The Amateur

Computerist

Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Spring 2012 In Honor of Michael Hauben and the Emergence of the Netizens Volume 21 No. 2

Table of Contents

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

Participatory Democracy: SDS into Future Online.. . . . Page 2

Researching the “Net”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11

Computer as a Democratizer.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15

What the Net Means to Me. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18

Culture and Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19

Printing Press and the Net.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 23

Effect of the Net on Professional News Media. . . . . . . Page 31

New York City Civic Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 39

Does Progress Result from Technology?. . . . . . . . . . . Page 42

Introduction

On May 1, 1997, the book Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet was

published in a print edition. This May Day, May 1,

2012, marks the 15

anniversary of that occasion.

Five years ago, on the occasion of the 10

anni-

versary of the book, I wrote an article for the online

magazine Telepolis (

www.heise.de/tp). In the article

I wrote that an anniversary “offers an occasion to

consider the potential of the Net that was identified

in Netizens and to assess what has developed with

regard to this potential today.”

I reviewed some of the background of Netizens:

“During the course of his pioneering research in the

early 1990s, Michael Hauben discovered a surpris-

ing phenomenon. He recognized that there was a

new social consciousness developing among those

in the online community. At the time, the Internet

had recently emerged as a new communications in-

frastructure. More and more people were gaining

access. The experience of being online and of hav-

ing access to the participatory interactive online en-

vironment was proving to be a significance experi-

ence.”

The article continued, “People were eager to

explore the nature and power of these new commu-

nication capabilities. To be online led to a feeling of

empowerment. The idea began to impress itself on

some in the online community that here was the po-

tential for a new meaning for the concept of citizen.

Could the Internet make it possible for the citizen to

be able to act in a way not hitherto possible? Could

the Net really make it possible for citizens to be-

come active participants in the process of determin-

ing what happened in their society?”

The result of this process was that “a new iden-

tify was in the process of being generated. This was

a social identity as a citizen of the Net, as a

netizen.”

To celebrate the 15

anniversary of the publica-

tion of the print edition of Netizens we have gath-

ered a number of articles written or presented as

talks by Michael Hauben. This collection brings

together both new work Michael did after the publi-

cation of Netizens along with work done earlier

which was not included in the book. Also included

in this collection are some of Michael’s articles that

were published in Netizens.

This collection of articles and speeches particu-

larly concentrates the ability Michael had to reflect

on the importance of a current development through

the perspective of a commentary on an earlier devel-

opment. He was thus able to grasp the long range

broader implications of the contemporaneous devel-

opment of the Internet.

In his article “The Expanding Commonwealth

of Learning: Printing and the Net,” (p. 22, this is-

sue) Michael writes, “Understanding how the print-

ing press unleashed a communications revolution

provides a basis to assess if the establishment of

Page 1

worldwide computer communication networking is

the next communication revolution.”

The articles in this collection consider how the

Net is expanding the ability of the common people

with access to the Net to communicate with each

other to offer to the world their thoughts, ideas and

questions, in short, for the common people to con-

tribute to the intellectual and creative common-

wealth still coming into existence in a way never

before possible.

And it is this broadening of intellectual and col-

laborative cooperation that similarly makes possible

and desired more democratic political structures and

institutions.

For Michael, the key to this ferment is the

Netizen, those who contribute to the ever expanding

public set of resources. This is the unique advance.

“Making a contribution is an integral part of

Netizen behavior,” writes Michael.

He sees the Net as a “new kind of public

space,” a space that makes “collaboration and coop-

eration possible.” This new public commons, as

Michael characterizes the public space made avail-

able via the Net, is one where “people are encour-

aged to share their views, thoughts and questions

with others.” It is a “many to many” process where

netizens can broadcast to others around the world

and get responses back. This participation Michael

recognized is an empowering experience.

Personal computer pioneer Lee Felsenstein re-

alized that “the development of the commons to the

exclusion of the big media representations makes

this a grassroots medium or a new enlarged public

commons.” Michael concurs with this characteriza-

tion of the commons created by the Net.

Similarly the ability of netizens to contribute to

and create their own news is a means to create an

alternative to the commercial business oriented me-

dia. This makes possible a means to effectively

challenge the outdated forms and processes that

have come to dominate in the commercial media

environment.

The Net is “the poor man’s version of the mass

media” writes Michael. With the Net, the monopoly

of the elites over the media was broken. One impor-

tant example of the potential of the Net, Michael ex-

plains, is that the Net bestows, “the power of the

reporter on the netizen.”

Netizens now have the ability to not only cri-

tique the misrepresentations and limitations of the

commercial media, but also to create a more broad

ranging and accurate media.

Similarly in his article “Participatory Democ-

racy: From the 1960s and SDS into the Future On-

line” (first article this issue), Michael shows how an

early goal of SDS was to create “a medium to make

it possible for a community of active citizens to dis-

cuss and debate the issues affecting their lives.”

This new communication infrastructure would be

one that would make it possible for people to have a

means to participate in the discussion and determi-

nation of the political decisions of their society. Mi-

chael pointed out that Usenet and the Internet pro-

vided what SDS saw as necessary but lacked, in Al

Haber’s words, “an institutionalized communication

system that would give perspective to our immedi-

ate actions.”

The articles in this collection, we hope, will

help to stimulate thought and discussion over the

potential of the Net and Netizen, but more pro-

foundly, over how to recognize, as Michael did, the

important prototypes that are developing and emerg-

ing. The aim is to nourish those that will help to

bring about the changes which will bring more

power to the grassroots of society in the new global

commons.

[Editor’s Note: The following was written in 1995

as a paper for the Columbia University course “Rad-

ical Tradition in America.” The year 2012 marks the

Anniversary of The Port Huron Statement

which was issued on June 15, 1962.]

Participatory Democracy

From the 1960s and SDS into

the Future On-line

by Michael Hauben

The 1960s was a time of people around the

world struggling for more of a say in the decisions

of their society. The emergence of the personal

computer in the late 70s and early 80s and the lon-

ger gestation of the new forms of people-controlled

Page 2

communication facilitated by the Internet and Use-

net in the late 80s and today are the direct descen-

dants of 1960s.

The era of the 1960s was a special time in

America. Masses of people realized their own po-

tential to affect how the world around them worked.

People rose up to protest the ways of society which

were out of their control, whether to fight against

racial segregation, or to gain more power for stu-

dents in the university setting. The Port Huron

Statement created by the Students for a Democratic

Society (SDS) was a document which helped set the

mood for the decade.

By the 1970s, some of the people who were

directly involved in student protests continued their

efforts to bring power to the people by developing

and spreading computer power in a form accessible

and affordable to individuals. The personal com-

puter movement of the 1970s created the personal

computer. By the mid 1980s they forced the corpo-

rations to produce computers which everyone could

afford. The new communications media of the

Internet grew out of the ARPANET research that

started in 1969 and Usenet which was born in 1979.

These communications advances coupled with the

availability of computers transforms the spirit of the

1960s into an achievable goal for our times.

SDS and The Need for Participatory De-

mocracy

The early members of SDS found a real prob-

lem in American society. They felt that the United

States was a democracy that never existed, or rather

which was transformed into a representative system

after the constitutional convention. The United

States society is called a democracy, but had ceased

being democratic after the early beginnings of

American society. SDS felt it is crucial for people to

have a part in how their society is governed. SDS

leaders had an understanding of democratic forms

which did not function democratically in the 1960s

nor do they today. This is a real problem which the

leaders and members of SDS intuitively understood

and worked to change.

An important part of the SDS program included

the understanding of the need for a medium to make

it possible for a community of active citizens to dis-

cuss and debate the issues affecting their lives.

While not available in the 1960s, such a medium

exists today in the 1990s. The seeds for the revival

of the 1960s SDS vision of how to bring about a

more democratic society now exists in the personal

computer and the Net. These seeds will be an im-

portant element in the battle for winning control for

people as we approach the new millennium.

The Port Huron Statement and Deep

Problems With American Democracy

The Port Huron Statement was the foundation

on which to build a movement for participatory de-

mocracy in the 1960s. In June 1962, an SDS na-

tional convention was held in a UAW camp located

in the backwoods of Port Huron, Michigan. The

original text of the Port Huron Statement was draft-

ed by Tom Hayden, who was then SDS Field Secre-

tary. The Statement sets out the theory of SDS’s

criticism of American society. The Port Huron con-

vention was itself a concrete living example of the

practice of participatory democracy.

The Port Huron Statement was originally

thought of as a manifesto, but SDS members moved

instead to call it a “statement.” It was prefixed by an

introductory note describing how it was to be a doc-

ument that should develop and change with experi-

ence: “This document represents the results of sev-

eral months of writing and discussion among the

membership, a draft paper, and revision by the Stu-

dents for a Democratic Society national convention

meeting in Port Huron, Michigan, June 11-15, 1962.

It is presented as a document with which SDS offi-

cially identifies, but also as a living document open

to change with our times and experiences. It is a

beginning: in our own debate and education, in our

dialogue with society.” (Port Huron Statement in

Miller, p. 329)

This note is important in that it signifies that

the SDS document was not defining the definite

solution to the problems of society, but was making

suggestions that would be open to experiences to-

ward a better understanding. This openness is an

important precursor to practicing participatory de-

mocracy by asking for the opinions of everyone and

treating these various opinions equally.

The first serious problem inherent in American

society identified by the Port Huron Statement is

the myth of a functioning democracy: “For Ameri-

Page 3

cans concerned with the development of democratic

societies, the anticolonial movements and revolu-

tions in the emerging nations pose serious problems.

We need to face the problems with humility; after

180 years of constitutional government we are still

striving for democracy in our own society.” (Port

Huron Statement in Miller, p. 361)

This lack of democracy in American society

contributes to the political disillusionment of the

population. Tom Hayden and SDS were deeply in-

fluenced by the writings of C. Wright Mills, a phi-

losopher who was a professor at Columbia Univer-

sity until his death early in 1962. Mills’ thesis was

that the “the idea of the community of publics”

which make up a democracy had disappeared as

people increasingly got further away from politics.

Mills felt that the disengagement of people from the

State had resulted in control being given to a few

who in the 1960s were no longer valid representa-

tives of the American people. In his book about

SDS, Democracy is in the Streets, James Miller

wrote: “Politics became a spectator sport. The sup-

port of voters was marshaled through advertising

campaigns, not direct participation in reasoned de-

bate. A citizen’s chief sources of political informa-

tion, the mass media, typically assaulted him with a

barrage of distracting commercial come-ons, feeble

entertainments and hand-me-down glosses on com-

plicated issues.” (Miller, p. 85)

Such fundamental problems with democracy

continue today in the middle of the 1990s. In the

Port Huron Statement, SDS was successful in iden-

tifying and understanding the problems which still

plague us today. This is a necessary first step to

working toward a solution. The students involved

with SDS understood people were tired of the prob-

lems and wanted to make changes in society. The

Port Huron Statement was written to address these

concerns: “…do they not as well produce a yearning

to believe there is an alternative to the present that

something can be done to change circumstances in

the school, the workplaces, the bureaucracies, the

government? It is to this latter yearning, at once the

spark and engine of change, that we direct our pres-

ent appeal. The search for a truly democratic alter-

natives to the present, and a commitment to social

experimentation with them, is a worthy and fulfill-

ing human enterprise, one which moves us, and we

hope, others today.” (Port Huron Statement in

Miller, p. 331)

Describing how the separation of people from

power is the means used to keep people uninterested

and apathetic, the Port Huron Statement explains:

“The apathy is, first, subjective – the felt powerless-

ness of ordinary people, the resignation before the

enormity of events. But subjective apathy is encour-

aged by the objective American situation – the ac-

tual structural separation of people from power,

from relevant knowledge, from pinnacles of deci-

sion-making. Just as the university influences the

student way of life, so do major social institutions

create the circumstances which the isolated citizen

will try hopelessly to understand the world and him-

self.” (“The Society Beyond” in the Port Huron

Statement, in Miller, p. 336)

The Statement analyzes the personal disconnec-

tion to society and its effect: “The very isolation of

the individual – from power and community and

ability to aspire – means the rise of democracy with-

out publics. With the great mass of people structur-

ally remote and psychologically hesitant with re-

spect to democratic institutions, those institutions

themselves attenuate and become, in the fashion of

the vicious cycle, progressively less accessible to

those few who aspire to serious participation in so-

cial affairs. The vital democratic connection be-

tween community and leadership, between the mass

and the several elites, has been so wrenched and

perverted that disastrous policies go unchallenged

time and again.” (Port Huron Statement in Miller, p.

336)

The Statement describes how it is typical for

people to get frustrated and quit going along with

the electoral system as something which works. The

problem has continued, as we now have all time

lows in voter turn-outs for national and local elec-

tions. In a section titled “Politics Without Publics,”

the Statement explains: “The American voter is buf-

feted from all directions by pseudoproblems, by the

structurally initiated sense that nothing political is

subject to human mastery. Worried by his mundane

problems which never get solved, but constrained

by the common belief that politics is an agonizingly

slow accommodation of views, he quits all pretense

of bothering.” (Port Huron Statement in Miller, p.

337)

Page 4

Students in SDS did not let these real problems

discourage their efforts to work for a better future.

They wanted to be part of the forces to defeat the

problems. The Port Huron Statement contains an

understanding that people are inherently good and

can deal with the problems that were described.

This understanding is conveyed in the “Values” sec-

tion of the Statement: “Men have unrealized poten-

tial for self-cultivation, self-direction, self-under-

standing, and creativity. It is this potential that we

regard as crucial and to which we appeal, not to the

human potential for violence, unreason, and submis-

sion to authority. The goal of man and society

should be human independence: a concern not with

the image of popularity but with finding a meaning

in life that is personally authentic; a quality of mind

not compulsively driven by a sense of powerless-

ness, nor one which unthinkingly adopts status val-

ues, nor one which represses all threats to its habits,

but one which easily unites the fragmented parts of

personal history, one which openly faces problems

which are troubling and unresolved; one with an

intuitive awareness of possibilities, an active sense

of curiosity, an ability and willingness to learn.”

(Port Huron Statement in Miller, p. 332)

Participatory Democracy

Those participating in the Port Huron conven-

tion came away with a sense of the importance of

participatory democracy. This sense was in the air in

several ways. The convention itself embodied par-

ticipatory democracy through the discussion and

debate over the text of the Statement as several peo-

ple later explained. The Port Huron Statement call-

ed for the implementation of participatory democ-

racy as a way to bring people back into decisions

about the country in general, and their individual

lives, in particular. One of Tom Hayden’s profes-

sors at University of Michigan, Arnold Kaufman,

came to speak about his thoughts and use of phrase

‘participatory democracy.’

Miller writes that in a 1960 essay, “Participa-

tory Democracy and Human Nature,” Kaufman had

described a society in which every member had a

“direct responsibility for decisions.” The “main

justifying function” of participatory democracy,

quotes Miller, “is and always has been, not the ex-

tent to which it protects or stabilizes a community,

but the contribution it can make to the development

of human powers of thought, feeling and action. In

this respect, it differs, and differs quite fundamen-

tally, from a representative system incorporating all

sorts of institutional features designed to safeguard

human rights and ensure social order.” (Miller, p.

94)

“Participation” explained Kaufman, “means

both personal initiative – that men feel obliged to

help resolve social problems – and social opportu-

nity – that society feels obliged to maximize the

possibility for personal initiative to find creative out-

lets.” (Miller, p. 95)

A participant at the Port Huron Conference,

Richard Flacks remembers Arnold Kaufman speak-

ing at the convention, “At one point, he declared

that our job as citizens was not to role-play the Pres-

ident. Our job was to put forth our own perspective.

That was the real meaning of democracy – press for

your own perspective as you see it, not trying to be a

statesman understanding the big picture.” (Miller, p.

111)

After identifying participatory democracy as the

means of how to wrest control back from corporate

and government bureaucracies, the next step was to

identify the means to having participatory democ-

racy. In the “Values” section of The Port Huron

Statement, the means proposed is a new media that

would make this possible: “As a social system we

seek the establishment of a democracy of individual

participation governed by two central aims: that the

individual share in those social decisions determin-

ing the quality and direction of his life; the society

be organized to encourage independence in men and

provide the media for their common participation.”

(Port Huron Statement in Miller, p. 333)

Others in SDS further detailed their understand-

ings of participatory democracy to mean people be-

coming active and committed to playing more of a

public role. Miller documents Al Haber’s idea of

democracy as ‘a model, another way of organizing

society.’ The emphasis was on a charge to action. It

was how to be out there doing. Rather than an ideol-

ogy or a theory.” (Miller, pp. 143-144)

Tom Hayden, Miller writes, understood partici-

patory democracy to mean: “number one, action; we

believed in action. We had behind us the so-called

decade of apathy; we were emerging from apathy.

Page 5

What’s the opposite of apathy? Active participation.

Citizenship. Making history. Secondly, we were

very directly influenced by the civil rights move-

ment in its student phase, which believed that by

personally committing yourself and taking risks,

you could enter history and try to change it after a

hundred years of segregation. And so it was this

element of participation in democracy that was im-

portant. Voting was not enough. Having a democ-

racy in which you have an apathetic citizenship,

spoon-fed information by a monolithic media, peri-

odically voting, was very weak, a declining form of

democracy. And we believed, as an end in itself, to

make the human being whole by becoming an actor

in history instead of just a passive object. Not only

as an end in itself, but as a means to change, the

idea of participatory democracy was our central fo-

cus.” (Miller, p. 144) Another member of SDS,

Sharon Jeffrey understood “Participatory” to mean

“involved in decisions.” She continued, “And I defi-

nitely wanted to be involved in decisions that were

going to affect me! How could I let anyone make a

decision about me that I wasn’t involved in?”

(Miller, p. 144)

It is important to see the value of participatory

democracy as a common understanding among both

the leaders and members of SDS. While the Port

Huron Statement contained other criticisms and

thoughts, its major contribution was to highlight the

need to more actively involve the citizens of the

United States in the daily political process to correct

some of the wrongs which passivity had allowed to

build. Richard Flacks summarizes this in his article,

“On the Uses of Participatory Democracy”: “The

most frequently heard phrase for defining participa-

tory democracy is that ‘men must share in the deci-

sions which effect their lives.’ In other words, par-

ticipatory democrats take seriously a vision of man

as citizen: and by taking seriously such a vision,

they seek to extend the conception of citizenship

beyond the conventional political sphere to all insti-

tutions. Other ways of stating the core values are to

assert the following: each man has responsibility for

the action of the institutions in which he is embed-

ded….” (Flacks, pp. 397-398)

The Need for Community for

Participatory Democracy

The leaders of SDS strove to create forms of

participatory democracy within its structure and or-

ganization as a prototype and as leadership for the

student protest movement and society in general. Al

Haber, the University of Michigan graduate student

who was the first SDS national officer, describes the

need for a communication system to provide the

foundation for the movement: “The challenge ahead

is to appraise and evolve radical alternatives to the

inadequate society of today, and to develop an insti-

tutionalized communication system that will give

perspective to our immediate actions. We will then

have the groundwork for a radical student move-

ment in America.” (Sale, p. 25)

He understood the general society would be the

last place to approach. There was a need to start

smaller among the elements of society that was be-

coming more active in the 1960s or the students.

