Building community in your area? Check out the newly-launched Community Organizers Handbook! Everything you need to start and grow a NetSquared Local group or any other community-powered program.
NetSquared is an initiative ofTechSoup
NetSquared enables social benefit organizations to leverage the tools of the social web.
What's the real issue that should inform technology innovations focused on social change?
Power—who has it and who deserves it—that is what ought to inform technology innovations intended for social change. For example, imagine for a moment that you had put this question to the two most successful social reformers of the 20th century, Martin Luther King and Gandhi. What would they say?
Gandhi: I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest person whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to [that person]. Will he [or she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [or her] to a control over his [or her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [i.e., personal freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? 
Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away. (Mohandas K. Gandhi, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 89, p. 125)
I believe Gandhi and King would agree that any kind of tool aimed at social change today must give average citizens more power. In essence, Indian independence and the civil rights movement were both about empowering politically marginalized groups.
Today we face a similar problem regarding average American citizens. Representative democracy is alive and well in the United States; however, the entities being represented are corporations and not average citizens. So any tool for social change should do one of two things: either seek to shift power from corporations and the political elite to average citizens or dramatize the injustice of corporate dominance of democratic processes.
Take, for example, the process of legislation. U.S. Representatives, those officials at the federal level charged with representing us on important social issues, don't talk to us. However, we know that U.S. Representatives do talk to corporate lobbyists. As a result, most laws passed by the House of Representatives are for corporate benefit and not in the public interest.
One way to change this via technology is to create an online House bill preference poll. If we require U.S. Representatives to poll constituents on bills scheduled for a vote and to publish the results, we could see how well our Representatives are representing us. For example:
Poll results for H.R. 1424 -- Troubled Assets Relief Program
the People: Nay (23% vs. 77%)
the House: Yea (59% vs. 41%)
As for which resources we should use when building a new approach to social change, again we can take a cue from Martin Luther King and Gandhi—engage the hearts and minds of human beings and inspire them to bring about their own social change.
- Pablo's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Subscribe
NetSquared Newsletters:
>>Subscribe to NetSquared News and other email updates.
NetSquared Community Blog:
>> Subscribe to the Community Blog RSS feed.
>> Subscribe to the Community Blog comments RSS feed.
I'm with you in principle,
I'm with you in principle, but I think that the instant polling on Congress bills is a very, very dangerous path to start going down.
The United States' guiding principle should be individual sovereignty, not majority rule. The majority is often composed of bullies, but America's constitution recognizes that individuals don't deserve to be bullied. Gays deserve to have the right to marry, even though 52% of Californians would rather keep that right from them. And people accused of terrorism deserve the right to see the evidence being used against them, even as angry mobs attack them.
I'd like to see fewer opinion polls, and more people in power basing their decisions on upholding America's constitution, no matter what the majority has to say about it.
Cheers,
Elliot
An official voice, but a non-binding one
The aim of polls on House bills would be to give citizens an official voice in the legislative process, something they don't have right now and that corporations effectively do have.
That said, you are right--justice is not something that you can simply tally up. That is why I advocate giving the people an official voice, but making their voice non-binding and simply an opinion, one that we can compare to House votes to see how well U.S. Representatives are representing their true constituents.
As you point out, even when a Rep votes against his or her district, that doesn't mean that he or she is wrong. Nevertheless, to make the best decisions, Reps must rely on their own judgment and their constituents' opinions. How can U.S. Reps attempt to represent their constituents if they don't consult with them?
Rather than direct democracy, this would be digital democracy, a refinement of our current system of representative democracy.
open data movement
The real issue: our need for open, web-accessible government (and other public interest) data feeds in open standard formats--XML, KML, etc. Change in this direction seems inevitable, but it will really take off when there are nationally known and federally promulgated models for data sharing. The result will be direct access and public participation in governance, better sources for journalism of all kinds, and a new basis for topical and geographically defined markets--interactive online news and community applications based on the contextuialized, meaningful presentation of public data and the opportunity for collaborative responses to it. We probably all know Everyblock--I'm talking about what happens when Everyblock-type applications can go anywhere.