Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 50 No. 2 (2022)

Society

Why Digitisation Can Cause Anarchization: Micro-identities on the Internet as a Factor Stimulating the Process of State Anarchisation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35757/STP.2022.50.2.02
Submitted: February 2, 2022
Published: October 28, 2022

Abstract

The article deals with the phenomenon of socio-political anarchization related to the dynamic process of digitalization, primarily the functioning of social media. All the issues are analyzed from several perspectives, including the research area of political science, sociology and psychology. According to the Authors, many mechanisms of the Internet networks described in the article contribute not only to the growing social and political polarization, but also may lead to a recession of liberal democracy and the most important state institutions. The authors argue that the specific way of functioning of digital media and the available options of their use may strengthen gradual anarchization processes, which ultimately lead to the creation of social entities of various types, being defined by particular micro-identities and less and less dependent on the State, and at the same time contributing (or rather being able to contribute) to the actual atrophy of the existing state structures, as well as the rules and procedures hitherto present in society.

References

  1. Abu Musab al Suri, Jihadist training videos, 2000 za: Zackie Masoud, M.W. An Analysis of Abu Mus’ab al-Suri’s “Call to Global Islamic Resistance”, „Journal of Strategic Security” 2013, Vol. 6, Nr. 1.
  2. Antoci, F., Sabatini, F., Sodini, M. See You on Facebook! A framework for analyzing the role of computer-mediated interaction in the evolution of social capital, „The Journal of Socio-Economics” 2012, nr. 41.
  3. Baum, M.A.; Groeling,T. New Media and the Polarization of American Political Discourse, Political Communication 25/2008, https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600802426965.
  4. Beaufort, M. Digital media, political polarization and challenges to democracy, Information, Communication & Society, 2018/21:7, 915-920, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1451909.
  5. Carothers, T., O’Donohue, A. Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization, Brookings Institution Press 2019.
  6. Casal Bértoa F., Rama J. Polarization: What Do We Know and What Can We Do About It?. Frontiers in Political Science 2021, 3:687695. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2021.687695.
  7. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Ryan, R. M. Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation & Emotion, 2015, 39 (2).
  8. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy (Communication, Society and Politics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818271.
  9. Democracies Divided. The Global Challenge of Political Polarization, (red.) T. Carothers, A. O'Donohue, Brookings Institution Press, 2019.
  10. Diamond L., Facing Up to the Democratic Recession, “Journal of Democracy”, vol.26, Jan 2015.
  11. Douglas K.M., McGarty C. Identifiability and self‐presentation: Computer‐mediated communication and intergroup interaction. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (3) (2001), s. 399-416, 10.1348/014466601164894.
  12. Ebner, J. Coraz ciemniej. Ekstremiści w sieci, Warszawa: Polityka 2020.
  13. Foa, R.S., Mounk, Y. The Democratic Disconnect, „Journal of Democracy” 2016, Vol. 27, Nr. 3.
  14. Mounk, Y., Foa, R. S. The Signs of Deconsolidation, „Journal of Democracy” 2017, Vol.28, Nr. 1.
  15. Friedland N. Becoming a terrorist: social and individual antecedents. w: L. Howard (red.) Terrorism: Roots, Impact, Responses. London: Praeger 1992.
  16. Fukuyama, F. Identity. The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, Picador Edition, New York 2019.
  17. Fukuyama, F. Koniec historii i ostatni człowiek, tłum. Tomasz Bieroń i Marek Wichrowski, Znak, Kraków 2017.
  18. Fukuyama, F. Tożsamość. Współczesna polityka tożsamościowa i walka o uznanie, tłum. Jan Pyka, Rebis, Poznań 2019.
  19. Hardin C.D., Higgins E.T. Shared reality: how social verification makes the subjective objective. W: E. T. Higgins, R. M. Sorrentino (red.) Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: The Interpersonal Context. Vol. 3. New York, NY: Guilford Press 1996.
  20. Hegel, W. F. Fenomenologia ducha, tłum. F. Ś. Nowicki, Aletheia, Warszawa 2010.
  21. Imperato C., Schneider B.H., Caricati L., Amichai-Hamburger Y., Mancini T. Allport meets internet: A meta-analytical investigation of online intergroup contact and prejudice reduction, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Volume 81, March 2021.
  22. Jennings, M. K., Zeitner, B. Internet use and civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67/2003.
  23. Kaiser, B. Dyktatura danych. Kulisy działania Cambridge Analytica. Jak big data, Trump i Facebook zniszczyły demokrację i dlaczego może się to powtórzyć, tłum. P. Cieślak, Harper Collins Polska, Warszawa 2020.