Haber outlined his idea of where to start: “We do

not now have such a public [interaction in a func-

tioning community] in America. Perhaps, among the

students, we are beginning to approach it on the left.

It is now the major task before liberals, radicals,

socialists and democrats. It is a task in which the

SDS should play a major role.” (Miller, p. 69)

The Port Huron Statement defines ‘community’

to mean: “Human relations should involve fraternity

and honesty. Human interdependence is a contem-

porary fact;…. ‘Personal links between man and

man are needed.’” (Port Huron Statement in Miller,

p. 332)

Prior to his full time involvement with SDS,

Hayden wrote an article for the Michigan Daily de-

scribing how democratic decision making is a nec-

essary first step toward creating community.

Hayden’s focus was on the University when he

wrote, “If decisions are the sole work of an isolated

few rather than of a participating many, alienation

from the University complex will emerge, because

the University will be just that: a complex, not a

community.” However, this sentiment persisted in

Hayden’s and others thoughts about community and

democracy for the whole country. (Miller, p. 54)

This feeling about community is represented in

the Port Huron Statement’s conclusion. The State-

ment calls for the communal sharing of problems to

Page 6

see that they are public and not private problems.

Only by communicating and sharing these problems

through a community will it be a chance to solve

them together. SDS called for the new left to “trans-

form modern complexity into issues that can be un-

derstood and felt close-up by every human being.”

The statement continues, “It must give form to the

feelings of helplessness and indifference, so people

may see the political, social an economic sources of

their private troubles and organize to change soci-

ety….’” (Port Huron Statement in Miller, p. 374)

The theory of participatory democracy was en-

gaging. However, the actual practice of giving ev-

eryone a say within the SDS structures made the

value of participatory democracy clear. The Port

Huron Convention was a real life example of how

the principles were refreshing and capable of bring-

ing American citizens back into political process.

The community created among SDS members

brought this new spirit to light. C. Wright Mills

writings spoke about “the scattered little circles of

face-to-face citizens discussing their public busi-

ness.” Al Haber’s hope for this to happen among

students was demonstrated at Port Huron. SDS

members saw this as proof of Mills’ hope for de-

mocracy. This was to be the first example of many

among SDS gatherings and meetings. Richard

Flacks highlighted what made Port Huron special.

He found a “mutual discovery of like minds.”

Flacks continued, “You felt isolated before, because

you had these political interests and values and sud-

denly you were discovering not only like minds, but

the possibility of actually creating something to-

gether.” It was also exciting because, “it was our

thing: we were there at the beginning.” (Miller, p.

118)

The Means For Change

SDS succeeded in doing several things. First,

they clearly identified the crucial problem in Ameri-

can democracy. Next, they came up with an under-

standing of what theory would make a difference.

All that remained was to find the means to make

this change manifest. They discovered how to create

changes in their own lives and these changes af-

fected the world around them. However, something

more was needed to bring change to all of American

society.

Al Haber understood this something more

would be an open communication system or media

which people could use to communicate. He under-

stood that, “the challenge ahead is to appraise and

evolve radical alternatives to the inadequate society

of today, and to develop an institutionalized com-

munication system that will give perspective to our

immediate actions.” (Sale, p. 25) This system would

lay the “the groundwork for a radical student move-

ment in America.” (Sale, p. 25) Haber and Hayden

understood SDS to be this, “a national communica-

tions network” (Miller, p. 72)

While many people made their voices heard

and produced a real effect on the world in the

1960s, lasting structural changes were not estab-

lished. The real problems outlined earlier continued

in the 1970s and afterwards. A national, or even an

international, public communications network

needed to be built to keep the public’s voice out in

the open.

Members of SDS partially understood this, and

put forth the following two points in the Port Huron

Statement section on “Toward American Democ-

racy”:

– “Mechanisms of voluntary association must be

created through which political information can be

imparted and political participation encouraged.”

– “The allocation of resources must be based on

social needs. A truly ‘public sector’ must be estab-

lished, and its nature debated and planned.” (Port

Huron Statement in Miller, p. 362)

International Public Communications

Network – or The Net

This network and the means to access it began

developing toward the end of the 1960s. Two mile-

stones in the genesis were 1969 when the first

ARPANET node was installed and in 1979 when

Usenet started. Both are pioneering experiments in

using computers to facilitate human communication

in a fundamentally different way than already exist-

ing public communications networks like the tele-

phone or television networks. The ARPANET,

which was a prototype for today’s Internet, and

Usenet, which continues to grow and expand around

the world, are parts of the Net, or the worldwide

global computer communication networks. Another

important step toward the development of an inter-

Page 7

national communication network was the personal

computer movement, which took place in the mid-

dle to late 1970s. This movement created the per-

sonal computer which makes it affordable for an

individual to purchase the means to connect to this

public network.

However, the network cannot simply be cre-

ated. SDS understood that “democracy and freedom

do not magically occur, but have roots in historical

experience; they cannot always be demanded for

any society at any time, but must be nurtured and

facilitated.” (Port Huron Statement in Miller, p.

361)

Participants on the ARPANET, Internet and

Usenet inherently understood this, and built a social

and knowledge network from the ground up. As

Usenet was created to help students who did not

have access to the ARPANET, or a chance to com-

municate in a similar way, they came to it in full

force. In “Culture and Communication: The Inter-

play in the New Public Commons,” Michael

Hauben writes that the on-line user is part of a

global culture and considers him or herself to be a

global citizen. This global citizen is a net citizen, or

a Netizen. The world which has developed is based

on communal effort to make a cooperative commu-

nity. Those who have become Netizens have gained

more control of their lives and the world around

them. However, access to this world needs to spread

in order to have the largest possible effect for the

most number of people. In addition, as some efforts

to spread the Net become more commercial, some

of the values important to the Net are being chal-

lenged.

A recent speech I was invited to present at a

conference on “the Netizen Revolution and the Re-

gional Information Infrastructure” in Beppu, Japan

helps to bring the world of the Netizen into perspec-

tive with the ideas of participatory democracy:

“Netizens are not just anyone who comes on-line,

and they are especially not people who come on-line

for isolated gain or profit. They are not people who

come to the Net thinking it is a service. Rather they

are people who understand it takes effort and action

on each and every ones part to make the Net a re-

generative and vibrant community and resource.

Netizens are people who decide to devote time and

effort into making the Net, this new part of our

world, a better place.” (Hauben, Hypernetwork '95

speech)

The Net is a technological and social develop-

ment which is in the spirit of the theory clearly de-

fined by the Students for a Democratic Society. This

understanding could help in the fight to keep the

Net a uncommercialized public commons

(Felsenstein). This many to many medium provides

the tools necessary to bring the open commons

needed to make participatory democracy a reality. It

is important now to spread access to this medium to

all who understand they could benefit.

The Net brings power to people’s lives because

it is a public forum. The airing of real problems and

concerns in the open brings help toward the solution

and makes those responsible accountable to the gen-

eral public. The Net is the public distribution of peo-

ple’s muckraking and whistle blowing. It is also just

a damn good way for people to come together to

communicate about common interests and to come

into contact with people with similar and differing

ideas.

The lack of control over the events surrounding

an individual’s life was a common concern of pro-

testers in the 1960s. The Port Huron Statement gave

this as a reason for the reforms SDS was calling for.

The section titled “The Society Beyond” included

that “Americans are in withdrawal from public life,

from any collective efforts at directing their own af-

fairs.” (Port Huron Statement in Miller, p. 335)

Hayden echoed C. Wright Mills when he wrote,

“What experience we have is our own, not vicarious

or inherited.” Hayden continued, “We keep believ-

ing that people need to control, or try to control,

their work and their life. Otherwise, they are with-

out intensity, without the subjective creative con-

sciousness of themselves which is the root of free

and secure feeling. It may be too much to believe,

we don’t know.” (Miller, p. 262)

The desire to bring more control into people’s

daily life was a common goal of student protest in

the 1960s. Mario Savio, active in the Berkeley Free

Speech movement, “believed that the students, who

paid the university to educate them, should have the

power to influence decisions concerning their uni-

versity lives.” (Haskins and Benson, p. 55) This de-

sire was also a common motivator of the personal

computer movement.

Page 8

The Personal Computer Movement

The personal computer movement immediately

picked up after the protest movements of the 1960s

died down. Hobbyist computer enthusiasts wanted

to provide access to computing power to the people.

People across the United States picked up circuit

boards and worked on making a personal minicom-

puter or mainframe which previously only large cor-

porations and educational institutions could afford.

Magazines, such as Creative Computing, Byte and

Dr. Dobbs’ Journal, and clubs, such as the

Homebrew Club, formed cooperative communities

of people working toward solving the technical

problems of building a personal and inexpensive

computer.

Several pioneers of the personal computer

movement contributed to the tenth anniversary issue

of Creative Computing Magazine. Some of their

impressions follow: “The people involved were

people with vision, people who stubbornly clung to

the idea that the computers could offer individuals

advantages previously available only to large corpo-

rations….” (Leyland, p. 111) “Computer power was

meant for the people. In the early 70s computer

cults were being formed across the country. Sol

Libes on the East Coast and Gordon French in the

West were organizing computer enthusiasts into

clubs….” (Terrell, p. 100) “We didn’t have many

things you take for granted today, but we did have a

feeling of excitement and adventure. A feeling that

we were the pioneers in a new era in which small

computers would free everyone from much of the

drudgery of everyday life. A feeling that we were

secretly taking control of information and power

jealously guarded by the Fortune 500 owners of

multimillion dollar IBM mainframes. A feeling that

the world would never be the same once ‘hobby

computers’ really caught on.” (Marsh, p. 110)

“There was a strong feeling [at the Homebrew Club]

that we were subversives. We were subverting the

way the giant corporations had run things. We were

upsetting the establishment, forcing our mores into

the industry. I was amazed that we could continue to

meet without people arriving with bayonets to arrest

the lot of us.”

The Net and Conclusion

The development of the Internet and of Usenet

is an investment in a strong force toward making

direct democracy a reality. These new technologies

present the chance to overcome the obstacles pre-

venting the implementation of direct democracy.

Online communication forums also make possible

the discussion necessary to identify today’s funda-

mental questions. One criticism is that it would be

impossible to assemble the body politic in person at

a single time. The Net allows for a meeting which

takes place on each person’s own time, rather than

all at one time. Usenet newsgroups are discussion

forums where questions are raised, and people can

leave comments when convenient, rather than at a

particular time and at a particular place. As a com-

puter discussion forum, individuals can connect

from their own computers, or from publicly accessi-

ble computers across the nation to participate in a

particular debate. The discussion takes place in one

concrete time and place, while the discussants can

be dispersed. Current Usenet newsgroups and mail-

ing lists prove that citizens can both do their daily

jobs and participate in discussions that interest them

within their daily schedules.

Another criticism was that people would not be

able to communicate peacefully after assembling.

Online discussions do not have the same character-

istics as in-person meetings. As people connect to

the discussion forum when they wish, and when

they have time, they can be thoughtful in their re-

sponses to the discussion. Whereas in a traditional

meeting, participants have to think quickly to re-

spond. In addition, online discussions allow every-

one to have a say, whereas finite length meetings

only allow a certain number of people to have their

say. Online meetings allow everyone to contribute

their thoughts in a message, which is then accessible

to whomever else is reading and participating in the

discussion.

These new communication technologies hold

the potential for the implementation of direct de-

mocracy in a country as long as the necessary com-

puter and communications infrastructure are in-

stalled. Future advancement toward a more respon-

sible government is possible with these new tech-

nologies. While the future is discussed and planned

for, it will also be possible to use these technologies

Page 9

to assist in the citizen participation in government.

Netizens are watching various government institu-

tions on various newsgroups and mailing lists

throughout the global computer communications

network. People’s thoughts about and criticisms of

their respective governments are being aired on the

currently uncensored networks.

These networks can revitalize the concept of a

democratic “Town Meeting” via online communica-

tion and discussion. Discussions involve people in-

teracting with others. Voting involves the isolated

thoughts of an individual on an issue, and then his

or her acting on those thoughts in a private vote. In

society where people live together, it is important

for people to communicate with each other about

their situations to best understand the world from

the broadest possible viewpoint.

The individuals involved with SDS, the per-

sonal computer movement and the pioneers in-

volved with the development of the Net understood

they were a part of history. This spirit helped them

to push forward in the hard struggle needed to bring

the movements to fruition. The invention of the per-

sonal computer was one step that made it possible

for people to afford the means to connect to the Net.

The Internet has just begun to emerge as a tool

available to the public. It is important that the com-

bination of the personal computer and the Net be

spread and made widely available at low or no costs

to people around the world. It is important to under-

stand the tradition which these developments have

come from, in order to truly understand their value

to society and to make them widely available. With

the hope connected to this new public communica-

tions medium, I encourage people to take up the

struggle which continues in the great American rad-

ical tradition.

Bibliography

Felsenstein, Lee. “The Commons of Information.” In Dr.

Dobbs’ Journal. May 1993

Flacks, Richard. “On the Uses of Participatory Democracy.” In

Dissent. No. 13. November 1966. Pp. 701-708. Reprinted in

The American Left. Edited by Loren Baritz. Pp. 397-405.

Freiberger, Paul and Michael Swaine. Fire in the Valley: The

Making of the Personal Computer. Osborne/McGraw-Hill.

Berkeley. 1984.

Haskins, James and Kathleen Benson. The 60s Reader. Viking

Kestrel. New York. 1988.

Hauben, Michael. Culture and Communication: The interplay

in the new public commons - Usenet and Community. 1995.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/usenet-culture.txt

Hauben, Michael and Ronda Hauben. Netizens: On the History

and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. 1994.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/

Hauben, Michael. “Netizens and Community Networks.” Pre-

sentation at Hyper network '95, Beppu Bay Conference. No-

vember 24, 1995. Beppu Bay, Oita Prefecture, Japan.

Leyland, Diane Asher. “As We Were.” In Creative Comput-

ing. Vol. 10 no. 11. November 1984. Pp. 111-112.

Marsh, Robert. “1975: Ancient History.” In Creative Comput-

ing. Vol. 10 no. 11. November 1984. Pp. 108-110.

Miller, James. Democracy is in the Streets. Simon and

Schuster. New York. 1987.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. SDS. Vintage Books. New York, 1974.

SDS. Port Huron Statement. As found in Miller. Pp. 329-374.

Terrell, Paul. “A Guided Tour of Personal Computing.” In

Creative Computing. Vol. 10 no. 11. November 1984. Pp.

100-104.

This article is online at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/netdemocracy-60s.txt

Page 10

[Editor’s Note: The following is a speech given to

Columbia University’s student ACM Chapter on

March 24, 1994 and at the Mid-Manhattan Branch

of the New York Public Library on May 1, 1995.

Adapted from the paper titled: “The Net and

Netizens: The Impact the Net has on People’s

Lives.”]

Researching the “Net”:

The Evolution of

Usenet and The

Significance of the Global

Computer Network

by Michael Hauben

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a

Netizen, or a Net Citizen, and you exist as a citizen

of the world thanks to the global connectivity that

the Net makes possible. You consider everyone as

your compatriot. You physically live in one country

but you are in contact with much of the world via

the global computer network. Virtually you live

next door to every other single Netizen in the world.

Geographical separation is replaced by existence in

the same virtual space.

The situation I describe is only a prediction of

the future, but a large part of the necessary infra-

structure currently exists. The Net – or the Internet,

BITNET, FidoNet, other physical networks, Usenet,

VMSnet, and other logical networks and so on – has

rapidly grown to cover all of the developed coun-

tries in the world. Every day more computers attach

to the existing networks and every new computer

adds to the user base – at least twenty seven-million

people are interconnected today. Why do all these

people pass their time sitting in front of a computer

typing away? They have very good reason to!

Twenty-seven-million people plus have very good

reason not to be wrong.

We are seeing a revitalization of society. The

frameworks are being redesigned from the bottom

up. A new more democratic world is becoming pos-

sible. According to one user, the Net has “immea-

surably increased the quality of…life.” The Net

seems to open a new lease on life for people. Social

connections which were never before possible, or

which were relatively hard to achieve, are now facil-

itated by the Net. Geography and time no longer are

boundaries. Social limitations and conventions no

longer prevent potential friendships or partnerships.

In this manner Netizens are meeting other Netizens

from far away and close by that they might never

have met without the Net.

A new world of connections between people –

either privately from individual to individual or

publicly from individuals to the collective mass of

many on the net – is possible. The old model of cen-

tral distribution of information from the Network

Broadcasting or Publication Company is being

questioned and challenged. The top-down model of

information being distributed by a few for mass-

consumption is no longer the only News. Netnews

brings the power of the reporter to the Netizen. Peo-

ple now have the ability to broadcast their observa-

tions or questions around the world and have other

people respond. The computer networks form a new

grassroots connection that allows the excluded sec-

tions of society to have a voice. This new medium is

unprecedented. Previous grassroots media have ex-

isted for much smaller-sized selections of people.

The model of the Net proves the old way does not

have to be the only way of networking. The Net ex-

tends the idea of networking – of making connec-

tions with strangers that prove to be advantageous

to one or both parties.

The complete connection of the body of citi-

zens of the world that the Net makes possible does

not exist as of today, and it will definitely be a fight

to make access to the Net open and available to all.

However, in the future we might be seeing the pos-

sible expansion of what it means to be a social ani-

mal. Practically every single individual on the Net

today is available to every other person on the Net.

International connection coexists on the same level

with local connection. Also the computer networks

allow a more advanced connection between the peo-

ple who are communicating. With computer-com-

munication systems, information or thoughts are

connected to people’s names and electronic-mail

addresses. On the Net, one can connect to others

who have similar interests or whose thought pro-

cesses they enjoy.

Netizens make it a point to be helpful and

friendly – if they feel it to be worthwhile. Many

Page 11

Netizens feel they have an obligation to be helpful

and answer queries and followup on discussions to

put their opinion into the pot of opinions. Over a

period of time the voluntary contributions to the Net

have built it into a useful connection to other people

around the world. The Net can be a helpful medium

to understand the world. Only by seeing all points of

view can any one person attempt to figure out either

their own position on a topic or in the end, the truth.

Net Society differs from off-line society by

welcoming intellectual activity. People are encour-

aged to have things on their mind and to present

those ideas to the Net. People are allowed to be in-

tellectually interesting and interested. This intellec-

tual activity forms a major part of the on-line infor-

mation that is carried by the various computer net-

works. Netizens can interact with other people to

help add to or alter that information. Brainstorming

between varieties of people produces robust think-

ing. Information is no longer a fixed commodity or

resource on the Nets. It is constantly being added to

and improved collectively. The Net is a grand intel-

lectual and social commune in the spirit of the col-

lective nature present at the origins of human soci-

ety. Netizens working together continually expand

the store of information worldwide. One person

called the Net an untapped resource because it pro-

vides an alternative to the normal channels and

ways of doing things. The Net allows for the meet-

ing of minds to form and develop ideas. It brings

people’s thinking processes out of isolation and into

the open. Every user of the Net gains the role of be-

ing special and useful. The fact that every user has

his or her own opinions and interests adds to the

general body of specialized knowledge on the Net.

Each Netizen thus becomes a special resource valu-

able to the Net. Each user contributes to the whole

intellectual and social value and possibilities of the

Net.

