vast geographical locations .i.e. Africa to South America or USA to Japan.
Nonetheless the politically correct and complicated definition of a network society, defined by van Dijk, is a social formation with an infrastructure of social and media networks enabling its prime mode of organization at all levels (individual, group/organisational and societal). Increasingly, these networks link all units or parts of this formation (individuals, groups and organizations). In western societies, the individual linked by networks is becoming the basic unit of the network society. In eastern societies, this might still be the group (family, community, work team) linked by networks. With that said and done, I’m sure that you’re super confused and thrown off the bus. So in simple English, there’s is an established relation between political, economic, cultural and social systems that are linked or connected on a global, societal, group or organisational and individual levels. This link or connection is facilitated by telecommunications and computer systems. This in turn, generates the inclusive role of mobile technology within the network society.
"In the world of fashion, one day you’re in and the next you’re out", a phrase famously spoken by Project Runway host and judge, Heidi Klum. Similarly in the techno world, Nokia Lumia X today, Nokia Lumia X3 tomorrow. Though it’s too much of an exaggeration, it’s a reality. Technological innovation is a rapid process. Personal computers and laptops are almost a thing of the past. Mobile technology such as Blackberry, Samsung, iPhone, Nokia and Sony Ericson are changing the face of the technological innovation. Though before such gadgets are present fixed telephony, also known as land line, was the core foundation of a network society.
Though one was not connected to a vast number of individuals or groups, a connection between individual to individual was present. The connection between both parties was done manually then with time it was done automatically. Skip and a hope through the timeline and the invention of cell phone revolutionises the technological world. With constant innovative cell phones being manufactured, the more the network society involves. With software such Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Instagram and so forth, it established a knowledgeable connection amongst locals of a country to vast individuals of various citizenship and culture.
Therefore why would I then disagree with van Dijk’s statement that mobile and wireless technology won’t spread the network society to the most remote places and the deepest pores of the world? Firstly one needs to consider the fact that certain parts of the world such as African countries lack infrastructure to facilitate such technological innovation. Over the period of years, Africa has been seen as a developing continent as a whole. The presence of civil wars makes it difficult for such a process to take place. While South Africa may be more developed compared to other African countries, it too fails to facilitate the passing of a network society reaching the deepest pores of the world. Secondly, Internet access is freely accessible in North American countries whilst in South Africa one needs to purchase their way in. Accessing the Internet in South Africa is quite pricey too. Another factor is the role of political or government power. In Zimbabwe Internet access is strictly monitored due to the president’s abuse and grip on power.
Therefore, I have lack of confidence that a network society shall reach the deepest pores of the world. Frankly, as much of a utopian world this sounds, reality needs to kick in as a network society of such a nature is beyond becoming a reality.
Sources
van Dijk, J. 2006. The Network Society: Aspects of New Media. 2nd ed. SAGE Publication Ltd: London
No comments:
Post a Comment