What does CommonWealth look like?
Just came out of Friday's opening plenary with some interesting discussion on the meaning of Commonwealth and collaborative work. The plenary, moderated by Valerie Linson of WGBH and led by discussants Kristina Newman-Scott, David Bollier, and Tamara Gould, explored varying and evolving manifestations of Commonwealth-- from the new digital commons via the Internet and Web 2.0 to the move away from purely broadcast to a multiplicity of communication outlets.
What particularly resonated with me was the issue of moving beyond the somewhat self-congratulatory discussion of the Internet and social media as a leveler of playing fields; rather, looking critically at and addressing the new disparities that these forms have simultaneously produced (or perhaps aggravated). As Kristina mentioned, "we could always do a better job." The advent of new forms such as Wikipedia and the blogosphere in combination with the continued work of public television and radio has certainly provided a space for more voices to engage and connect than ever before.
That said, as many before me have brought up, there is still much work to do if we are truly interested in a "level playing field." As technology becomes more and more integrated into our daily lives-- from finding jobs to developing networks to accessing social services and information-- the issues of digital inclusion and literacy become even more fundamental to not only ourselves but the communities that our organizations are intending to serve.
Issues of access are not only a supplement to our discussion of Commonwealth, but the foundation upon which it is based. As Craig Aaron pointed out in Thursday's opening plenary, we are all lobbyists and advocates. Technology hasn't and will not level the playing field or changed the dynamics of power. Rather, it has shifted its form and scope, bringing up new challenges for ourselves as media artists, techies, policymakers, advocates, and social media experts. What are we doing to alter the status quo?