Licklider, the Visionary

The world of the Netizen was envisioned some

twenty-seven years ago by J. C. R. Licklider and

Robert Taylor in their article “The Computer as a

Communication Device” (Science and Technology,

April 1968). Licklider brought to his leadership of

the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Re-

search Projects Agency (ARPA) a vision of “the

intergalactic computer network.” Whenever he

would speak of ARPA, he would mention this vi-

sion. J. C. R. Licklider was a prophet of the Net. In

his article Licklider establishes several helpful prin-

ciples which would make the computer play a help-

ful role in human communication. These principles

were:

1) Communication is defined as an interactive cre-

ative process.

2) Response times need to be short to make the

“conversation” free and easy.

3) The larger network would form out of smaller

regional networks.

4) Communities would form out of affinity and

common interests.

Licklider focused on the Net comprising of a

network of networks. While other researchers of the

time focused on the sharing of computing resources,

Licklider kept an open mind and wrote: “…The col-

lection of people, hardware, and software – the

multiaccess computer together with its local com-

munity of users – will become a node in a geograph-

ically distributed computer network…. Through the

network, therefore, all the large computers can com-

municate with one another. And through them, all

the members of the supercommunity can communi-

cate – with other people, with programs, with data,

or with a selected combination of those resources.”

Licklider’s understandings from his 1968 paper

have stood the test of time, and do represent what

the Net is today. His concept of the sharing of both

computing and human resources accurately de-

scribes today’s Net. The networking of various hu-

man connections quickly forms, changes its goals,

disbands and reforms into new collaborations. The

fluidity of such group dynamics leads to a quicken-

ing of the creation of new ideas. Groups can form to

discuss an idea, focus in or broaden out and reform

to fit the new ideas that have resulted from the pro-

cess.

The virtual space created on noncommercial

computer networks is accessible universally. This

space is accessible from the connections that exist;

whereas social networks in the physical world gen-

erally are connected only by limited gateways. So

the capability of networking on computer nets over-

Page 12

comes limitations inherent in noncomputer social

networks. This is important because it reduces the

problems of population growth. Population growth

no longer means limited resources. Rather, that very

growth of population now means an improvement

of resources. Thus, growth of population can be

seen as a positive asset. This is a new way of look-

ing at people in our society. Every new person can

mean a new set of perspectives and specialties to

add to the wealth of knowledge of the world. This

new view of people could help improve the view of

the future. The old model looks down on population

growth and people as a strain on the environment

rather than the increase of intellectual contribution

these individuals can make. However, access to the

Net needs to be universal for the Net to fully utilize

the contribution each person can represent. Once

access is limited, the Net and those on the Net lose

the full possible advantages the Net can offer. Lastly

the people on the Net need to be active in order to

bring about the best possible use of the Network.

Licklider foresaw that the Net allows for people

of common interests, who are otherwise strangers,

to communicate. Much of the magic of the Net is

the ability to make a contribution of your ideas, and

then be connected to utter strangers. He saw that

people would connect to others via this net in ways

that had been much harder in the past. Licklider ob-

served as the ARPANET spanned two continents.

This physical connection allowed for wider social

collaborations to form. This was the beginning of

Computer Data networks facilitating connections of

people around the world.

My research on and about the Net has been and

continues to be very exciting for me. When I posted

my inquiries, I usually received the first reply within

a couple of hours. The feeling of receiving that very

first reply from a total stranger is always exhilarat-

ing! That set of first replies from people reminds me

of the magic of email. It is nice that there can be

reminders of how exciting it all is – so that the

value of this new use of computers is never forgot-

ten.

Critical Mass

The Net has grown so much in the last few de-

cades, that a critical mass of people and interests

has been reached. This collection of individuals

adds to the interests and specialties of the whole

community. Most people can now gain something

from the Net, while at the same time helping it out.

A critical mass has developed on the net. Enough

people exist that the whole is now greater than any-

one individual and thus makes the Net worthwhile

to be part of. People are meshing intellects and

knowledge to form new ideas. Larry Press made this

clear by writing: “I now work on the Net at least

two hours per day. I’ve had an account since around

1975 but it has only become super important in the

last couple of years because a critical mass of mem-

bership was reached. I no longer work in L.A., but

in cyberspace.”

Many inhabitants of the Net feel that only the

most technically inclined people use the Net. This is

not true, as many different kinds of people are now

connected to the Net. While the original users of the

Net were from exclusively technical and scientific

communities, many of them found it a valuable ex-

perience to explore the Net for more than just tech-

nical reasons. The nets, in their early days, were

only available in a few parts of the world. Now

however, people of all ages, from most parts of the

globe, and of many professions, make up the Net.

The original prototype networks (e.g.,: ARPANET

in the U.S.A., NPL in the United Kingdom,

CYCLADES in France and other networks around

the world) developed the necessary physical infra-

structure for a fertile social network to develop.

Einar Stefferud wrote of this social connection in an

article, “The ARPANET has produced several mon-

umental results. It provided the physical and electri-

cal communications backbone for development of

the latent social infrastructure we now call ‘The

Internet Community.’” (ConneXions, Oct. 1989,

Vol. 3 No. 10, p. 21)

Many different kinds of people comprise the

Net. The University Community sponsors access for

a broad range of people (students, professors, staff,

professor emeritus, and so on). Programmers, engi-

neers and researchers from many companies are

connected. A K-12 Net exists within the lower

grades of education which helps to invite young

people to be a part of our community. Special Bulle-

tin Board software (for example Waffle) exists to

connect personal computer users to the Net. Various

Unix bulletin board systems exist to connect other

Page 13

users. It is impossible to tell exactly who connects

to public bulletin board systems, as only an inex-

pensive computer (or terminal) and a modem are

required to connect. Many common bulletin board

systems (for example fido board) have at least

e-mail and many also participate through a gateway

to Netnews. Prototype Community Network Sys-

tems are forming around the world (e.g., In Cleve-

land – the Cleveland Freenet, In New Zealand – the

Wellington Citynet, In California, the Santa Monica

Public Electronic Network, etc.) Access via these

community systems can be as easy as visiting the

community library and membership is open to all

who live in the community.

In addition to the living body of resources this

diversity of Netizens represent, there is also a con-

tinually growing body of digitized data that forms a

set of resources. Whether it is Netizens digitizing

great literature of the past (e.g., the Gutenberg Pro-

ject), or it is people gathering otherwise obscure or

nonmainstream material (e.g., Various Religions,

unusual hobbies, fringe and cult materials, and so

on), or if it is Netizens contributing new and origi-

nal material (e.g., the Amateur Computerist News-

letter), the net follows in the great tradition of other

public bottom-up institutions, such as the public

library or the principle behind public education. The

Net shares with these institutions that they serve the

general populace. This data is just part of the trea-

sure. Often living Netizens provide pointers to this

digitized store of publicly available information.

Many of the network access tools have been pro-

grammed with the principle of being available to

everyone. The best example is the method of con-

necting to file repositories via FTP (file transfer pro-

tocol) by logging in as an “anonymous” user. Most

(if not all) World Wide Web Sites, Wide Area In-

formation Systems (WAIS), and gopher sites are

open for all users of the Net. It is true that the cur-

rent membership of the Net Community is smaller

than it will be, but the net has reached a point of

general usefulness no matter who you are.

All of this evidence is exactly why there could

be problems as the Net comes under the control of

commercial entities. Once commercial interests gain

control, the Net will be much less powerful for the

ordinary person than it is currently. Commercial

interests vary from those of the common person.

They attempt to make profit from any available

means. Compuserve is an example of one current

commercial network. A user of Compuserve pays

for access by the hour. If this scenario would be ex-

tended to the Net of which I speak, the Netiquette of

being helpful would have a price tag attached to it.

If people had had to pay by the minute during the

Net’s development, very few would have been able

to afford the network time needed to be helpful to

others.

The Net has only developed because of the hard

work and voluntary dedication of many people. It

has grown because the Net is under the control and

power of the people at a bottom-level, and because

these people have over the years made a point to

make it something worthwhile. People’s posts and

contributions to the Net have been the developing

forces.

Network as a New Democratic Force

For the people of the world, the Net provides a

powerful way of peaceful assembly. Peaceful

assembly allows for people to take control over their

lives, rather than that control being in the hands of

others. This power has to be honored and protected.

Any medium or tool that helps people to hold or

gain power is something that is special and has to be

protected. (See “The Computer as a Democratizer,”

this issue next article.)

J. C. R. Licklider believed that access to the

then growing information network should be made

ubiquitous. He felt that the Net’s value would de-

pend on high connectivity. In his article, “The Com-

puter as a Communication Device”, Licklider ar-

gues that the impact upon society depends on how

available the network is to the society as a whole.

He wrote: “For the society, the impact will be good

or bad depending mainly on the question: Will ‘to

be on line’ be a privilege or a right? If only a

favored segment of the population gets a chance to

enjoy the advantage of ‘intelligence amplification,’

the network may exaggerate the discontinuity in the

spectrum of intellectual opportunity.”

The Net has made a valuable impact on human

society. I have heard from many people how their

lives have been substantially improved via their

connection to the Net. This enhancement of peo-

ple’s lives provides the incentive needed for provid-

Page 14

ing access to all in society. Society will improve if

net access is made available to people as a whole.

Only if access is universal will the Net itself truly

advance. The ubiquitous connection is necessary for

the Net to encompass all possible resources. One

Net visionary responded to my research by calling

for universal access. Steve Welch wrote: “If we can

get to the point where anyone who gets out of high

school alive has used computers to communicate on

the Net or a reasonable facsimile or successor to it,

then we as a society will benefit in ways not cur-

rently understandable. When access to information

is as ubiquitous as access to the phone system, all

hell will break loose. Bet on it.”

Steve is right, “all hell will break loose” in the

most positive of ways imaginable. The philosophers

Thomas Paine, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and all other

fighters for democracy would have been proud.

Similar to past communications advances such

as the printing press, mail, and the telephone, the

Global Computer Communications Network has

already fundamentally changed our lives. Licklider

predicted that the Net would fundamentally change

the way people live and work. It is important to try

to understand this impact, so as to help further this

advance.

This article is online at:

http://www.ais.org/~hauben/Michael_Hauben/Collected_Work

s/Articles/speech_acm.txt

[Editor’s Note: The following appeared online in

Spring 1992. A later version appeared as Chapter 18

of Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet

and the Internet]

The Computer as a

Democratizer

by Michael Hauben

“…only through diversity of opinion is there, in

the existing state of human intellect, a chance

of fair play to all sides of the truth.”

John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty”

“In a very real sense, Usenet is a market-

place of ideas.”

Bart Anderson, Bryan Costales,

and Harry Henderson

Political thought has developed as writers pre-

sented the theoretical basis behind the various class

structures from aristocracy to democracy. Plato

wrote of the rule of the elite Guardians. Thomas

Paine wrote why people need control of their gov-

ernments. The computer connects to this democra-

tizing trend through facilitating wider communica-

tions among individual citizens to the whole body

of citizens.

James Mill, the father of John Stuart Mill, takes

a look at democracy in his article “Liberty of the

Press” from the 1825 Supplement to the Encyclope-

dia Britannica. He writes about the question of a

government that works as it should – for the advan-

tage and gain of the people instead of the advantage

and gain for those in control. Mill sees the govern-

ment necessarily being corrupted if the chance ex-

ists. Those in the position of rule, would abuse that

power for their advantage. Mill describes, “If one

man saw that he might promote misrule for his own

advantage, so would another; so, of course would

they all.” ( James Mill, “Liberty of the Press”, p. 20)

Mill says that the people need a check on those in

government. People need to keep watch on their

government in order to make sure this government

works in the interest of the many. Mill thus con-

cludes, “There can be no adequate check without

Page 15

the freedom of the press. The evidence of this is irre-

sistible.” (Mill, p. 18)

What Mill often phrases as freedom of the

press, or liberty of the press, is more precisely de-

fined as the uncensored press. The uncensored press

provides for the dissemination of information that

allows the reader or thinker to do two things. First, a

person can size up the issue and honestly decide his

or her own position. Second, as the press is uncen-

sored, this person can make his distinctive contribu-

tion available for other people to consider and ap-

preciate. Thus what Mill calls “freedom of the

press” makes possible the free flow and exchange of

different ideas.

Thomas Paine, in The Rights of Man, describes

a fundamental principle of democracy. Paine writes,

“that the right of altering the government was a na-

tional right, and not a right of the government.” (p.

341) Mill also expresses that active participation by

the populace is a necessary principle of democracy.

He writes: “Unless a door is left open to the resis-

tance of the government, in the largest sense of the

word, the doctrine of passive obedience is adopted;

and the consequence is, the universal prevalence of

the misgovernment, ensuring the misery and degra-

dation of the people.” (Mill, p. 13)

Another principle Mill links democracy to, is

the right of the people to define who can responsi-

bly represent their will. However, this right requires

information to make a proper decision. Mill de-

clares: “We may then ask, if there are any possible

means by which the people can make a good choice,

besides liberty of the press? The very foundation of

a good choice is knowledge. The fuller and more

perfect the knowledge, the better the chance, where

all sinister interest is absent, of a good choice. How

can the people receive the most perfect knowledge

relative to the characters of those who present them-

selves to their choice, but by information conveyed

freely, and without reserve, from one to another?”

(Mill p. 19) Without information being available to

the people, the candidates for office can be either as

bad as the incumbents or worse. Therefore there is a

need to prevent the government from censoring the

information available to people. Mill explains: “If it

is in the power of their rulers to permit one person

and forbid another, the people may be sure that a

false report, – a report calculated to make them be-

lieve that they are well governed, when they are

ill-governed, will be often presented to them.”

(Mill, p. 20)

After electing their representatives, democracy

gives the public the right to evaluate their chosen

representatives in office. The public continually

needs information as to how their chosen represen-

tatives are fulfilling their role. Once these represen-

tatives have abused their power, Paine’s and Mill’s

principle allows the public to replace those abusers.

Mill also clarifies that free use of the means of com-

munication is another extremely important princi-

ple: “That an accurate report of what is done by

each of the representatives, a transcript of his

speeches, and a statement of his propositions and

votes, is necessary to be laid before the people, to

enable them to judge of his conduct, nobody, we

presume, will deny. This requires the use of the

cheapest means of communication, and, we add, the

free use of those means. Unless every man has the

liberty of publishing the proceedings of the Legisla-

tive Assembly, the people can have no security that

they are fairly published.” (Mill, p. 20)

Ignorance, Thomas Paine calls the absence of

knowledge and says that man with knowledge can-

not be returned to a state of ignorance. (The Rights

of Man, p. 357) James Mill shows how the knowl-

edge man thirsts after leads to a communal feeling.

General conformity of opinion seeds resistance

against misgovernment. Both conformity of opinion

and resistance require general information or knowl-

edge. Mill explains: “In all countries people have

either a power legally and peaceably of removing

their governors, or they have not that power. If they

have not that power, they can only obtain very con-

siderable ameliorations of their governments by re-

sistance, by applying physical force to their rulers,

or, at least, by threats so likely to be followed by

performance, as may frighten their rulers into com-

pliance. But resistance, to have this effect, must be

general. To be general, it must spring from a general

conformity of opinion, and a general knowledge of

that conformity. How is this effect to be produced,

but by some means, fully enjoyed by the people of

communicating their sentiments to one another?

Unless the people can all meet in general assembly,

there is no other means, known to the world, of at-

Page 16

taining this object, to be compared with freedom of

the press.” (Mill, p. 18)

In the previous quote Mill places his champion-

ing of the freedom of press as a realistic alternative

to Rousseau’s general assembly, which is not possi-

ble most of the time. Mill expands on the freedom

of the press by setting the rules. An opinion cannot

be well founded until its converse is also present.

Here he sets forth the importance of developing

your own opinion from those that exist. Mill writes:

“We have then arrived at the following important

conclusions, – that there is no safety to the people in

allowing anybody to choose opinions for them; that

there are no marks by which it can be decided be-

forehand, what opinions are true and what are false;

that there must, therefore, be equal freedom of de-

claring all opinions both true and false; and that,

when all opinions, true and false, are equally de-

clared, the assent of the greater number, when their

interests are not opposed to them, may always be

expected to be given to the true. These principles,

the foundation of which appears to be impregnable,

suffice for the speedy determination of every practi-

cal question.” (Mill, p. 23)

The technology that is the personal computer,

international computer networks, and other recent

contributions embody and put into practice James

Mill’s theory of liberty of the press. The personal

computer makes it affordable for most people to

have an information access station in their very own

home. There are international computer networks

that exist which allow a person to have debates with

other people across the world, search for data in var-

ious data banks, or even play a computer game.

If a person is affiliated with a university com-

munity, works at a business which pays to connect

to the Internet, or pays a special service fee, he or

she can connect to a network of computer networks

around the world. A connection to this international

network empowers a person by giving him access to

various services. These services include electronic

mail, which means the ability to send private mes-

sages electronically to people across the world who

also have electronic mail boxes. The public alterna-

tive to this is a service called Usenet. This service is

an example of James Mill’s democratic principles.

Usenet consists of many newsgroups which

each cover a broad, but yet specific topic. People

who utilize Usenet typically pick certain

newsgroups or topics to focus on. Every group has

several items of discussion going on at the same

time. Some examples of newsgroups include serious

topics such as talk.politics.theory, – people “talk-

ing” about current issues and political theory,

sci.econ – people discussing the science of econom-

ics, soc.culture.usa – people debating questions of

United States society; and recreational topics (which

might also be serious) such as alt.rock-n-roll – dis-

cussing various aspects of rock music,

rec.sport.hockey – a discussion of hockey and

rec.humor – jokes and humor. The discussions are

very active and provide a source of information that

fulfills James Mill’s criteria for both more oversight

over government and a more informed population.

In a sense, what was once impossible, is now possi-

ble; everyone’s letter to the editor is published.

(Hauben, Interview with Staff Member, The Ama-

teur Computerist, vol. 4 no. 2-3 p. 14) What is im-

portant is that Usenet is conducted publicly, and is

uncensored. This means that everyone can both con-

tribute and gain from everyone else’s opinion.

The importance of Usenet also exists in that it

is an improvement in communications technology

from that of previous telecommunications. The pre-

decessors to computer networks were the Ham Ra-

dio and Citizen Band Radio (CB). The computer

network is an advance in that it is easier to store,

reproduce and utilize the communications. It is eas-

ier to continue a prolonged question and answer

session or debate. The newsgroups on Usenet have a

distribution designation which allows them to be

available to a wide variety of different size areas –

local, city, national, or international. This allows for

a variety of uses. The problem with the Internet is

that in a sense it is only open to those who either

have it provided to them by a university or company

that they are affiliated with, or who pay for it. This

limits part of the current development of the com-

puter networks.

An example of a public enterprise, however, is

a computer service called Freenet in Cleveland,

Ohio. Freenet is operated by Case Western Reserve

University as a community service. Anyone with a

personal computer and a modem (a device to con-

nect to other computers over existing phone lines)

can call a local phone number to connect to Freenet.

Page 17

If members of the public do not own computers,

they can use Freenet at the public library. Besides

Usenet, Freenet provides free access to a vast vari-

ety of information databases and community infor-

mation. Freenet is just one example of the computer

networks becoming much more readily available to

broad sectors of society. As part of its databases,

Freenet includes Supreme Court decisions, discus-

sion of political issues and candidates, and debate

over contemporary laws. Freenet is beginning to

exemplify Mill’s principle that democracy requires

the “use of the cheapest means of communication,

and, we add, the free use of those means.” (Mill, p.