  24. Keyes, R. The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life, St. Martin's Press 2004.
  25. Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., & Gunaratna, R. The three pillars of radicalization: Needs, narratives and networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2019.
  26. Levitsky, S.; Ziblatt, D. Tak umierają demokracje, tłum. O. Łabendowicz, Łódź: Fundacja Liberté! 2018.
  27. Lewandowsky, S., Smillie, L., Garcia, D., Hertwig, R., Weatherall, J., Egidy, S., Robertson, R.E., O’connor, C., Kozyreva, A., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Blaschke, Y. and Leiser, M., Technology and Democracy: Understanding the influence of online technologies on political behaviour and decision-making, EUR 30422 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-24088-4, doi:10.2760/709177, JRC122023.
  28. Mearsheimer, J. J. Wielkie złudzenie. Liberalne marzenia a rzeczywistość międzynarodowa, tłum. Tomasz Bieroń, Wydawnictwo Nowej Konfederacji i Universitas, Kraków 2021.
  29. Milačić, F. The negative impact of polarization on democracy, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung 3/2021, http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/wien/18175.pdf.
  30. Moon, A. Two-thirds of American adults get news from social media, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-socialmedia-idUSKCN1BJ2A8.
  31. Mounk, Y. Lud kontra demokracja. Dlaczego nasza wolność jest w niebezpieczeństwie i jak ją ocalić, tłum. K. Gucio, Warszawa: Biblioteka Kultury Liberalnej 2019.
  32. Nagle, A. Kill All Normies. Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right, Zero Books 2017.
  33. New Media and Politics, (red.) B. Axford, R. Huggins, California: Sage Publication, 2001.
  34. Pariser, P. The Filter Bubble: What The Internet Is Hiding From You, London: Penguin 2011; Bruns, A. Filter buble, „Internet Policy Review” 2019, Vol.8/4, DOI: 10.14763/2019.4.1426.
  35. Pew Research Center, June, 2014, “Political Polarization in the American Public”. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public.
  36. Platon, Państwo, tłum. W. Witwicki, Alfa: Warszawa 1994.
  37. Prensky, M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, „On the Horizon” 2001, Vol. 9, Nr. 5, MCB University Press.
  38. Putnam, R. Samotna gra w kręgle, tłum. P. Sandura, S. Szymański, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie i Profesjonalne 2008.
  39. Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., Nanetti, R.Y. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press 1994.
  40. Richardson, D. Why Is the New Right Obsessed With Bitcoin?, https://observer.com/2018/05/new-right-bitcoin-obsessed/.
  41. Runciman, D. Jak kończy demokracja, tłum. Sz. Żuchowski, Warszawa: Biblioteka Kultury Liberalnej 2019.
  42. Sabatini, F.; Sarracino, F. Online social networks and trust, „EERI Research Paper Series”, No. 04/2015, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/142678/1/EERI_RP_2015_04.pdf.
  43. Sailer, M., Hense J.U., Mayr S. K., Mandl H. How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction, „Computers in Human Behavior” 2017, Vol. 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033.
  44. Scola, N. How Facebook, Google and Twitter ‘embeds’ helped Trump in 2016, “Politico”, 26.10.2017.https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/26/facebook-google-twitter-trump-244191.
  45. Sellner, M. Patriot Peer – Connecting the Silent Majority, https://altright.com/2017/02/16/patriot-peer-connecting-the-silent-majority/.
  46. Strömbäck, J. Future Media Environments, Democracy and Social Cohesion. W: Digital Opportunities, Stockholm: Digitaliseringskommissionen 2015.
  47. Svolik, M.W. Polarization versus Democracy, Journal of Democracy 30/2019, https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/polarization-versus-democracy/.
  48. Sztompka, P. Kapitał społeczny. Teoria przestrzeni międzyludzkiej, Kraków: Znak Horyzont 2016.
  49. Sztompka, P. Słownik socjologiczny. 1000 pojęć, Kraków: Znak Horyzont 2020.
  50. Taylor, D. Social Identity and Social Policy: Engagements with Postmodern Theory. Journal of Social Politics 1998, 27, 3.
  51. Timberg, C. Bitcoin’s boom is a boon for extremist groups, „The Washington Post”, 26. 12.2017.
  52. Tönnies, F. Wspólnota i stowarzyszenie, tłum. M. Łukasiewicz, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2008.
  53. Tönnies, F. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. 1880-1935. De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston 2019.
  54. Uslaner E. Trust, Civic Engagement, and the Internet, „Political Communication” 2004, Nr. 21.
  55. Wike, R., Simmons, K., Stokes, B., Fetterolf, J. Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy, Pew Research Center 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/.
  56. Zackie Masoud, M.W. An Analysis of Abu Mus’ab al-Suri’s “Call to Global Islamic Resistance”, „Journal of Strategic Security” 2013, Vol. 6, Nr. 1.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.