‍

There is much contestation surrounding the notion of the history of the internet, in relation to both its infrastructure, as well as its manifestation into a facilitator for rapid globalization. The following essay seeks to interrogate the cultural disparities in global and local engagements with the topic, expanding on the key themes of “cultural imperialism”, globalization, “digital empowerment” and “geographical knowledge”.

It is essential to establish that the notion of “the history of the Internet” supersedes any single definition (Haigh, Russell, Dutton, & Culture, 2015, pp. 143-144). For the purpose of this paper, the aforementioned term will be interrogated within the context of the convergence of digital and communicative technologies, and how this formulates the foundation of global culture. Initially intended on being a local network, the internet was not deliberated to connect the entire world, and the term itself now encompasses both its hardware, software, and the experiences it allows for. As such, human agency forms an integral role in the development and use of the Internet, with its development largely attributed to users “…making decisions in a variety of specific political, economic, and social contexts,” (Haigh et al., 2015, p. 147). Such contexts surrounding Internet use are imperative to understanding the manner in which it effects the highly-contested process of globalization (Gittinger, 2014, p. 509). This notion is best explained by Anthony Giddens (1990, p. 64) as an “intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.” Subsequently, globalization is crucial in understanding the global condition, as it frames the social and political workings of the world, and Giddens’ definition succinctly summarizes the manner in which Internet-facilitated globalization allows for a world in which time and space become inconsequential, leading to immediate multiculturalism (Gittinger, 2014, pp. 510-511). 

Criticisms of globalization specifically target the global influence of powerful corporations, and further view them as perpetrators of “cultural homogenization,” (Gittinger, 2014, p. 509). Professor Edward Said dubs this process one of “cultural imperialism”, and further claims that “...the enterprise of empire depends on the idea of having an empire ... and all kinds of preparations are made for it within culture; then in turn imperialism acquires a kind of coherence, a set of experiences, and presence of ruler and ruled alike within the culture,” (1993, p. 10). However, while imperialism is enacted in various forms, digitally-facilitated “cultural imperialism”, dubbed “cyberimperialism” (Gittinger, 2014, p. 509), does not bear similarities to regressive or progressive imperialism. These terms are categorized by a desire for “aggressive supremacy” (Gittinger, 2014, pp. 510-511) in conquest and exploitation, or to bring alleged ‘civilization’ to non-western societies. Instead, “cyberimperialism” may be viewed as a form of systemic imperialism – an instant whereby dominant cultures, usually the West, implement their societal norms upon other localities. This comes as the result of, largely, the Internet’s ideology seemingly mirroring that of the West – namely, America’s – as well as the manner in which Western discourse dominates the web (Gittinger, 2014, pp. 512-514; Manovich, Lovink, & Studies, 1999, p. 83). Furthermore, there is an evident misrepresentation of the subaltern, leading to a situation whereby “…the core nations could, in theory, control the world through how they describe political events, ideologies, or other civilizations…” (pp. 512-514). The result of such imperialism is that the paradigm of information production and consumption is entirely altered, yet it is viewed as commonplace within Internet culture. 

Due to the wide-reaching nature of the internet, it is undisputable that contemporary society has an increased awareness of belonging to a global community (Giddens, 1990, p. 64). Subsequently, local communities and identity are constructed within a global context. This is made far more complex when considering the dynamic between the Global North – the West – and the Global South. Despite being separated spatially, the internet has allowed for “decentered interlocality” which “…depends upon an interplay between Global South and Global North in which the significance of the local increases with the recognition of its connection to the circuits of power, equally intractable and ubiquitous, but simultaneously present in other locations as well,” (Trefzer, Jackson, McKee, & Dellinger, 2014, p. 4). As such, the notion of “decentered interlocality” illuminates the process through which the disparities between the Global North and Global South may be recognized and altered. 

Furthermore, the notion of the “Digital Divide” enables the West to continually perpetuate their cultural norms onto the Internet, while the Global South may be unable to access and interact in such a space (Gittinger, 2014, pp. 510-511). The “Digital Divide” is a term ascribed to the global circumstances surrounding various countries’ capacities to access the internet (Gittinger, 2014, p. 511). This is consequential to a country’s economy and infrastructural capabilities, and may even take place within a single nation in a manner that demonstrates the disparities between economic classes. Subsequently, the notion of “cyberimperialism” may be largely attributed to an inequity in access to the Internet, thereby leaving the West’s dominant discourse uncontested (Gittinger, 2014, pp. 516-518). 