20)

This is an exciting time to see the democratic

ideas of some great political thinkers beginning to

be practiced. James Mill wrote that for government

to serve the people, it must be watched by the peo-

ple utilizing an uncensored press. Freedom of the

press also makes possible the debate necessary for

the forming of well-founded opinions by the people.

Usenet and Freenet are examples of the contempo-

rary electronic practice of the uncensored accessible

press required by Mill. These networks are also the

result of hard work by many people aspiring for

more democracy. However, they still require more

help from those dedicated to the hard fight against

tyranny.

Bibliography

Anderson, Bart, Bryan Costales, and Harry Henderson, Unix

Communications, Indiana, 1991.

Hauben, Michael, “Interview with a Staff Member,” The Ama-

teur Computerist, vol. 4 no. 2-3.

Mill, James, Essays on Government, Jurisprudence, Liberty of

the Press, and Law of Nations, reprint, Kelley Publishers, New

York, 1967.

Mill, John Stuart, “On Liberty” in Three Essays, Oxford,

1975.

Paine, Thomas, “The Rights of Man” in Two Classics of the

French Revolution, Anchor Books, Doubleday. New York,

1989.

Watkins, Beverly T, “Freenet helps Case Western fulfill its

Community-Service Mission,” April 29, 1992, Chronicle of

Higher Education, p. A21.

This article is online at

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/compdem.txt

[Editor’s Note: The following was written in Spring

1994.]

What the Net Means to Me

by Michael Hauben

The Net means personal power in a world of

little or no personal power for those other than on

the top. (Those on top are called powerful because

of money, but not because of thoughts or ideas.)

The essence of the Net is Communication: personal

communication both between individual people, and

between individuals and those in society who care

(and do not care) to listen. The closest parallels I

can think of are:

- Samizdat Literature in Eastern Europe.

- People’s Presses

- The Searchlight, Appeal to Reason, Penny Press,

etc.

- Citizen’s Band Radio

- Amateur or Ham radio.

However the Net seems to have grown farther

and to be more accessible than the above. The audi-

ence is larger, and continues to grow. Plus commu-

nication via the Net allows easier control over the

information – as it is digitized and can be stored,

sorted, searched, replied to, and easily adapted to

another format.

The Net is the vehicle for distribution of peo-

ple’s ideas, thoughts and yearnings. No commercial

service deals with the presentation of peoples’

ideas. I do not need a computer to order flowers

from FTD or clothes from the Gap. I need the Net to

be able to voice my thoughts, artistic impressions,

and opinions to the rest of the world. The world will

then be a judge as to if they are worthy by either

responding or ignoring my contribution.

Throughout history (at least in the U.S.A.),

there has been a phenomenon of the street-corner

soapbox. People would "stand up” and make a pre-

sentation of some beliefs or thoughts they have.

Page 18

There are very few soapboxes in our society today.

The '70s and '80s wiped out public expression. The

financial crisis substituted a growing sentiment of

make your money or shut up. In the late '80s and

early '90s, the Net has emerged as a forum for pub-

lic expression and discussion. The Net is partially a

development from those who were involved with

the Civil Rights movement, anti-war struggles and

free speech movements in the '60s. The personal

computer was also a development by some of these

same people.

Somehow the social advances rise from the fact

that people are communicating with other people to

help them undermine the upper hand other institu-

tions have. An example is people in California

keeping tabs on gas station prices around the state

using Netnews and exposing gougers. Another ex-

ample is people publically reviewing music them-

selves – rather than telling others,” you should re-

ally go buy the latest issue of magazine ‘X’ (Rolling

Stone, etc.) as it has a great review.” This is what I

mean by people power – people individually com-

municating to present their view on something

rather than saying go get commercial entity ‘Xs’

view from place ‘Y’. This is people contributing to

other people to make a difference in people’s lives.

In addition, people have debated commercial compa-

nies’ opposition to the selling of used CDs. This

conversation is done in a grassroots way – people

are questioning the music industry’s profit making

grasp on the music out there. The industry definitely

puts profit ahead of artistic merit, and people are not

interested in the industry’s profit making motive,

but rather great music.

The Net is allowing two new avenues not avail-

able to the average person before:

1) A way of having one’s voice heard.

2) A way of organizing and questioning other peo-

ple’s experiences so as to have a better grip on a

question or problem.

Thus in some ways there is a regaining control of

one’s life from society.

These are all reasons why I feel so passionately

about 1) keeping the Net open to everyone, and hav-

ing such connections being available publicly, and

2) keeping the Net un-commercialized and un-pri-

vatized. Commercialism will lead to a growing em-

phasis on other uses for the Net. As I said before, it

is not important for me to be able to custom order

my next outfit from the Gap or any other clothing

store. Companies should develop their own net-

works if they wish to provide another avenue to sell

their products. In addition, commercial companies

will not have it in their interest to allow people to

use the Net to realize their political self. Again let

me reemphasize, when I say politics, I mean power

over one’s own life and surroundings. And this type

of politics I would call democracy.

A version of this article is online at:

http://www.ais.org/~hauben/Michael_Hauben/Collected_Work

s/Amateur_Computerist/What_the_Net_Means_to_Me.txt

[Editor’s Note: The following first appeared online

in January 1997. It appears as a chapter in An Ethi-

cal Global Information Society: Culture and De-

mocracy Revisited, edited Jacques Berleur and Di-

ane Whitehouse.]

Culture and Communication

The Interplay in the New

Public Commons — Usenet

and Community Networks

by Michael Hauben

“Any document that attempts to cover an

emerging culture is doomed to be incomplete.

Even more so if the culture has no overt iden-

tity (at least none outside virtual space). But

the other side of that coin presents us with the

opportunity to document the ebb and flow, the

moments of growth and defeat, the development

of this young culture.”

John Frost, Cyberpoet’s Guide to Virtual Cul-

ture

As we approach the new millennium, social

relationships are changing radically. In 1978, the

anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote of an

“approaching world-wide culture” (p. 3). While she

wrote of a global culture made possible by the mass

media of her day, her words actually foresaw funda-

Page 19

mental changes made by computer communication

networks that were just beginning. A new culture is

being formed out of a desire for communication

(Graham, 1995). This culture is partially formed and

formulated by new technology and by social desires

(Jones, 1989; Woodbury, 1994). People are dissatis-

fied with the modern condition, and much of the

new communication technology facilitates new

global connections (Uncapher, 1992). This article

will explore the effect of new communication forms

on human culture and of human culture on these

new communication forms.

The development of transportation and commu-

nication technologies has linked the world together

in ways which make it simple to travel or communi-

cate with peoples and cultures around the world.

The daily exposure to various cultures makes it im-

possible for an individual to envision the world con-

sisting of only his or her culture (Mead). We really

are moving into a new global age which affects

most aspects of human life, for example, econom-

ics, language, politics, and entertainment. The expo-

sure to media and forms of communication help

spread many of these cultural elements. Television

and radio connect people with the rest of the world

in a rather impersonal fashion, whereas computer

networks are increasingly bringing people of vari-

ous cultures together in a much more intimate and

grassroots manner.

Historically, culture has changed slowly and

been passed on from generation to generation. In the

last half of the twentieth century, culture is a living

dynamic part of people’s lives. Mead writes that

while in the past culture was transmitted from the

older generation to the younger, today the younger

generation learn from their peers and teach their

elders. Human culture gets set by how people live

their lives (Graham). Culture is created and re-en-

forced through how that person lives in context of

society and social movements. One is taught the

culture of his or her society while growing up, but

those perceptions change as he or she matures, de-

velops and lives an adult life. Culture is no longer

statically defined. Rather a person grows up into a

culture and then changes it as that life progresses

through time.

As people increasingly live a more global life-

style, whether mediated through media or actual

experience, culture is changing. This global experi-

ence is facilitated by the ability of the individual to

interact with people from other cultures and coun-

tries on a personal level. Images and thoughts avail-

able via mass media show these cultures exist, but

when people get a chance to talk and interact, then

the differences become less of an oddity and more

of an opportunity (Uncapher).

There are critics (Appadurai, 1990; etc.) who

claim this global culture, or mass culture is snuffing

out individual differences for a pre-packaged cul-

ture. These critics call for the isolation of communi-

ties from each other so that the uniqueness can be

preserved. This criticism misses that human culture

is a dynamic element of society, and freezing it

would produce a museum of human society.

Uncapher correctly points out that what these critics

do not recognize is that more and more these vari-

ous cultures are understanding the power of the new

communication technologies. More and more peo-

ple are reacting against the mass media and corpo-

rate dominance and calling for a chance to express

their views and contribute their culture into the

global culture. Margaret Mead tells a story (pp. 5–6)

of returning to a village in New Guinea which origi-

nally requested medicine and trade goods. On this

later visit, rather than asking for more contributions

of western civilization, the villagers requested their

songs be recorded via tape recorder in order to con-

tribute their own culture to the outside world. The

presence of radios made the villagers aware of oth-

ers’ music, and they wanted a part of their culture

broadcast around the world.

The new media of Usenet, electronic mail and

the Internet facilitate the growth of global interac-

tive communities. These forums are made available

through community networks, universities, the work

place, Internet access providers, and other public

access locations (Hauben & Hauben, 1994). Human

culture is ever evolving and developing, and the

new public commons are of a global nature. People

are coming together and living more of their daily

lives with people from around the world. Through

the sharing of these moments by people, their cul-

tures are coming to encompass more of the world

not before immediately available.

Usenet newsgroups are a relatively young me-

dium of human discourse and communication.

Page 20

Studies are just being completed on the global on-

line culture. A recent thesis by Tim North (1994)

asked the question “is there an online culture and

society on Usenet?” His conclusion was that there is

a definite Usenet culture, but that Usenet can not be

considered a separate society. Rather Usenet is “a

super-structural society that spans many main-

stream societies and is dependent upon them for its

continued existence.” (North, chap. 4.2.2, p. 4) Oth-

ers (Avis, 1995; Graham; Jones; etc.) are studying

the online culture and the connection to the growing

global culture.

The Usenet technology was developed by grad-

uate students in the late 1970s as a way to promote

the sharing of information and to spread communi-

cation between university campuses. This design

highlights the importance of the contribution by in-

dividuals to the community. Thus the content of

Usenet is produced by elements of the community

for the whole of the community. In forming of this

public space, or commons, people are encouraged to

share their views, thoughts, and questions with oth-

ers (Hauben & Hauben). The chance to contribute

and interact with other people spread Usenet to be-

come a truly global community of people hooking

their computers together to communicate. People

both desire to talk and to communicate with other

people (Graham; Woodbury).

Both the technological design of opening one’s

computer up to accept contributions of others and

the desire to communicate led to the creation of an

egalitarian culture (Jones; North; Woodbury). Peo-

ple have both a chance to introduce and share their

own culture and a chance to broaden themselves

through exposures to these various cultures. As

such, the Usenet culture is an example of a global

culture which is not a reflection of purely one cul-

ture. Instead, Usenet both incorporates cultural ele-

ments from many nations and builds a new online

culture (North).

Community networks provide a way for citi-

zens of a locality to hook into these global commu-

nities for little or no cost (Graham). Community

networks also provide a way for communities to

truly represent themselves to others connected on-

line (Graham; Weston). Without access made avail-

able through community networks, through publicly

available computer terminals or local dial-in phone

numbers, only those who could afford the monthly

charges or who have access through work or school

would represent themselves (Avis). Particular por-

traits of various cultures would thus be only par-

tially represented. Also, when access is available

and open to all, a greater wealth of contributions can

be made. There is a strong push in Canada and Ca-

nadian communities to get online. A lot of grass-

roots community network building is taking place.

A grass-roots organization, Telecommunities Can-

ada, stresses the importance of contributing Can-

ada’s various cultures to the online community and

in this way make a contribution to the whole com-

munity (Graham, Weston). In a similar way, Izumi

Aizu (1995, p. 6) says that Japan has “an opportu-

nity to bring its own cultural value to the open

world.” He continues, “It also opens the possibility

of changing Japan into a less rigid, more decentral-

ized society, following the network paradigm exer-

cised by the distributed nature of the Internet itself”

(ibid.).

There’s something to be said about the attrac-

tion of representing one’s self to the greater commu-

nity. The many-to-many form of communication

where an individual can broadcast to the community

and get responses back from other individuals is an

empowering experience. No longer do you have to

be rich and powerful to communicate broadly to

others and to represent yourself and your own

views. This power is making it possible for individ-

uals to communicate with others with similar inter-

ests (and different interests) around the world.

Grassroots organization is boosted and even the for-

mation of local community groups is accelerated.

Development of the commons to the exclusion of

the big media representations makes this a grass-

roots medium, or a new enlarged public commons

(Felsenstein, 1993).

The online culture is primarily a written one,

although much of the text is written generally in a

non-formal almost off the cuff type of nature. While

people will post papers and well thought out ideas,

much of the conversation is generated in an imme-

diate response to others’ messages. This text can

feel like a conversation, or a written version of oral

culture. Stories akin to the great stories of the pre-

history come about. Legends and urban myths circu-

late and are disseminated (Jones). Pictures and other

Page 21

non-text items can be sent in Usenet messages, but

these non-text items are primarily transferred and

not modified, thought upon or communally worked

on as are the textual ideas. The common shared on-

line language is English (Azumi). However, other

languages exist in country hierarchies and news-

groups and in mailing lists. Along with IRC chan-

nels, gopher sites and World Wide Web pages.

Text also means that body language and other

non-verbal clues need to be spelled out. Extra-sen-

sory emoticons

have been invented (e.g., <grin>,

<laugh>, etc.) along with smileys. Smileys are tex-

tual drawings of a person’s face with a smile or grin

rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise to be typeable

and printable on computer text screens and print-

outs.

North writes on how there is a distinct Usenet

culture, and that this culture is opening and welcom-

ing of new-comers. He also notes when there is

unfriendliness to “newbies”, but focuses on how the

online culture is documented and available for peo-

ple to learn from documents available online.

This

definition of culture and Netiquette (the online word

for net etiquette) is available to learn from and open

for discussion. Bruce Jones sums up the net culture,

“…the Usenet network of computers and users con-

stitutes a community and a culture, bounded by its

own set of norms and conventions, marked by its

own linguistic jargon and sense of humor and accu-

mulating its own folklore.” (p. 2)

Both North and Jones elaborate on what they

see to be an egalitarian tendency or tendency to con-

tribute to the community’s benefit. Jones writes, “…

the people of the net owe something to each other.

While not bound by formal, written agreements,

people nevertheless are required by convention to

observe certain amenities because they serve the

greater common interest of the net. These aspects of

voluntary association are the elements of culture

and community that bind the people of Usenet to-

gether.” (p. 4)

The global culture is formed in several ways,

none of which is a generic corporate rubber stamp.

People are taking charge. They are bringing their

own cultures into the global culture and spreading

this new culture around the world. This is taking on

a general form and an online form. The online form

provides a strong means by which people can spread

their ideas and culture which in turn affects the

broader global culture. This broader global culture

also affects newsgroups or online media. The ability

to express oneself to the rest of the world is addic-

tive and the rapid increase of new people joining the

online global community makes that manifest. “The

voiceless and the oppressed in every part of the

world have begun to demand more power…. The

secure belief that those who knew had authority

over those who did not has been shaken” (Mead,

p.5).

Notes

1. Usenet was initiated in 1979.

2. Emoticons are “icons” which are used to include emotion and

other meta-messages otherwise not transmittable in written online

communication forms.

3. Examples include :-) traditional smile ;-) wink, etc. See Sanderson,

1992 for more examples.

4. The online culture is described and written about in FAQ (fre-

quently asked question) files in various newsgroups, the various

news.newuser newsgroups and in other readily available files

(North).

References

Aizu, Izumi. (1995). Cultural Impact on Network Evolu-

tion in Japan Emergence of Netizens [Online]. Institute for

HyperNetwork Society. Center for Global Communications

(GLOCOM), International University of Japan. Available

W W W : h t t p : / / w w w . g l o c o m . a c . j p / P u b l i -

cations/Aizu/nete&c.html

Appadurai, Arjun. (1990). “Disjuncture and Difference in

the Global Cultural Economy.” Public Culture, 2 1–24.

Avis, Andrew. (1995) Public Spaces on the Information

Highway: The Role of Community Networks [Online]. Unpub-

lished master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,

Canada. Available

WWW:http://www.ucalgary.ca/~aavis/

thesis/thesis.html

Felsenstein, Lee. (1993, May). “The Commons of

Information.” Dr. Dobbs’ Journal 18–22.

Frost, John. (1993). Cyberpoet’s Guide to Virtual Cul-

ture [Online]. Available:

WWW:http://homepage.seas.upenn.edu/~mengwong /cyber/

cgvc1.html

Graham, Garth. (March 29, 1995). A Domain Where

Thought is Free to Roam: The Social Purpose of Community

Networks. Prepared for Telecommunities Canada for CRTC

public hearings on information highway [Online]. Available:

WWW:http://www.freenet.mb.ca/tc/crtc.brief .html

Hauben, Michael and Ronda Hauben. Netizens: On The

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Manuscript

submitted for publication. Also available (1994):

WWW:http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/ netbook/

Page 22

Jones, Bruce. (1991) An Ethnography of the Usenet

Computer Network: Proposal for a Ph.D. Dissertation in

Communications [Online]. University of California, San

Diego. Dept. of Communication. Available ftp:

weber.ucsd.edu, Directory: /Usenet.Hist/, File: diss.proposal

Mead, Margaret (1978). Culture and Commitment: The

New Relationships Between the Generations in the 1970s.

Garden City, NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday.

North, Tim. (1994) The Internet and Usenet Global

Computer Networks: An investigation of their culture and its

effects on new users [Online]. Unpublished master’s thesis,

Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia. Available

WWW:http://foo.curtin.edu.au/Thesis/

Sanderson, David W. (Ed.). (1993). Smileys. Sebastopol,

CA: O’Reilly & Associates.

Uncapher, Willard. (1992). Between Local and Global:

Placing the Media-scape in the Transnational Cultural Flow

[Online]. Available:

WWW:http://www.eff.org//pub/Net_culture/Global_village/be

tween _global_and_local.paper

Weston, Jay. (Nov. 26, 1994). Old Freedoms and New

Technologies: The Evolution of Community Networking. [On-

line]. Paper presented at the Free Speech and Privacy In The

Information Age Symposium: University of Waterloo, Canada

Available

WWW:http://www.nptn.org/cyber.serv/ tdp/jweston

Woodbury, Gregory G. (1994, Fall). “Net Cultural As-

sumptions.” [Online]. Amateur Computerist Newsletter, 6-2

Available ftp: wuarchive.wustl.edu Directory: /doc/misc/acn/

File: acn6–2.txt

This article is online at

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/usenet-culture.txt

[Editor’s Note: The following was posted on Usenet

in Fall 1963. A later version appeared as Chapter 16

of Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet

and the Internet.]

