Group Three.

I think the power of the networked society intersecting with Google Earth and nation states shows, again, the potential of bottom-up, horizontal organization amongst citizens. Yet, it is also a good illustration of the important role that boundaries that are not only physical, but are those that are socially created, play within society.

India’s perceivably correct boundaries of where Kashmir was located and those boundaries created on Google Earth were widely different; and the story of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute where Google was, “accused of bias” in setting the boundaries of their territory, were both instances of the Google Earth and nation state dispute mentioned in the article. Obviously there are historical bases for nations to “mark territory” and establish boundaries, but what are the sociocultural reasons as well? Adams (2009) argues that boundaries do not merely exist as physical barriers but also exemplify the idea of creating the “other” through constructing particular social categories within a nation state.

Authoritarian governments have recognized the power of the network society in circumventing their socially constructed boundaries, and these networks have made the other accessible. Based on Habermas, Ideal Speech Situation, any person is permitted to discuss, and should not be excluded from, the topic related to truth and justice, and the public sphere is essential for civil society to thrive. I think that governments who block certain parts of websites or Internet gateways, such as China’s Great Firewall, are learning the power of how the network society can work around their loopholes. Despite all of their attempts to keep boundaries intact, the more we connect with the “other” the more we realize how much we are alike. We must also recognize the power of the network and the non state actors (i.e. powerful organizations) that stand behind them.