However, as illustrated by Nimmi Rangaswamy and Payal Arora, the “Digital Divide” is rapidly narrowing (2015, pp. 611-613), with technology gradually being incorporated into daily life by means of “leisure avenues” and providing individuals with “diverse levels of literacy” (Rangaswamy & Arora, 2015, pp. 615-616). As a result, localities – specifically within the Global South – determine and define the dynamic between general understandings of technology, and the manner in which these technologies are used by their community (Rangaswamy & Arora, 2015, pp. 615-616). Cultural production is therefore greatly impacted, as notions of community and identity are transformed through the interactions facilitated by digital technology (Rangaswamy & Arora, 2015, pp. 615-616). Additionally, the internet may form an integral part of culture-building for the Global South due to the notion of “digital empowerment”, whereby its capacity for a bi-directional flow of knowledge allows for leisure-oriented engagement whereby for various localities can engage with the global community. 

Furthermore, to contrast the notion of “cultural imperialism”, scholars suggest that the Internet forms the foundation for marginalized voices to define their own image (Gittinger, 2014, pp. 512-514). In particular, scholar Arjun Appadurai problematizes the notion of “cyberimperialism” by pointing out its failure to consider the extent to which local cultures and contexts respond to and redefine cultural forms (1990, p. 48). Appadurai further claims that globalization does not inevitably lead to homogenization, although it does use similar “instruments of homogenization (armaments, advertising techniques, language hegemonies, and clothing styles) that are absorbed into local political and cultural economies…” (1990, p. 48) and are exported in a manner that reflects diversity. Subsequently, he proposes a new framework in theorizing globalization, adding that “the complexity of the current global economy has to do with certain fundamental disjuncture’s between economy, culture and politics,” (1990, p. 41), and proceeds to outline a framework through which the flow of culture can be traced globally, which he dubs “imagined worlds”, and comprise “the historically situated imaginations of persons and groups spread around the globe,” (1990, p. 41). 

Appadurai, cited in Rangaswamy and Arora (2015, pp. 616-618), further utilizes his theory of “imagined worlds” to place emphasis on the dynamic between culture, poverty and development through the lens of aspiration. Aspiration, in this sense, is “conceived as a cultural capacity,” (2015, p. 616) through which the Global South – specifically the poor – can contest the conditions in which they live. In a social context, “imagined worlds” comprise collective desires, whereby a community aspires to “… inhabit and sustain a space… involving large amounts of labour, attention and effort,” (2015, p. 616). 

Informed by both Appadurai’s theory as well as the notion of the “Digital Divide”, Mark Graham explores “information geographies” – the sources from which information is produced, and the socio-economic circumstances leading to the information manifesting in such a manner (2014, p. 4). Per Graham, the notion of “geographical knowledge” alleges that representation is closely associated with power (2014, p. 6). Subsequently, uneven representations of “geographical knowledge” present in relation to the internet has the capacity to shape popular culture as well as popular world views (Graham, 2014, pp. 7-9). However, this argument is refuted by noting that the Internet allows for individuals from communities within the Global South to deliberate and project meaning from their local contexts, through the use of social media in particular. As noted by Rangaswamy and Arora, online engagements serve as integral foundational sites, accessible despite spatial and social constraints, whereby a bi-directional flow of information allows for an immersive dynamic to emerge between “people, digital media and informal learning,” (Rangaswamy & Arora, 2015, pp. 611-613).

“The History of the Internet” exceeds any simple definition, and my argument focuses on this notion in relation to its global and local nature. The notion of globalization is integral in this context, with aspects of “cultural imperialism” evident in such a process. However, despite the problems such as the “Digital Divide”, the daily use of the internet for leisure within the Global South allows for communities to extrapolate and create meaning, while simultaneously giving rise to “digital empowerment”.

References:

Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Theory, Culture & Society, 7(2-3), 295-310. 

Giddens, A. (1990). Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gittinger, J. L. (2014). Is there such a thing as ‘cyberimperialism?’. Continuum, 28(4), 509-519. 

Graham, M. (2014). Inequitable Distributions in Internet Geographies. Innovations, 9(3-4), 3-19. 

Haigh, T., Russell, A. L., Dutton, W. H. J. I., & Culture. (2015). Histories of the Internet: Introducing a special issue of information & culture. 50(2), 143-159. 

Manovich, L., Lovink, G. J. C. J. o. M., & Studies, C. (1999). Digital constructivism: What is European software? An exchange between Lev Manovich and Geert Lovink. 13(2), 165-173. 

Rangaswamy, N., & Arora, P. (2015). The mobile internet in the wild and every day: Digital leisure in the slums of urban India. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 19(6), 611-626. doi:10.1177/1367877915576538

Said, E. (1993). Culture and Imperialism: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Trefzer, A., Jackson, J., McKee, K., & Dellinger, K. (2014). The Global South and/in the Global North: Interdisciplinary Investigations. The Global South, 8(2), 1-15. 

‍