The Expanding

Commonwealth of Learning:

Printing and the Net

by Michael Hauben

A revolution in human communications is hap-

pening. People around the world are connecting to

each other via the new computer telecommunication

networks now known as the Net. The Net, in a sig-

nificant way, is a continuation of the important tech-

nological development of the printing press. The

printing press might seem to be an unlikely choice

for such a comparison considering the similarity

that might be seen between the Net and, for exam-

ple, television, the telephone, radio, or the news me-

dia. That is why it is important to compare the cur-

rent networking developments with the history of

printing to understand why the printing press should

be seen as the forefather of the currently developing

computer networks.

With the invention of the printing press in the

second half of the fifteenth century, there arose print

shops and printing trades. Printing and the distribu-

tion of printed works grew rapidly. In the last quar-

ter of the twentieth century, a global computer net-

work has emerged which gives users the ability to

post and distribute their views and news broadly and

inexpensively. Comparing the emergence of the

printing press to the emergence of the global com-

puter network will reveal some of the fascinating

parallels which demonstrate how the Net is continu-

ing the important social revolution that the printing

press had begun.

The printing press developed out of a scribal

culture surrounding the hand-copying of texts. This

scribal culture could only go so far in furthering the

distribution of information and ideas. Texts existed,

but were largely unavailable for use by the common

people. There were very few copies of books as

each copy of a book had to be laboriously

hand-copied from a previous copy. Relying on scri-

bal culture for access to and distribution of knowl-

edge caused many problems. Texts were often inac-

curate as scribes made mistakes while copying

them. Since a single scribe usually had access to

only one copy of the text he was copying, he had no

way to know if he was duplicating mistakes other

scribes had made before him. The effect of copying

mistakes, or non-exact copies, led to numerous “ver-

sions” of the same text. Also, scholars who wanted

to use various texts had to travel in order to have a

good variety of material to study. The majority of

people could not afford, nor did they have the time

to pursue scholarly pursuits. In her book, The Print-

ing Revolution in Early Modern Europe, Elizabeth

Eisenstein writes: “[one] needs to recall the condi-

tions before texts could be set to type. No manu-

script, however useful as a reference guide, could be

preserved for long without undergoing corruption

Page 23

by copyists, and even this sort of ‘preservation’ rest-

ed precariously on the shifting demands of local

elites and a fluctuating incidence of trained scribal

labor…wear and tear...moisture, vermin, theft or

threat.”

Under such conditions, scribal efforts did

not preserve many valuable texts. Plenty did not

survive.

Just as the printing press essentially replaced

the hand-copying of books in the Renaissance, peo-

ple using computer networks are essentially creating

a new method of production and distribution of cre-

ative and intellectual written works today.

Around the same time that computer communi-

cations networks started to emerge from computer

communications research communities in the early

1970s, the personal computer (PC) was developed

by students, hobbyists, and proponents of the

free-speech movement on the West Coast of the

United States. The personal computer became wide-

ly available at prices many people could afford. The

PC made the power of the multipurpose computer

available to a wider cross section of people who

otherwise would not have had access to time on a

larger minicomputer or mainframe computer which

were then owned by universities, businesses and the

government. The personal computer movement

made computers available to the mass of people in

the United States. As computers are multipurpose,

they can be used to accomplish many things. A PC

can be made to duplicate the functions of a printing

press, with the user having little or no professional

printing experience. In the past, a skilled printer

combined movable type and engravings (woodcut,

or otherwise) to mass produce copies of a page

combining varied images (text, graphics, etc). The

personal computer brings this power from the mas-

ter printer to the average individual – both in price

and availability. The personal computer (e.g., Apple

II family, Commodore, Atari, TRS-80, etc. leading

to the IBM PC family, the Apple Macintosh family,

Amiga, etc.) linked to an electronic printer (first

dot-matrix and daisy-wheel, later laser printers) and

even more recently to scanners which convert im-

ages into usable data – make the production and

reproduction of information a common task avail-

able to all. Even if one does not own a PC, one can

rent time on one in a store. Copy shops (in them-

selves part of the continual process that made pub-

lishing ubiquitous) have begun to have PCs avail-

able to rent time on. These advances make the act of

publication immensely easier. The personal com-

puter, printers and scanners, however, do not solve

the problem of distribution.

The recent development, standardization and

interconnection of computers via computer commu-

nications networks help to solve the problem of dis-

tribution. Examples of on-line utilities include file

transfer (ftp), remote login to other computers

(Telnet), remote execution of programs, electronic

mail (e-mail), access to various information data

bases (gopher, WWW), other information searching

utilities (archie, veronica, Lycos), real-time chat

(irc), and a distributed news service which allows

people to share information publicly and become

citizen reporters (Netnews). The two utilities most

relevant to this revolution in human communication

are e-mail and Netnews (or Usenet). E-mail allows

for the private and semi-private distribution of in-

formation and communications through messages to

a particular person or persons, or to a designated set

of people via electronic mailing lists. Netnews al-

lows for the public dissemination of information,

opinions and questions in an open forum. When a

Netizen makes a contribution to any of the many

defined subject areas (newsgroups), anyone from

around the world who chooses to read that particu-

lar newsgroup will have a chance to read that mes-

sage. Usenet’s potential for inexpensive global dis-

tribution represents one major advance of Usenet

beyond the printing press.

The printing press developed sometime in the

1460s and spread quickly throughout Europe. The

broad distribution of presses ended the age of the

scribal culture and ushered in the age of printing.

“Unknown anywhere in Europe before the mid-fif-

teenth century,” Eisenstein writes, “printer’s work-

shops would be found in every important municipal

center by 1500.”

Eisenstein points out that the printing press dra-

matically increased the total number of books, while

at the same time decreasing the number of hours of

labor necessary to create books. She argues that this

made the transition from hand-copied manuscripts

to machine-produced books one of a revolutionary

nature, and not evolutionary as claimed in much of

the literature about this transformation.

Under-

Page 24

standing how the printing press unleashed a com-

munications revolution provides a basis to assess if

the establishment of worldwide computer communi-

cation networking is the next communication revo-

lution.

New communication technologies facilitate

new ways of organizing information and of think-

ing. The invention of the printing press changed the

way texts were handled. From its outset, the men

who controlled the presses, the printers, experi-

mented with ways to use the printing press to

change texts. Textual techniques such as “graduated

types, running heads …footnotes…table of con-

tents…superior figures, cross references…”

are

examples of the ways in which the press broke

through some boundaries which had previously lim-

ited the production of books in scribal culture.

Moreover, the new technologies changed the

way books were written. The establishment of print-

ing shops in the major European cities formed a

common meeting place for scholars and authors

from across the continent. The great number of

printing presses and printing shops enabled more

people to write books and produce works that would

be duplicated by the presses. When these new au-

thors traveled they would gather in printing shops to

meet other writers and scholars. Thus the printing

press facilitated the meeting of minds pursuing in-

tellectual pursuits. The interconnection of people

led to the quickening of the development of ideas

and knowledge. These progenitors of the printing

trade were in the forefront of the sweeping intellec-

tual changes which the presses made possible.

Sim-

ilar connections among people are taking place on

the Net today at a much faster rate. And, just as the

printers were in the forefront of the printing revolu-

tion, so today the developers of computer communi-

cations software and hardware and netusers are the

first to experience the increased connectivity with

other people around the world afforded by the com-

puter networks.

As printing spread, publishers realized the

value of utilizing input from readers to improve

their product. Since the press could turn out multi-

ple copies of a first edition quickly, many people

would see the first edition and could send by letter

their comments, corrections and criticisms. Publish-

ers and authors could then use this feedback to write

and print second, and third editions, and so on. Mis-

takes would be caught by careful readers, and print-

ers thus “were also able to improve on themselves.”

Eisenstein explains that copied mistakes and mis-

takes in copying common with scribal copies now

could be caught by the increasing number of read-

ers. She writes, “the immemorial drift of scribal cul-

ture had been not merely arrested but actually re-

versed.”

The Net likewise provides a ready mechanism

for the interaction between authors and readers. On

the Net, people often keep track of knowledge, such

as lists of a musician’s records (discographies), or

FAQ files of answers to Frequently Asked Ques-

tions. Authors of these works often act as both edi-

tor and compiler. People send further information,

which the keeper of the file often adds. This makes

for a communal base of information which is often

available to anyone minimally connected to the Net

by at least electronic mail. The constant updating of

information on the Net continues the tradition of

revising intellectual work introduced by the printing

press.

Eisenstein’s description of how communal in-

formation was gathered is similar to how such pro-

cedures work on the Net. She writes: “But others

created a vast network of correspondents and solic-

ited criticism of each edition, sometimes publicly

promising to mention the names of readers who sent

in new information or who spotted the errors which

would be weeded out.”

People who ask questions

on the discussion sections of the Net (either

Netnews or Mailing lists) often summarize the an-

swers they receive and post this summary back to

the Net. When doing this, many compilers include

acknowledgments to the people who supplied the

information. Also when people send in corrections

to an FAQ, the keeper of the FAQ often makes a list

at the end thanking these individuals.

Eisenstein details these networks of correspon-

dence in an example of a particular text titled the

“Theatrum”.

By the simple expedient of being honest with

his readers and inviting criticism and suggestions,

Ortelius made his Theatrum a sort of cooperative

enterprise on an international basis. He received

helpful suggestions from far and wide, and cartogra-

Page 25

phers stumbled over themselves to send him their

latest maps of regions not covered in the Theatrum.

On Usenet, too, making a contribution is an

integral part of Netizen behavior. Netizens make a

point of being helpful to others. Often the Net has

made a positive difference in their lives and they

return the favor by making their own contribution,

perhaps by answering the questions of others or de-

veloping an archive. These individual and increas-

ingly group contributions are what have built the

Net from a connection of computers and computing

resources into a vast resource of people and knowl-

edge. People who use the Net have access to Net

resources and can contribute to them. Thus the cul-

ture of the Net has been shaped by people actively

contributing to the growth and development of the

Net. The tale of the Theatrum shows there is a his-

torical precedent in human nature for this “stum-

bling over oneself” in order to try and be helpful.

The flow of information to the publishers of the

Theatrum meant that at least 28 editions were pub-

lished by the time of the publisher Ortelius’ death in

1598.

In a similar way, Usenet is by its very nature

constantly evolving. The basic element of Usenet is

the post whose life is temporary. The Usenet soft-

ware is designed to “expire” or delete messages af-

ter a certain time period. Without constant new con-

tributions from people to Netnews, there would be

no messages to read or discussions to take part in.

So there is a constant evolution of Usenet. But, also

the material in the more permanent information de-

positories is often updated so they evolve as well.

During the early days of the printing press, pub-

lishers’ requests for information led to people start-

ing their own research and work. “Thus a knowl-

edge explosion was set off,” Eisenstein exclaims.

The Net follows in the tradition of the press, by hav-

ing one set of people asking questions, leading to

another set of people conducting research. In this

sense the Net can serve the role as a thinktank for

the ordinary person. So the advanced possibilities

the printing press made possible in the sixteenth

century is being replicated many times more by the

Net today. It is important to recognize and value

Netnews for its contribution to human society and

the advancement of knowledge.

Eisenstein observed that the art of printing

opened people’s eyes to their previous ignorance.

She quotes the German historian, Johann Sleidan, in

his “Address to the Estates of the Empire” of 1542,

describing the impact printing had in Germany,

“[The] art of printing [has] opened German eyes

even as it is now bringing enlightenment to other

countries. Each man became eager for knowledge,

not without feeling a sense of amazement at his for-

mer blindness.”

This sentiment has been echoed

by many Netizens on Usenet and in other on-line

conversations. People have been amazed at what the

Net made possible and how it was changing their

lives.

Eisenstein comments in her book on the role of

feedback to early authors and print publishers. She

wrote that feedback helped to “define the difference

between data collection before and after the com-

munications shift. After printing, large-scale data

collection did become subject to new forms of feed-

back which had not been possible in the age of the

scribes.”

Computer networks likewise make possi-

ble very easy and natural feedback. Once one reads

a message (either public or private), a simple key-

stroke allows the composition of an answer or re-

sponse, and another keystroke is often all it takes to

send the response. This takes less effort than writing

to a publishing house or calling a television station.

Since responding to other messages becomes such a

natural part of the on-line process, the procedure

becomes almost automatic.

Many people who use Usenet find television

dull rather than thought provoking. Doug Thomp-

son, a user of Usenet, wrote “TV is so bloody tame

and boring in comparison to Usenet.” Others, too,

have described how they have completely stopped

watching TV and reading the newspaper because of

Usenet.

Eisenstein refers to the process of constant im-

provement which printing made possible, as ob-

served by the Scottish philosopher David Hume,

“The Power which Printing gives us of continually

improving and correcting our Works in successive

Editions appears to me the chief advantage of that

art.”

Eisenstein expands on this idea adding, “The

future seem[ed] to hold more promise of enlighten-

ment than the past.”

This promise of a better future is also seen by

those on the Net. People on-line are being enlight-

ened by the interconnection of peoples around the

Page 26

world. The Net helps people to make social connec-

tions which were never before possible, or which

were relatively hard to achieve. Geography and time

no longer are boundaries. Social limitations and

conventions no longer prevent potential friendships

or partnerships. In this manner Netizens are meeting

other Netizens from far-away and close by that they

might never have met without the Net.

Eisenstein reports that the printing press too

helped people interact with other people who they

would not have met before its invention. “Vicarious

participation in more distant events was enhanced,”

she writes, “and even while local ties were

loosened, links to larger collective units were being

forged.”

Improvement of information about other

parts of the world “by the output of more uniform

maps containing more uniform boundaries and

place names” helped people to know more of the

facts of the world. “Similar developments affected

local customs, laws, languages, and costumes.”

The Net similarly provides people with a

broader view of the world by introducing them to

other people’s ideas and opinions. The Net makes it

possible to access more and differing viewpoints

than were normally available in a person’s daily life.

Much as printer’s houses in the sixteenth cen-

tury served as places to stop when traveling, com-

puters and phone lines connect people around the

world as in our times. Eisenstein describes how

such print shops, “point to the formation of polygot

households in scattered urban centers upon the

continent.” She observes that during the sixteenth

century, “such printing shops represented miniature

‘international houses.’ They provided wandering

scholars with a meeting place, message center, sanc-

tuary, and cultural center all in one. The new indus-

try encouraged not only the formation of syndicates

and far-flung trade networks, similar to those ex-

tended by merchants engaged in the cloth trade, or

in other large-scale enterprises during early modern

times. It also encouraged the formation of an ethos

which was specifically associated with the Com-

monwealth of Learning – ecumenical and tolerant

without being secular, genuinely pious yet opposed

to fanaticism, often combining outward conformity

to diverse established churches with inner fidelity to

heterodox creeds.”

The social networks made possible by Usenet

and the emergence of the printing press are very

similar. Even though Netnews has no official guid-

ing body, Netizens have developed social rules

which control and mediate the medium. As the fo-

rum is democratic, there will be people who have

nothing intelligent to add, or only want to be disrup-

tive or offensive. Others will often debate these

troublemakers and through argumentation and the

posting of opposite opinions help others to make up

their own minds as to the value of the original post-

ings.

The printing press facilitated new cross-cultural

networks which encouraged “forms of combinatory

activity which were social as well as intellectual.”

Differing ideas were more easily set against one

another. The theories of Arabists were set against

the theories of Galenists and those of Aristoteleans

against Ptolemaists. Eisenstein writes: “Not only

was confidence in old theories weakened, but an

enriched reading matter also encouraged the devel-

opment of new intellectual combinations and per-

mutations. Combinatory intellectual activity…

nspires many creative acts.”

The Net helps people communicate with each

other who might not have communicated before.

Strangers meet each other because of interest in

each other’s ideas and this leads to new intellectual

collaborations and combinations.

The connection of differing ideas and people

meant the first century of printing is recognized for

“intellectual ferment” and by what Eisenstein writes

was a “’somewhat wide-angled, unfocused scholar-

ship.’”

The new availability of different theories or

opinions about the same topics led Eisenstein to

conclude that the contribution a scientist like Coper-

nicus was able to make was not that he produced a

new theory, but rather he was “confronting the next

generation with a problem to be solved rather than a

solution to be learned.”

Lastly on this subject,

Eisenstein equates the quickening of science toward

a “cognitive breakthrough of an unprecedented

kind.”

The Net is continuing and accelerating that

advance.

The lure of being able to produce numerous

copies of books cheaply, was that an author’s words

could be spread around the world. This proved to be

Page 27

powerful. Eisenstein quotes Maurice Gravier on the

power the press presented to the Protestant reform-

ers: “The theses…were said to be known throughout

Germany in a fortnight and throughout Europe in a

month…. Printing was recognized as a new power

and publicity came into its own. In doing for Luther

what copyists had done for Wycliffe, the printing

press transformed the field of communications and

fathered an international revolt. It was a revolution.

The advent of printing was an important precondi-

tion for the Protestant Reformation taken as a

whole; for without it one could not implement ‘a

priesthood of all believers.’ At the same time, how-

ever, the new medium also acted as a precipitant. It

provided the ‘stroke of magic’ by which an obscure

theologian in Wittenberg managed to shake Saint

Peter’s throne.”

This idea is repeated by the Eng-

lish writer Daniel Defoe (1660-1732), whom

Eisenstein quotes, when he wrote “The preaching of

sermons is speaking to a few of mankind, printing

books is talking to the whole world.”

The Net has

opened up a channel for “talking to the whole

world” to an even wider set of people than did

printed books.

A social role which grew to be crucial in this

new world of printing was that of the master printer.

His was the business of running a print shop, and

finding and promoting potential authors. In the

course of this work his workshop became a center

of intellectual excitement. Eisenstein explains that

the master printer’s “workshop became a veritable

cultural center attracting local literati and celebrated

foreigners, providing both a meeting place and mes-

sage center for an expanding Commonwealth of

Learning.”

This development of an intellectual family

started to bring the world closer together. “In the

late sixteenth century,” Eisenstein maintains, “for

the first time in the history of any civilization, the

concept of a Concordia Mundi was being developed

on a truly global scale and the ‘family of man’ was

being extended to encompass all the peoples of the

world.”

The hospitality which the printers pro-

vided to travelers and intellectuals helped to make

this happen.

The Net continues in this tradition of uniting

the world. It is easy to hold conversations and de-

velop relationships with others from around the

world. The Net speeds this transaction as the con-

versation is brought from the print shop into a

Netizen’s home. A major advancement which the

personal computer and the Net make possible is ac-

cessibility of publishing. Anyone who owns a per-

sonal computer can develop and print their own

books, pamphlets, signs, and so forth. The Net co-

mes in to help with distribution.

Eisenstein talks about one result that standard-

ization of printing brought about. “One might con-

sider,” she writes, “the emergence of a new sense of

individualism as a by-product of the new forms of

standardization. The more standardized the type,

indeed, the more compelling the sense of an idio-

syncratic personal self.”

Similarly, because Usenet

and mailing lists only present people via their ideas

and writing styles, people have to write the way they

want themselves to be viewed. Thus people develop

their own styles. Reading posts can therefore at

times be an enjoyable experience. A famous cartoon

printed in the New Yorker magazine in 1993 show a

dog at a computer. He says to another dog, “On the

Internet, no one knows you’re a dog.” In fact, no

one knows if you are white or black, yellow or pur-

ple, ugly or beautiful, short or tall. Discrimination

based on appearance and visual impressions loses

its basis. People can still be verbally harassed if they

act stupid, or prove unhelpful to the Net. One prob-

lem, however, which has not yet been solved is ha-

rassment based on user name. For example, women

with user names that are clearly identifiable as a

woman’s still receive some attention and sometimes

harassment.

The printing revolution affected both tool mak-

ing and symbol manipulation, which led to new

ways of thinking. As Eisenstein notes, “The deci-

sions made by early printers, however, directly af-

fected both tool making and symbol making. Their

products reshaped powers to manipulate objects, to

perceive and think about varied phenomena.” Com-

puters, too, are in general directly affecting tool pro-

duction and symbol manipulation. The tools on the

Net are new tools – and thus lead to radical ways of

thinking and dealing with information. People’s

thought processes can expand and develop in origi-

nal ways. New ways of manipulating information,

such as Unix tools, hypertext media and search en-

Page 28

gines for searching distributed data sources foster

new means of intellectual activity.

Printing made consultation of various texts

much easier – no longer did someone have to be

able to be a “Wandering Scholar” to gain access to

various information. With the development of the

Net, information access becomes much more varied

and widespread. The local public library, along with

libraries around the world, other data banks and

knowledgeable people are becoming accessible via

the Net, for some netusers even from their homes.

Only a few libraries currently offer electronic access

to any of the actual texts of their holdings, but that

is rapidly changing. Undertakings such as Project

Gutenberg and various digital library initiatives are

trying to make library resources available from any

computer hooked into the Net.

Both the printing revolution and the Net revolu-

tion have been a catalyst for increased intellectual

activity. Such activity tends to provide pressure for

more democracy. When people have the chance and

the means to start thinking, ideas of self-rule appear.

Eisenstein describes how, “Puritan tradesman who

had learned to talk to God in the presence of their

apprentices, wives, and children were already on

their way to self-government.”

Many social and

political questions are being discussed on Usenet

newsgroups especially questions like censorship and

Net access which affect the Net directly. Based on

these discussions, Netizens are exerting pressure on

their governments to form new democratic struc-

tures like the NTIA on-line conference.

Mass production via printing makes it possible

to have sufficient books so that everyone who wants

a copy can borrow one from a library or buy one.

Eisenstein presents Thomas Jefferson’s view of this

“democratizing aspect of the preservative powers of

print which secured precious documents not by putt-

ing them under lock and key but by removing them

from chests and duplicating them for all to see.”

According to Eisenstein, “The notion that valuable

data could be preserved best by being made public,

rather than being kept secret, ran counter to tradi-

tion, led to clashes with new censors, and was cen-

tral both to early modern science and to Enlighten-

ment thought.”

The democratizing power and ef-

fect of the printing revolution, Eisenstein contends,

is overlooked in most historical writings.

With the advent of printing, the Law was af-

fected by the onset of the ability to duplicate numer-

ous copies of a single document cheaply. People

saw that this capability would be helpful in making

the Law available for the common person to read

and understand, and therefore the common person

would be able to watch carefully if it was adminis-

tered fairly. John Liburne, a person who lived in

England during the Stuart Monarchy felt that legal

documents should be freed from the confines of

Latin and old French so that “every Freeman may

read it as well as the lawyers.” People like him also

held that knowledge which had been esoteric, “rare,

and difficult,” should be transformed into a form

where it could be useful to all. Eisenstein also

quotes Florio, who made translations and dictionar-

ies in English. He symbolized the democratic possi-

bilities of the printing press saying, “Learning can-

not be too common and the commoner the better….

Why but the vulgar should not know all.”

Legal decisions are now being made available

on the Net so that anyone with a computer and mo-

dem and net connection will have access to them.

Also there are legal newsgroups on Usenet like

misc.legal where various laws are examined and

discussed. This provides a helpful perspective for

understanding the value of the Net. The culture that

is currently characteristic of the Net supports the

principle that much of it should be available openly

for the rest of the world to use. There is a collective

communal democratic aspect of it, too. The simple

fact of the matter is that every single person who is

connected to the Net and has Usenet access can

make a post to Netnews and every net user can send

electronic mail to any other person who is on-line.

The scribal tradition restricted who made the

choice of what was copied to the Church or those

who had substantial property. “As long as texts

could be duplicated only by hand, perpetuation of

the classical heritage rested precariously on the

shifting requirements of local elites.”

With the

spread of the printing press, the monopoly of these

elites was broken. Netnews is a similar advance

over today’s mass media. In the ‘traditional’ forms

of mass media, the content is decided by the na-

tional ‘elites’. However, on Netnews there is no

control over the whole and the content is contrib-

Page 29

uted to by every single person who is active on the

Net.

Eisenstein compares this control of elites over

what manuscripts were copied to the role of the

printer and publisher who have it in their interest to

unleash all sorts of books. Eisenstein writes: “The

politics of censorship made [the printers] the natural

opponents not only of church officials but also of

lay bureaucrats, regulations and red tape. As inde-

pendent agents, they supplied organs of publicity

and covert support to a ‘third force’ that was not

affiliated with any one church or one state. This

third force was, however, obviously affiliated with

the interests of early modern capitalists.”

These publishers were “the natural enemy of

narrow minds,” and “encouraged the adoption of a

new ethos which was cosmopolitan, ecumenical,

and tolerant without being secular, incredulous or

necessarily Protestant….”

The Net has offered a

parallel encouragement by providing a new kind of

public space separate from either commercial pur-

poses or religious or political limitations or ideas.

The printing press provided a new way for peo-

ple to challenge the status quo. Eisenstein asks the

question, “Did printing at first serve prelates and

patricians as a ‘divine art,’ or should one think of it

rather as the ‘poor man’s friend’?”

She answers it

might have served in both roles, but that literacy

seemed more “compatible” with the life of a peasant

than that of a noble or lord.

We can pose the same question about the Net.

Should one think about the Net as a ‘poor man’s

friend’? If we think of the Net as an alternative to

the current media of Television, Radio, and News-

papers and Magazines – the answer is yes. People

who have a lot of money can afford to own a seg-

ment of the mass media described above, and con-

trol the content of that media, whereas the Net is

controlled by the mass of people connected to it, so

it is ‘the poor man’s’ version of the mass media.

The printing revolution fostered the spread of

education. Books were used by apprentices and stu-

dents to learn more than was offered by their teach-

ers. The Net similarly makes multiple resources

available for people interested in learning. People

can access more information resources and, even

more important, other people. This increased acces-

sibility of people to each other means we can all

gain and learn from the interests and knowledge of

others, more so than from any single teacher.

The impact of the new print technology on sci-

ence was enormous. Collaboration and cooperation

over longer distances were made possible by the

power of print. In particular, Eisenstein refers to the

impact on the science of Astronomy. The change

she sees happened within Copernicus’s lifetime.

“Copernicus was not supplied, as Tycho’s succes-

sors would be, with precisely recorded fresh data,”

she notes. “But he was supplied, as Regiomontaus’s

successor and Aldus Manutius’s contemporary, with

guidance to technical literature carefully culled from

the best Renaissance Greek manuscript collections,

and for the first time, made available outside library

walls.”

The progress of science is much faster because

of the speed of communication afforded by the Net.

Articles to be published in scientific journals are

often available as electronic preprints – and thus

have wider distribution earlier than was the norm

before the Net. An outstanding example of this in-

creased speed of scientific activity occurred when

researchers all over the world tried to reproduce the

result of the two University of Utah researchers who

had announced that they had achieved cold fusion.

A newsgroup sci.physics.fusion was very quickly

set up and researchers’ questions and results and

problems were posted regularly and feverishly. As a

result, what might have taken years to retest and

figure out was sorted out in a three or four month

period. The physicists found the rapid exchange of

data and results invigorating and encouraging and

felt they were more productive and sharper in their

work because of the Net. Also, they argued that the

use of the Net saved much valuable research time

which might have been wasted if the original claims

had not been shown to have been faulty in such a

short amount of time and to such a wide body of

scientists.

The invention of the printing press, which led

to many developments not possible before the

power of printing, “laid the basis for modern sci-

ence…and remains indispensable for humanistic

scholarship.” Eisenstein poignantly claims that

printing is responsible for “our museum without

walls.”

As a storehouse of information and living

information contained in other people, the Net could

Page 30

also be seen as a living “museum without walls.” In

her conclusion Eisenstein states that “Cumulative

processes were set in motion in the mid-fifteenth

century, and they have not ceased to gather momen-

tum in the age of the computer printout and the tele-

vision guide.”

We, too, are in an age of amazing

changes in communications technologies, and it is

important to realize how these changes are firmly

based on the extension of the development of the

printing press which took place in the fifteenth and

sixteenth centuries.

Notes

1. Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The Printing Revolution in Early

Modern Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

1993, p. 78.

2. Ibid., p. 12.

3. Ibid., p. 13.

4. Ibid., p. 22.

5. Ibid., p. 45.

6. Ibid., p. 73.

7. Ibid., p. 74.

8. Ibid.

9. See “The Net and the Netizens”, Chapter 1 in Netizens: On

the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet.

10. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe, p. 74.

11. Ibid., p. 75.

12. Ibid., p. 150.

13. Ibid., p. 76.

14. Ibid., p. 77.

15. Ibid., p. 78.

16. Ibid., p. 95.

17. Ibid., p. 56.

18. Ibid., p.101.

19. Ibid., p. 45.

20. Ibid., p. 44.

21. Ibid., p. 45.

22. Ibid., p. 223.

23. Ibid., p. 225.

24. Ibid., p. 154.

25. Ibid., p. 157.

26. Ibid., p. 25.

27. Ibid., p. 182.

28. Ibid., p. 56.

29. Ibid., p. 64.

30. Ibid., p. 167.

31. See “The Net and the Future of Politics”, Chapter 13 in

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the

Internet. 32. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Eu-

rope, p. 81.

33. Ibid., Chapter 1, “An Unacknowledged Revolution.”

34. Ibid., p. 165.

35. See “The Computer as Democratizer,” Chapter 18 in

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the

Internet.

36. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe, p. 125.

37. Ibid., p. 178.

38. Ibid., pp. 177, 178.

39. Ibid., p. 31.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid., p. 209.

42. Ibid., p. 275.

43. Ibid., p. 276.

This article can be seen online at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x16

[Editor’s Note: The following was written in 1995.

A major component of the internet in the 1980s and

early 1990s was the Usenet system of forums and

discussion groups. A later version of this appeared

as Chapter 13 of the book Netizens: On the History

and Impact of Usenet and the Internet co-authored

by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben.]

The Effect of the Net on the

Professional News Media:

The USENET Collective —

The Man-Computer

News Symbiosis

by Michael Hauben

“The archdeacon contemplated the gigantic

cathedral for a time in silence, then he sighed

and stretched out his right hand towards the

printed book lying open on his table and his left

hand toward Notre Dame, and he looked sadly

from the book to the church: ‘Alas,’ he said,

‘this will kill that.’”

Victor Hugo, Notre Dame de Paris

I. Media Criticism

Will this kill that? Will the new online forms of

discourse dethrone the professional news media?

The French writer Victor Hugo observed that

the printed book rose to replace the cathedral and

the church as the conveyor of important ideas in the

Page 31

century. Will Usenet and other young online

discussion forums develop to replace the current

news media? Various people throughout society are

currently discussing this question.

The role of modern journalism is being recon-

sidered in a variety of ways. There are journalists

and media critics, like the late Professor Christopher

Lasch, who have challenged the fundamental pre-

mises of professional journalism. There are other

journalists like Wall Street Journal reporter Jared

Sandberg, who cover an online beat, and are learn-

ing quickly about the growing online public forums.

These two approaches are beginning to converge to

make it possible to understand the changes in the

role of the media in our society brought about by the

development of the Internet and Usenet.

Media critics like Christopher Lasch have es-

tablished a theoretical foundation that makes it pos-

sible to critique the news media and challenge the

current practice of these media. In “Journalism,

Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argument,” Lasch

argued: “What democracy requires is public debate,

and not information. Of course, it needs informa-

tion, too, but the kind of information it needs can be

generated only by vigorous popular debate.”

Applying his critique to the press, Lasch wrote:

“From these considerations it follows the job of the

press is to encourage debate, not to supply the pub-

lic with information. But as things now stand the

press generates information in abundance, and no-

body pays any attention.”

Lasch explained that more and more people are

getting less and less interested in the press because,

“Much of the press…now delivers an abundance of

useless, indigestible information that nobody wants,

most of which ends up as unread waste.”

Reporters like Jared Sandberg of the Wall

Street Journal, on the other hand, recognize that

more and more of the information that the public is

interested in, is starting to come from people other

than professional journalists. In an article about the

April 1995 Oklahoma Federal Building explosion,

Sandberg writes: “In times of crisis, the Internet has

become the medium of choice for users to learn

more about breaking news, often faster than many

news organizations can deliver it.”

People curious and concerned about relatives

and others present on the scene turned to the Net to

find out timely information about survivors and to

discuss the questions raised by the event. Soon after

the explosion, it was reported and discussed live on

Internet Relay Chat, in newsgroups on Usenet such

as alt.current-events.amfb-explosion and on various

Web sites. Sandberg noted that many logged onto

the Internet to get news from first-hand observers

rather than turning on the TV to CNN or compara-

ble news sources.

Along with the broader strata of the population

that has begun to report and discuss the news via the

Internet and Usenet, a definition of who is a media

critic is developing. Journalists and media critics

like Martha Fitzsimon and Lawrence T. McGill

present such a broader definition of media critics

when they write, “Everyone who watches television,

listens to a radio or reads…passes judgment on

what they see, hear or read.”

Acknowledging the

public’s discontent with the traditional forms of the

media, they note that, “the evaluations of the media

put forward by the public are grim and getting

worse.”

Other journalists have written about public crit-

icism of the news media. In his article, “Encounters

Online”, Thomas Valovic recognizes some of the

advantages inherent in the new online form of criti-

cism. Unlike old criticism, the new type “fosters

dialogue between reporters and readers.”

He ob-

serves how this dialogue “can subject reporters to

interrogations by experts that undermine journalists’

claim to speak with authority.”

Changes are taking place in the field of journal-

ism, and these changes are apparent to some, but not

all journalists and media critics. Tom Goldstein,

Dean of the University of California at Berkeley

Journalism School, observes that change is occur-

ring, but the results are not fully understood.

II. Examining the role of Internet/Usenet

and the press

There are discussions online about the role of

the press and the role of online discussion forums.

The debate is active. There are those who believe

the printed press is here to stay, while others con-

tend that interactive discussion forums are likely to

replace the authority of the print news media. Those

who argue for the dominance of the online media

present impassioned arguments. Their comments

Page 32

are much more persuasive than those who defend

the traditional role of the print media as something

that is handy to read over breakfast or on the train.

In a newsgroup thread discussing the future of print

journalism, Gloria Stern stated: “My experience is

that I have garnered more information from the

Internet than I ever could from any newspaper. Top-

ical or not, it has given me community that I never

had before. I touch base with more informed kin-

dred souls than any tonnage of paper could ever

bring me.”

Regularly, people are commenting on how they

have stopped reading newspapers. Even those who

continue to read printed newspapers note that Use-

net has become one of the important sources for

their news. For example, a user wrote: “I do get the

NY Times every day, and the Post and the Washing-

ton Times and the Wall Street Journal (along with

about 100 other hard-copy publications), and I still

find Usenet a valuable source of in-depth news re-

porting.”

More and more people on Usenet have

announced their discontent with the traditional one-

way media, often leading to their refusal to seriously

read newspapers again. In a discussion about a Time

magazine article about the Internet and Usenet, Eliz-

abeth Fischer wrote: “The point of the whole exer-

cise is that for us, most of us, paper media is a dead

issue (so to speak).”

In the same thread, Jim Zoes stated the chal-

lenge posed by the online media for reporters: “This

writer believes that you (the traditional press) face

the same challenge that the monks in the monastery

faced when Gutenberg started printing Bibles.”

Describing why the new media represent such a

formidable foe, Zoes continued: “Your top-down

model of journalism allows traditional media to

control the debate, and even if you provide opportu-

nity for opposing views, the editor always had the

last word.… In the new paradigm, not only do you

not necessarily have the last word, you no longer

even control the flow of the debate.”

He concludes with his understanding of the

value of Usenet to society: “The growth and accep-

tance of e-mail, coupled with discussion groups

(Usenet) and mail lists provide for a ‘market place

of ideas’ hitherto not possible since perhaps the

days of the classic Athenians.”

Others present their views on a more personal

level. One poster writes: “I will not purchase an-

other issue of Newsweek. I won’t even glance

through their magazine if it’s lying around now

given what a shoddy job they did on that article.”

Another explains: “My husband brought [the

article] home… for me to read and [I] said, ‘Where

is that damn follow up key? ARGH!’ I’ve pretty

much quit reading mainstream media except when

someone puts something in front of me or I’m rid-

ing the bus to work….”

These responses are just some of the recent ex-

amples of people voicing their discontent with the

professional news media. The online forum pro-

vides a public way of sharing this discontent with

others. It is in sharing ideas and understandings with

others with similar views that grassroots efforts be-

gin to attempt to change society.

While some Net users have stopped reading the

professional news media, others are interested in

influencing the media to more accurately portray the

Net. Many are critical of the news media’s reporting

of the Internet, and other events. Users of the

Internet are interested in protecting the Internet.

They do this by watch-dogging politicians and jour-

nalists. Concern with the coverage of the Internet in

the press comes from first-hand experience with the

Internet. One Net-user expressing such dissatisfac-

tion writes: “The Net is a special problem for re-

porters, because bad reporting in other areas is pro-

tected by distance. If someone reports to the Times

from Croatia, you're not going to have a better

source unless you’ve been there (imagine how many

people in that part of the world could correct the

reports we read). All points of Usenet are equidis-

tant from the user and the reporter – we can check

their accuracy at every move. And what do we no-

tice? Not the parts that the reporter gets right, just

the errors. And Usenet is such a complete culture

that no reporter, absent some form of formal train-

ing or total immersion in the Net, is going to get it

all right.”

Another online critic writes: “It’s scary when

you actually are familiar with what a journalist is

writing about. Kinda punches a whole bunch of

holes in the ‘facts’. Unfortunately it’s been going on

for a looong time…we, the general viewing public,

just aren’t up to speed on the majority of issues.

Page 33

That whole ‘faith in media’ thing. Yick. I can’t even

trust the damn AP wire anymore after reading an

enormous amount of total crap on it during the first

few hours of the Oklahoma bombing.”

In Usenet’s formation of a community, that

community has developed the self-awareness to re-

spond to and reject an outside description of the

Net. If the Net was just the telephone lines and com-

puter infrastructure making up a machine, that very

machine could not object and scold journalists for

describing it as a spreader of pornography or a

bomb-production press. Wesley Howard believes

that the critical online commentary is having a

healthy effect on the press: “The coverage has be-

come more accurate and less sloppy in its coverage

of the Net because it (the Net) has become more

defined itself from a cultural point of view. Partly

because of growth and partly because of what the

media was saying fed debates and caused a firmer

definition within itself. This does not mean the print

media was in any way responsible for the Net’s self

definition, but was one influence of many.”

Another person, writing from Japan, believed

that journalists should be more responsible, urging

that “all journalists should be forced to have an

e-mail address.” He explained: “Journalists usually

have a much bigger audience than their critics. I

often feel a sense of helplessness in trying to coun-

ter the damage they cause when they abuse their

privilege. Often it is impossible even to get the at-

tention of the persons responsible for the lies and

distortions.”

Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists provide a

media where people are in control. People who are

online understand the value of this control and are

trying to articulate their understandings. Some of

this discussion is being carried on on Usenet. Hav-

ing the ability to control the mass media also en-

courages people to try to affect other media. The

proposal to require print journalists to acquire and

publicize an e-mail address is an example of how

online users are trying to apply the lessons learned

from the online media to change the print media.

III. People as critics: the role the Net is

playing and will play in the future

People online are excited, and this is not an

exaggeration. The various discussion forums con-

nected to the global computer communications net-

work (or the Net) are the prototype for a new public

form of communication. This new form of human

communication will either supplement the current

forms of news or replace them. One person on a

newsgroup succinctly stated: “The real news is right

here. And it can’t get any newer because I watch it

as it happens.”

The very concept of news is being reinvented as

people come to realize that they can provide the

news about the environment they live in; that people

can contribute their real-life conditions and this in-

formation proves worthwhile for others. The post

continued: “As other segments of society come on-

line, we will have less and less need for some com-

mercially driven entity that gathers the news for me,

filters it, and then delivers it to me, hoping fervently

that I’ll find enough of interest to keep paying for

it.”

Such sentiment represents a fundamental chal-

lenge to the professional creation and dissemination

of news. The online discussion forums allow open

and free discourse. Individuals outside of the tradi-

tional power structures are finding a forum in which

to contribute, where those contributions are wel-

comed. Describing the importance of the open fo-

rum available on the Net, Dolores Dege wrote: “The

most important and eventually most powerful aspect

of the Net will be the effect(s) of having access to

alternative viewpoints to the published and usually

(although not always either intentionally or con-

sciously) biased local news media. This access to

differing ‘truths’ is similar to the communication

revolution which occurred when the first printing

presses made knowledge available to the common

populace, instead of held in the tight fists of the

clergy and ruling classes.”

This change in who makes the news is also ap-

parent to Keith Cowing: “How one becomes a ‘pro-

vider’ and ‘receiver’ of information is being totally

revamped. The status quo hasn’t quite noticed S yet

S this is what is so interesting.”

While this openness also encourages different

conspiracy theorists and crackpots to write mes-

sages, their contributions are scrutinized as much as

any other posting. This uncensored environment

leads to a sorting out of mis-truths from thoughtful

convictions. Many people online keep their wits

Page 34

about them and seek to refute half-truths and lies. A

post from Australia notes that it is common to post

refutations of inaccurate posts: “One of the good

things about Usenet is the propensity of people to

post refutations of false information that others have

posted.”

As the online media are in the control of many

people, no one person can come online and drasti-

cally alter the flow or quality of discussion. The

multiplicity of ideas and opinions make Usenet and

mailing lists the opposite of a free-for-all.

IV. Qualities of this new medium

A common assumption of the ethic of individu-

alism is that the individual is in control and is the

prime mover of society. Others believe that it is not

the individual who is in control, but that society is

being controlled by people organized around the

various large corporations that own so much of our

society – whether those corporations are the media,

manufacturers, etc. The global computer communi-

cations networks currently allow uncensored ex-

pression from the individual at a bottom rung of

society. The grassroots connection of people around

the world and in local communities based on com-

mon interests is an important step in bringing peo-

ple more control over their lives. Lisa Pease wrote

in alt.journalism: “The net… requires no permis-

sions, no groveling to authority, no editors to deal

with – no one basically to say ‘no don’t say that.’ As

a result, far more has been said here publicly than

has probably been said in a hundred years about is-

sues that really matter – political prisoners, demo-

cratic uprisings, exposure of disinformation – this is

what makes the net more valuable than any other

news source.”

Similar views are expressed by others about the

power of the Internet to work in favor of people

rather than commercial conglomerates: “The Inter-

net is our last hope for a medium that will enable

individuals to combat the overpowering influence of

the commercial media to shape public opinion,

voter attitudes, select candidates, influence legisla-

tion, etc….”

People are beginning to be empowered by the

open communications the online media provide.

This empowerment is beginning to lead toward

more active involvement by people in the societal

issues they care about.

V. The Pentium story

In discussions about the future of the online

media, people have observed how Usenet makes it

possible to challenge the privileges inherent in the

traditional news media. John Pike started a thread

describing the challenge the Net presents to the for-

mer content providers: “To me this is the really ex-

citing opportunity for Usenet, namely that the pro-

fessional content providers will be directly con-

fronted with and by their audience. The prevailing

info-structure privileges certain individuals by vir-

tue of institutional affiliation. But cyberspace is a

far more meritocractic environment – the free ex-

change of ideas can take place regardless of institu-

tional affiliation.”

Pike continues by arguing that online forums

are becoming a place where “news” is both made

and reported, and thus traditional sources are often

scooped. He writes: “This has tremendously excit-

ing possibilities for democratizing the info-struc-

ture, as the ‘official’ hardcopy implementations are

increasingly lagging cyberspace in breaking

news.”

An example of news being made online oc-

curred when Intel, the computer chip manufacturer,

was forced to recall faulty Pentium chips because of

the online pressure and the effect of that pressure on

computer manufacturers such as IBM and Gateway.

These companies put pressure on Intel because peo-

ple using Usenet discovered problems with the

Pentium. The online discussion led to people be-

coming active and getting the manufacturers of their

computers, and Intel to fix the problems.

In the article “Online Snits Fomenting Public

Storms,” Wall Street Journal reporters Bart Ziegler

and Jared Sandberg commented: “Some industry

insiders say that had the Pentium flub occurred five

years ago, before the Internet got hot and the media

caught on, Intel might have escaped a public flog-

ging and avoided a costly recall.”

Buried in the report is the acknowledgment that

the traditional press would not have caught the de-

fect in the Pentium chip, but that the online media

forced the traditional media to respond. The original

reporting about the problem was done in the Usenet

Page 35

newsgroup comp.sys.intel and further online discus-

sion took place in that newsgroup and other news-

groups and on Internet mailing lists. The Wall Street

Journal reporters recognized their debt to news that

people were posting online to come up with a story

that dealt with a major computer company and with

the real-world role that Usenet played.

In another article in the Wall Street Journal, re-

porter Fara Warner focused on the impact of the

online news on Intel. “[Intel] offered consumers a

promise of reliability and quality, and now that

promise has been called into question,” she writes,

quoting the CEO of a consulting firm.

The people

who did this questioning were the users of the com-

puters with the faulty chips. Communicating about

the problem online, these users were able to have an

impact not otherwise possible. Ziegler and Sandberg

noted that the discussions were online rather than in

“traditional public forums like trade journals, news-

papers or the electronic media.”

Online users were

able to work together to deal with a problem, in-

stead of depending on other forums traditionally

associated with reporting dissatisfaction with con-

sumer goods. After all of the criticisms, Intel had to

replace faulty chips to keep their reputation viable.

The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other

newspapers and magazines played second fiddle to

what was happening online. In their article, Ziegler

and Sandberg quote Dean Tom Goldstein: “It’s ab-

solutely changing how journalism is practiced in

ways that aren’t fully developed.”

These journalists acknowledge that the field of

journalism is changing as a result of the existence of

the online complaints. The online connection of

people is forming a large and important social force.

An Australian reporter, John Hilvert, com-

mented on the value of being online: “[Usenet] can

be a great source of leads about the mood of the

Net. The recent GIF-Unisys-CompuServe row and

the Intel Pentium bug are examples of Usenet taking

an activist and educative role.”

Although it is hard to rely on any single piece

of information, Usenet is not about ideas in a vac-

uum. Usenet is about discussion and discourse. The

great number and range of the unedited posts on

Usenet bring up the question of whether editors are

needed to deal with the amount of information. Dis-

cussing the need to take time to deal with the grow-

ing amount of information, a post on

alt.internet.media-coverage explained, “The differ-

ence being that for the first time in human history,

the general populace has the ability to determine

what it finds important, rather than relying on the

whims of those who knew how to write, or con-

trolled the printing presses. It means that we as indi-

viduals are going to have to deal with sifting

through a lot of information on our own, but in the

end I believe that we will all benefit from it.”

Such posts lead to the question of what is

meant by the notion of the general populace and a

popular press. The point is important, as those who

are on the Net make up but a small percentage of

the total population of either the United States or

the world. However, that online population makes

up a significant body of people connecting to each

other online.

The fast rate of growth also makes

one take note of the trends and developments. De-

fining what is meant by ‘general populace and a

popular press’ the post continues: “By general popu-

lace, I mean those who can actually afford a com-

puter, and a connection to the Net, or have access to

a public terminal. As computer prices go down, the

amount of people who fit this description will in-

crease. At any rate, comparing the 5S10 million

people with Usenet access, to the handful who con-

trol the mass media shows that even in a nascent

stage, Usenet is far more the ‘people’s voice’ than

any media conglomerate could ever be.”

Computer pioneers like Norbert Wiener, J. C.

R. Licklider and John Kemeny discussed the need

for man-computer symbiosis to help humans deal

with the growing problems of our times.

The on-

line discussion forums provide a new form of man-

computer symbiosis. They are helpful intellectual

exercises. It is healthy for society if all members

think and make active use of their brains – and

Usenet is conducive to thinking. It is not the role of

journalists to provide answers. Even if everybody’s

life is busy, what happens when they come to de-

pend on the opinions and summaries of others as

their own? Usenet is helping to create a mass com-

munity that works communally to aid the individual

to come to his or her own opinions.

Usenet works via the active involvement and

thoughtful contributions of each user. The Usenet

software facilitates the creation of a community

Page 36

whose thought processes can accumulate and bene-

fit the entire community. The creation of the printed

book helped to increase the speed of the accumula-

tion of ideas. Usenet now speeds up that process to

help accumulate the thoughts of the moment. The

resulting discussion seen on Usenet could not have

been produced beforehand as the work of one indi-

vidual. The bias or the point of view of any one in-

dividual or group is no longer presented as the

whole truth.

Karl Krueger describes some of the value of

Usenet in a post: “Over time, Usenetters get better

at being parts of the Usenet matrix – because their

own condensations support Usenet’s, and this helps

other users. In a way, Usenet is a ‘meta-symbiont’

with each user – the user is a part of Usenet and

benefits Usenet (with a few exceptions…), and

Usenet includes the user and benefits him/her.”

Krueger points out how experienced Usenet

users contribute to the Usenet community. He

writes: “As time increases normally, the experi-

enced Usenet user uses Usenet to make himself

more knowledgeable and successful. Experienced

users also contribute back to Usenet, primarily in

the forms of conveying knowledge (answering ques-

tions, compiling FAQs), conveying experience (be-

ing part of the environment a newbie interacts with),

and protecting Usenet (upholding responsible and

non-destructive use, canceling potentially damaging

SPAMs, fighting ‘newsgroup invasions,’ etc.).”

As each new user connects to Usenet, and

learns from others, the Usenet collective grows and

becomes one person richer. Krueger continues:

“Provided that all users are willing to spend the

minimal amount of effort to gain some basic Usenet

experience then they can be added to this loop. In

Usenet, old users gain their benefits from other old

users, while simultaneously bringing new users into

the old-users group to gain benefits.”

The collective body of people, assisted by the

Usenet software, has grown larger than any individ-

ual newspaper. As people continue to connect to

Usenet and other discussion forums, the collective

global population will contribute back to the human

community in this new form of news.

VI. Conclusion

Newspapers and magazines are a convenient

form for dealing with information transfer. People

have grown accustomed to reading newspapers and

magazines wherever and whenever they please. The

growing dissatisfaction with the print media is more

with the content than with the form. There is a sig-

nificant criticism that the current print media do not

allow for a dynamic response or follow-up to the

articles in hand. One possible direction would be

toward online distribution and home or on-site

printing of online discussion groups. This would

allow for the convenience of the traditional newspa-

per and magazine form to be connected to the dy-

namic conversation that online Netnews allows. The

reader could choose at what point in the conversa-

tion or how much of the discussion to make a part

of the printed form. But this leaves out the element

of interactivity. Still, it could be a temporary solu-

tion until the time when ubiquitous slate computers

with mobile networks would allow the combination

of a light, easy to handle screen, with a continuous

connection with the Internet from any location.

Newspapers could continue to provide enter-

tainment in the form of crossword puzzles, comics,

classified ads, and entertainment sections (e.g.,

entertainment, lifestyles, sports, fashion, gossip,

reviews, coupons, and so on). However, the real

challenge comes in what is traditionally known as

news, or information and newly breaking events

from around the world. Citizen, or now Netizen re-

porters are challenging the premise that authorita-

tive professional reporters are the only possible re-

porters of the news. The news of the day is biased

and opinionated no matter how many claims for ob-

jectivity exist in the world of the reporter. In addi-

tion, the choice of what becomes news is clearly

subjective. Now that more people are gaining a

voice on the open public electronic discussion fo-

rums, previously unheard “news” is being made

available. The current professional news reporting is

not really reporting the news, rather it is reporting

the news as decided by a certain set of economic or

political interests. Todd Masco contrasts the two

contending forms of the news media: “Free commu-

nication is essential to the proper functioning of an

open, free society such as ours. In recent years, the

functioning of this society has been impaired by the

Page 37

monolithic control of our means of communication

and news gathering (through television and

conglomerate-owned newspapers). This monolithic

control allows issues to be talked about only really

in terms that only the people who control the media

and access to same can frame. Usenet, and [online]

News in general, changes this: it allows real debate

on issues, allowing perspectives from all sides to be

seen.”

Journalists may survive, but they will be sec-

ondary to the symbiosis that the combination of the

Usenet software and computers with the Usenet

community produces. Karl Krueger observes how

the Usenet collective is evolving to join man and

machine into a news-gathering, sorting and dissemi-

nating body. He writes: “There is no need for Offi-

cial Summarizers (a.k.a. journalists) on Usenet, be-

cause everyone does it – by cross-posting,

following-up, forwarding relevant articles to other

places, maintaining ftp archives and WWW indexes

of Usenet articles.”

He continues: “Journalists will never replace

software. The purpose of journalists is similar to

scribes in medieval times: to provide an information

service when there is insufficient technology or in-

sufficient general skill at using it. I’m not insulting

journalism; it is a respectable profession and useful.

But you won’t need a journalist when you have a

good enough newsreader/browser and know how to

use it.”

These online commentators echo Victor Hugo’s

description of how the printed book grew up to re-

place the authority that architecture had held in ear-

lier times. Hugo writes: “This was the presentiment

that as human ideas changed their form they would

change their mode of expression, that the crucial

idea of each generation would no longer be written

in the same material or in the same way, that the

book of stone, so solid and durable, would give way

to the book of paper, which was more solid and du-

rable still.”

Today, similarly, the need for a broader, and

more cooperative gathering and reporting of the

news has helped to create the new online media that

are gradually supplanting the traditional forms of

journalism. Professional media critics writing in the

Freedom Forum Media Studies Journal acknowl-

edge that online critics and news gatherers are pre-

senting a challenge to the professional news media

that can lead to their overthrow when they write:

“News organizations can weather the blasts of pro-

fessional media critics, but their credibility cannot

survive if they lose the trust of the multitude of citi-

zens critics throughout the United States.”

As more and more people come online, and

realize the grassroots power of becoming a Netizen

reporter, the professional news media must evolve a

new role or will be increasingly marginalized.

Notes

1. Christopher Lasch, “Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of

Argument,” Media Studies Journal, Vol 9 no 1, Winter 1995, p. 81.

2. ibid.

3. ibid., p. 91.

4. Jared Sandberg, “Oklahoma City Blast Turns Users Onto Internet

for Facts, Some Fiction,” Wall Street Journal, April 20, 1995, p. A6.

5. Martha Fitzsimon and Lawrence T. McGill, “The Citizen as Media

Critic,” Media Studies Journal, Vol 9 no 2, Spring 1995, p. 91.

6. ibid.

7. Thomas S. Volovic, “Encounters Online,” Media Studies Journal,

Vol 9 no 2, Spring 1995, p. 115.

8. ibid.

9. Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg, “Online Snits Fomenting Public

Storms,” Wall Street Journal, December 23, 1994.

10. From: Gloria Stern

Date: 7 April 1995

Subject: Re: Future of print journalism

Newsgroups: alt.journalism

11. From: John Pike

Date: 24 April 1995

Subject: Re: Usenet’s political power (was Re: Content Providers —

Professionals versus Amateurs on Usenet)

Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet

12. From: Elizabeth Fischer

Date: 20 July 1994

Subject: Re: Time Cover Story: pipeline to editors

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

13. From: Jim Zoes

Date: 22 July, 1994

Subject: Re: Time Cover Story: pipeline to editors

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

14. ibid.

15. ibid.

16. From: Catherine Stanton

Date: 21 July 1994

Subject: Re: Time Cover Story: pipeline to editors

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

17. From: Abby Franquemont-Guillory

Date: 22 July 1994 13:45:19 -0500

Subject: Re: Time Cover Story: pipeline to editors

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

18. From: The Nutty Professor

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 13:35:34 GMT

Subject: Re: Reporter Seeking Net-Abuse Comments

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

19. From: Mikez

Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 03:58:55 GMT

Subject: Re: Mass media exploiting ‘cyberspace’ for ratings

Page 38

Newsgroups: alt.journalism.criticism

20. From: Wesley Howard

Date: 8 Apr 1995 05:39:43 GMT

Subject: Re: Does Usenet have an effect on the print news media?

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

21. From: John DeHoog

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 20:01:24 +0900

Subject: Make journalists get an e-mail address!

Newsgroups: alt.journalism

22. Message-Id: <elknox.35.00091823@bsu.idbsu.edu>

23. ibid.

24. Delores Dege, “Re: Impact of the Net on Society,” e-mail mes-

sage, 21 February 1995.

25. From: Keith L. Cowing

Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 12:33:23 -0500

Subject: Re: Content Providers — Professionals versus Amateurs on

Usenet

Newsgroups: alt.culture.internet

26. From: William Logan Lee

Subject: Re: Is hobby computing dead? (was Creative

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers

27. From: Lisa Pease

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 23:17:24 GMT

Subject: Re: Future of print journalism

Newsgroups: alt.journalism

28. From: Norman

Date: 20 Mar 1995 21:05:54 -0500

Subject: Re: Impact of the Net on Society

Newsgroups: alt.culture.internet

29. From: John Pike

Date: 17 Apr 1995 12:21:49 GMT

Subject: Content Providers — Professionals versus Amateurs on Use-

net

30. ibid.

31. Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg.

32. Fara Warner, “Experts Surprised Intel Isn’t Reaching Out To

Consumers More,” Wall Street Journal, 14 December 1994.

33. Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg.

34. ibid.

35. From: John Hilvert

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 03:40:57 GMT

Subject: Re: Does Usenet have an effect on the print news media?

Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet

36. From: Miskatonic Gryn.

Date: 17 Apr 1995 15:31:22 -0400

Subject: Re: Cliff Stoll

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

37. The number of people accessible via e-mail was placed at 27.5

million as of October 1994 according to John Quarterman and MIDS

http://www.tic.com/mids/howbig.html

38. From: Miskatonic Gryn.

39. See John Kemeny, Man and the Computer, J. C. R. Licklider,

“Man Computer Symbiosis,” Norbert Wiener, God & Golem, Inc.

40. From: Karl A. Krueger

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 08:58:33 GMT

Subject: Re: Special Issue of Time: Welcome to Cyberspace

Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage

41. ibid.

42. ibid.

43. From: L. Todd Masco

Newsgroups: news.future, comp.society.futures, ny.general (No sub-

ject line)

44. Karl A. Krueger.

45. ibid.

46. Victor Hugo, Notre Dame de Paris, translated by John Sturrock,

Penguin Books, London, 1978, p. 189.

47. Fitzsimon and McGill, p. 201.

[Editor’s Note: The following was put online in Jan-

uary 1997. Netnews is another name for Usenet]

New York City Civic Culture

from “The Friendly Club”

in the Eighteenth Century to

Netnews Today

by Michael Hauben

The birth of intellectual thought in New York

City during the eighteenth century mirrored the in-

tellectual ferment of the time in Edinburgh and

London. Thomas Bender in New York Intellect (Al-

fred A. Knopf Inc, New York, 1987) describes this

intellectual climate as a civic culture. Prior to the

development of such an active culture, America

needed to develop a critical mass of people. As resi-

dential density is greater in the city, the city had the

potential to be more intellectually exciting than the

country. However, during the first half of the eigh-

teenth century thoughtful people in American cities

still felt isolated. This isolation came about from the

lack of the ability to communicate and discuss ideas

with others. It is hard to be able to improve upon

one’s thoughts if there is no outside commentary or

criticism. Also, the best ideas often come about

from the meshing and interaction of two or more

minds. The mixing of different sources usually lead

to new and robust creations. New Yorkers felt iso-

lated as they knew they were on the periphery of the

world, far away from the cultural centers of Europe.

However, these people sought to develop a commu-

nity which would welcome the discussion and cre-

ation of ideas.

Civic culture describes a possible city life in

which public life and intellectual life merge and

overlap, rather than when these lifestyles are lived

by two sets of different people. In London, people

would often meet in coffeehouses to get together in

order to exchange and discuss ideas. These discus-

sions were different from past intellectual ex-

Page 39

changes by being secular in nature and taking on, at

times, very defined forms. The essay provided a

way of both thinking about a topic and writing it

down in a concrete form. (Thomas Bender, New

York Intellect, p. 10) The essay provided thoughtful

material to discuss upon meeting other people.

Bender writes that this culture in New York devel-

oped “a distinctive metropolitan character by the

conjunction of literary and practical affairs.” (p. 10)

During the time of the birth of this new Ameri-

can intellectual culture, colleges existed, but were

different from today’s academic institutions. Ameri-

can colleges in the eighteenth century existed as

traditional centers of denominational religious edu-

cation. An important figure in the beginning of New

York City’s intellectual life was William

Livingston. Livingston graduated from Yale as part

of a first generation of non-ministerial college grad-

uates. (p. 17) Livingston and colleagues met to-

gether in New York City in a group which

Livingston described to a friend as a “Society for

Improving Themselves in Useful Knowledge.” (p.

17) This was just one of many burgeoning social

civic societies. These societies represented a life

which was not possible in a more rural area. Gradu-

ally, the purpose of these societies evolved from the

social to the intellectual. Participants became inter-

ested in further increasing their knowledge of the

world and of ideas.

By 1754, two general institutions were formed

which would help to spread this intellectual milieu

throughout the city. The New York Society Library

was opened to help promote “a spirit of inquiry

among the people.” (p. 18) As such, it was intended

to help any individual who would be interested in

expanding his or her mind. In addition to providing

access to books, the Library was to function as a

museum and a research institute. (p. 18) Kings Col-

lege, later renamed Columbia College, was also

formed to make advanced intellectual study a possi-

bility for New Yorkers.

The social circles in the community continued

to grow and encourage intellectual association. A

prominent example was “The Friendly Club”

formed in 1793. These circles started concentrating

on the discussion and criticism of literature. This

discussion often took place in the form of conversa-

tion at weekly meetings. The participants likened

these meetings as their connection to the growing

“republic of intellect.” (p. 31) Today’s intellectual

activity differs in that much of it relies on printed

publications rather than on on-going conversations.

Some involved in these weekly societies would

note with disdain that others tended to have less

time for concentrating on the discussion because of

their growing interest in commerce. This seemed to

pave the way for the development in New York City

of what Bender calls a literary culture, and later the

academic culture. Both represent the narrowing of

who would consider themselves part of the intellec-

tual culture of the times. Whereas the businessmen,

lawyers and mechanics among others would partici-

pate in the civic culture, writers and others made up

the literary milieu. Lastly, the university represents

the total separation of intellectual study from any

other profession. Bender notes this as the

academicization of knowledge. He concludes his

book by calling for the liberation of knowledge and

intellectual thought from the privileged university

into the democratic mass of the general city.

The civic culture of the eighteenth century has

reemerged in the late twentieth century in the form

of discussion groups facilitated by the interconnec-

tion of computers and computer networks. Com-

puter facilitated communications take the form of

Netnews, mailing lists and real-time discussion

groups in Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or conferences.

Bender described some of the intellectual activity

pursued by the eighteenth century societies as “the

gathering of information and its distribution.” (p.

32) The most important of the new developments I

listed above, Netnews, technically does just that.

Usenet was created to provide an automated and

cost-effective way of distributing information be-

tween early Unix computer sites. This allows for

people to contribute some information in the form

of a post or article, and have the system distribute it

to the next Usenet site up the stream. The next site

continues the distribution and so on until the article

has gone around the world. Local newsgroups

which discuss New York City and its environs in-

clude nyc.general, nyc.announce and nyc.seminar,

which is used to announced seminars, meetings and

other such “societies.”

Other similarities abound. Bender wrote how

intellectual life in the eighteenth century was

Page 40

founded on conversation. (p. 39) He then contrasted

that with today’s reliance on books and journals as a

means for intellectual life. Usenet removes the

boundary between conversation and the structured

form of the printed word. A contribution to Netnews

is in the form of a post. A post is a message contrib-

uted to any one or combination of newsgroups or

subject areas of discussion. A person’s post is either

a reply to a previous post, or the beginning of a new

thread of discussion. In either case, a person’s con-

tribution can include a short or longer reply written

in a conversational style, or it can be a more struc-

tured answer as in the form of an essay, pamphlet,

or paper. The Usenet “Post” thus bridges the gap

between the conversations of the eighteenth century

and the publications of the twentieth century.

In New York Intellect, Bender discussed how

growing concern about people’s money making ef-

forts helped lead to the professionalization of intel-

lectual thinking. This concern about one’s profes-

sion meant some people spent less time outside of

work trying to expand their mind. (p. 120) This is a

very contemporary issue with the computer net-

works. The physical connection of multiple comput-

ers and networks, often called the “Net”, was origi-

nally developed and funded through public monies.

The future of who will run the Net is currently in

question. However, one thing which ties in with this

is the culture of the Net. It has developed as a cul-

ture of sharing, where people contribute to the

greater whole. This culture of sharing was facili-

tated by the fact that there were no charges to con-

nect to Usenet or the ARPANET outside of the nor-

mal operational costs and a possibly a local phone

call. If profit would begin to run the Net, sharing

might not continue to be a part of the picture. Users

might come to understand the Net as a service

which they demand certain outcomes from, and not

as a community to both gain from and contribute to

at the same time.

The concept of a ‘civic intellectual culture’ is a

very interesting idea. It describes a progressive way

of gathering people in today’s society and cities to-

gether to help solve the problems which seem to

plague today’s cities. Today’s technologies provide

a way to realize civic culture. Only through the fa-

cilitation of uncentralized discussion based on peo-

ples varying schedules and commitments can such a

conversation actually take place. To make civic cul-

ture feasible, connections into the computer net-

works need to be made easily available. It is impos-

sible to assume that everyone should have a com-

puter to hook into the conversation. As such, the

placement of public terminals into community cen-

ters and libraries would be a possible solution. And

for those who do have personal computers and mo-

dems in their homes, a local bank of phone numbers

should be available to facilitate the conversation.

Thomas Bender foresaw the need to move intellec-

tual discussions out from the University into the

broader community, and today’s technology has

started this process. In order to improve our future,

we need to spread access to the general public to

make the discussion on the Net fully democratic in

form and availability. A New York Freenet

would

help make this vision a reality.

Notes:

1. Freenet is an experimental community computer networking

program. The first freenet was opened in Cleveland with sup-

port from Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland

Public Hospital. The Cleveland Freenet is open and available

for free to all Cleveland residents (and anyone willing to call a

Cleveland phone number or with access to the Internet). It

provides the capability of communicating with local govern-

mental officials, other freenet users, and e-mail users around

the world. In addition, access is given to many international

Netnews newsgroups. Freenets have started to be established

across the U.S.A. and the world.

This article can be seen online at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/civic-culture.txt

Page 41

[Editor’s Note: The following was put online in De-

cember 1992. It is not scientifically correct because

it suggests incorrectly that acquired biological char-

acteristics can be passed on to future generations.

On the other hand, beneficial cultural characteristics

(for example labor saving inventions, or speech or

writing) can be and are passed on from generation

to generation. That is the ‘progress’ the author ar-

gues results from technology.]

Does Progress Result from

Technology?

by Michael Hauben

What does progress mean to the human spe-

cies? Progress is the gradual betterment or develop-

ment of mankind. Technology is a basis for prog-

ress. We can figure out if this is correct by looking

at the very dawn of mankind some four or five mil-

lion years ago. The beginnings of a phenomena dis-

play the easiest understandable form. From its early

form, we should be better able to understand the

influence technology has had on progress. In the

nineteenth Century, two substantial thinkers pro-

duced works on this idea. Lewis Henry Morgan, an

amateur anthropologist wrote Ancient Society

(1877), and Frederick Engels, who in this case

might be considered an amateur archeologist, wrote

an article entitled “The Part Played by Labor in the

Transition from Ape to Man” (1884).

Both Morgan and Engels agree that humans

started without any technical prowess, and gradually

developed technology through experimentation.

Engels starts his paper describing the human ances-

tor as an anthropoid ape, and of the biological pro-

cess that led to a man without technology. Morgan

wrote: “The latest investigations respecting the early

condition of the human race, are tending to the con-

clusion that mankind commenced their career at the

bottom of the scale and worked their way up from

savagery to civilization through the slow accumula-

tions of experimental knowledge.” (Morgan, p. 3)

Engels pinpoints bipedalism as the decisive transi-

tion from ape to man. He writes: “Climbing assigns

different functions to the hands and feet, and when

their mode of life involved locomotion on level

ground, these apes gradually got out of the habit of

using their hands [in walking] and adopted a more

and more erect posture. This was the decisive step

in the transition from ape to man.” (Engels, p. 251)

Early primates emerged from the tree environ-

ment and entered onto the savanna. Bipedalism was

the next development. The slow biological evolu-

tion paved the path for the much faster cultural evo-

lution. “Handedness” developed as man’s ancestors

walked on only two feet. The least competitive food

source was available by foraging plants. Free hands

were naturally better to forage with. Naturally se-

lected bipedalism allowed the hands freedom to de-

velop. Engels talks about the development: “But the

decisive step had to be taken, the hand had become

free and could henceforth attain ever greater dexter-

ity; the greater flexibility thus acquired was inher-

ited and increased from generation to generation.”

(Engels, p. 251) The hand freed from climbing

could evolve by natural selection to do more suc-

cessful non tree-climbing activities. So Engels had

the correct sense, but the wrong mechanism in

mind.

Once the hand was freed from walking or

climbing through evolution, more useful or varied

purposes could be developed. Engels explains:

“Thus the hand is not only the organ of labor, it is

also the product of labor. Labor, adaption to ever

new operations, the inheritance of muscles, liga-

ments, and, over longer periods of time, bones that

had undergone special development and the ever

renewed employment of this inherited finesse in

new, more and more complicated operations.”

(Engels, p. 252)

What happened next is unknown, but with the

hand freed to develop, the first technology emerged.

Man’s earliest ancestors (Homo habilis, or maybe

even one of the australopithecine species) were the

first to make and use stone tools. Most likely natural

stones were first picked up and found to be strong

and usable to achieve a goal faster. Increasing use of

stones, made possible by the uniquely evolved hand

of man, led to the advantage of increasing flexibility

of the hand. As stones were picked up and used,

either accidently or through experimentation, bro-

ken or “crafted” rocks were found to be even more

useful. Here stands the beginnings of tool-making.

The use of the hands in conjunction with rocks al-

lowed the brain to develop through the experimenta-

Page 42

tion and use of the hand. Experience with using the

hand led to development of the brain. The experi-

mentation with the hand lead to the evolution of the

brain. Those with biologically developed hands had

increased flexibility. These individuals had an in-

creased advantage via natural selection. The off-

spring of these individuals had a biological advan-

tage over those without the increased flexibility.

Engels describes tool-making as a clue to the transi-

tion from ape to man: “Labor begins with the mak-

ing of tools. And what are the most ancient tools

that we find – the most ancient judging by heir-

looms of prehistoric man that have been discovered,

and by the rawest of contemporary savages? They

are hunting and fishing implements, the former

serving at the same time as weapons. But hunting

and fishing presuppose the transition from an exclu-

sively vegetable diet to the concomitant use of meat,

and this is another important transition from ape to

man.” (Engels, p. 256)

Progress of stone tool development is an impor-

tant technology to follow. The evidence of increas-

ing intricacy and complexity of stone tools in the

archeological record leads to an interesting ques-

tion. Does the advancement in stone tool technology

demonstrate tool usages effect on the brain, or vice

versa? The continued experimentation pushed the

degree to which man had to expand his mind. This

was a totally cultural development. New discoveries

were likely to have been shared and this allowed for

a continued communal cultural development.

The development of tool-making is the first

example of technological development pushing our

ancestors to further develop an idea and in the pro-

cess challenging the brain which helped develop-

ment. The brain did not develop by itself. Instead,

the experimentation with certain ideas and concepts

led to development. Morgan explains the impor-

tance of constant experimentation to human prog-

ress: “With the production of inventions and discov-

eries, and with the growth of institutions, the human

mind necessarily grew and expanded; and we are

led to recognize a gradual enlargement of the brain

itself, particularly of the cerebral portion.” (Morgan,

p. 37) The question that is not taken up is how natu-

ral selection works in respect to the brain. In addi-

tion the influence of the development of the hand to

the brain has not been successfully understood.

However, this is an important question.

This “playfulness” was necessary in order for

continued development to happen. Today the human

species constantly is at work pushing the technolog-

ical envelope never being satisfied. This is a good

direction, because this also pushes the continued

development of the intellect. The continued devel-

opment of the mental processes helps improve the

standard of society. This is what is meant by prog-

ress. There is no finished “plateau” of total achieve-

ment.

The earliest development was the slowest, be-

cause it was relatively the greatest. Morgan writes:

“The slowness of this mental growth was inevitable,

in the period of savagery, from the extreme diffi-

cultly of compassing the simplest invention out of

nothing, or with next to nothing to assist mental ef-

fort; and of discovering any substance or force in

nature available in such a rude condition of life.”

(Morgan, p. 37)

Development was not always progressively in-

creasing. There were periods of stagnation. Morgan

explains how development was held back. The next

step could be elusive. The development of domesti-

cation of animals and later of the smelting of iron

ore were crucial steps. Morgan explains: “The most

advanced portion of the human race were halted, so

to express it, at certain stages of progress, until

some great invention or discovery, such as the do-

mestication of animals, or the smelting of iron ore,

gave a new and powerful impulse forward.” (Mor-

gan, p. 39)

Man’s developments that differentiated him

from other animals are numerous. Man gradually

added different foods to his diet. The development

of tools to forage led to the development of tools to

scavenge. As man added scavenged meat to his diet,

it was seen that there was plenty more live meat

about. This live game needed to be killed before

being edible. The further development of tools

made this possible. Constant development of tech-

nology allowed man to further define his environ-

ment. Engels describes this process: “Just as man

learned to consume everything edible, he also

learned to live in any climate. He spread over the

whole of habitable world, being the only animal

Page 43

fully able to do so of its own accord.” (Engels, p.

258)

Fire was probably the next invention of great

importance. Fire made control over environment

possible. Fire provided warmth for colder regions,

and made subsistence easier. Engels elaborates on

the second of these points: “[Fire] still further short-

ened the digestive process, as it provided the mouth

with food already, as it were, half digested” (Engels,

p. 257)

Man is a part of nature, but learned how to deal

with nature. Man learned how to control nature for

his advantage. This represents the ultimate differ-

ence from other animals. Engels first tells how man

is part of nature: “In nature nothing takes place in

isolation. Everything affects and is affected by every

other thing.” (Engels, p. 259) Man’s ability over

nature is his next point. Engels writes: “In short, the

animal merely uses its environment, and brings

about changes in it simply by his presence; man by

his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. This

is the final, essential difference between man and

other animals, and once again it is labor that brings

about the distinction.” (Engels, p. 260)

Two patterns of thought disagree with techno-

logical progress. Religion and creationism holds

that man was given superiority by living in paradise

in the Garden of Eden. After the original sin, man

was kicked out and made to start over again. Not

very helpful when man in fact started out with noth-

ing. Constant experimentation led to technological

and intellectual development and the constant prog-

ress of the human species. The other pattern is from

an environmentalist point of view. Human use of

technology is said to destroy the environment, when

in fact technology is the main reason we are not still

in a primitive stage.

Progress in man’s beginnings meant gaining

control of the environment in order to be able to

make the decisions that would help with survival.

This was made possible through the development of

technology of man. Biological evolution produced

bipedalism, which provided our early ancestors with

an advantage and thus set the platform for further

developments. First stone tool use, then stone tool

production helped to encourage intellectual devel-

opment of the species. Next came better control

over subsistence. Fire helped, but animal domestica-

tion and agriculture allowed for steady flow of food

for a set rate of work. Presumably at some point in

the various stages spoken language developed.

Speech meant man was able to communicate and

make decisions as a group. Now, control was stabi-

lized and gave room for written language.

Written language made future development

much easier. What was developed could not be yet

recorded for posterity and communicated in all its

detail to future generations until there was written

language. Morgan says with this development civili-

zation commences. Written language was the foun-

dation for most of modern advances. We are at this

point in the world development through the driving

force of technology. New tools and inventions have

led to a progressively better developed ability to

provide the needed sustenance and livelihood to the

human species. Those who deny the role played by

inventions and discoveries in the progressive evolu-

tion of the human species deny the long evolution of

advancement from prehistory to the modern era.

Bibliography

Morgan, Lewis Henry. Ancient Society. New York: 1877,

Henry Holt and Company.

Engels, Frederick. “The Part Played by Labour in the Transi-

tion from Ape to Man,” in The Origin of the Family, Private

Property, and the State. N.Y.: 1975. International Publishers.

This article is online at:

http://www.ais.org/~hauben/Michael_Hauben/Collected_Work

s/Articles/Does_Progress_Result_From_Technology.txt

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their

authors and not necessarily the opinions of the Amateur

Computerist newsletter. We welcome submissions from

a spectrum of viewpoints.

Page 44

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben (1973-2001)

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions.

Articles can be submitted via e-mail:

[email protected]

Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue

in a non profit publication provided credit is given, with

name of author and source of article cited.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

All issues of the Amateur Computerist are on-line.

Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are available at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/

Page 45