Popping the Filter Bubble

What is a Filter Bubble? 

"We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you! You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even *think* like the tube! This is mass madness, you maniacs! In God's name, you people are the real thing! *WE* are the illusion!"-Network

   
     Sustainability relies a great deal upon understanding world-views; to deal with the innumerable opinions and needs of people and affect actual change, one must understand why they do what they do. In the age of the internet there's no reason to think that this would be difficult; the networks that connect us all should do nothing but facilitate interactivity and discourse about all manner of things. But unfortunately that is slowly evolving into a distant fantasy, a byproduct of the fact that each person's internet experience is slowly being tailored to them. Political and internet activist Eli Pariser calls this phenomenon the "filter bubble," noting that all major browsers and websites are slowly shifting to adapt their information flow to the interests of each user, rather than let the user naturally receive information as it comes. By examining what links a user selects or what information they "upvote," websites are becoming increasingly good at identifying exactly what each person wants from them. 

      But while convenient and somewhat opportune, this phenomenon bodes poorly. Pariser's argument is that this will make our society increasingly divisive, drawing together groups of close-knit individuals that will reject alternative ways of thinking, preventing cooperation and understanding across the globe. A NRA proponent, for instance, might never encounter arguments against gun ownership if this continues, and never bother to approach the issue from both sides. It doesn't matter the issue; all sides need to be well informed to find middle grounds or they will constantly demonize the opposition unjustly.

      Funnily enough, this phenomenon closely resembles that which the 1976 movie Network explored, one in which the world outside of the news channel was becoming increasingly irrelevant. Much of the film was devoted to arguing against this phenomenon and for all people to spend more time ignoring the opinions of the "box," but the movie never truly arrives at a solution to the issue that still allows interaction with television. Since it is unlikely people will shun the internet, for sustainability to survive in the coming years it is imperative that a solution is found; thankfully unlike Network however, there are a myriad of possibilities on how to fix the issue. 

Solutions   

      Pariser's solution is for Google to both consider the public good when customizing searches and open their search algorithms so everyone can understand how their results are individually filtered. The first sounds reasonable from merely a business aspect, but the second is perhaps a little too farfetched; Google has declined to reveal such information because it is an integral part of the uniqueness of their product. Certainly Google could give some vague idea of how they rank, but the nonspecificity of such a revelation would likely make such information useless. Since everyone's results are customized distinctly, relevance would likely be factor constantly changing.
      
      The first is still not a perfect solution though; there are significant issues with allowing certain people to determine what is relevant or important to each person. Pariser thinks that there can be a good blend between important information and "fun" results that we may be more interested in, but there seems to be a fine line between delivering information and politicizing a news feed. Saying certain things need to appear may be just as bad as saying that they shouldn't. 
     
      As Levy notes, Google responded to Pariser by introducing Search plus Your World, a separate search engine that could tailor results based upon friends' searches and interests or just based off the available data. But while the first is better than nothing and the second is democratizing, both still fail. By having only friends' interests dictate data, you can still easily be stuck in filter bubbles of social life. After all, we're more likely to be friends with those who share our beliefs. The second is good, but relevant and crucial information could easily escape if people aren't careful. Plus, tailoring the internet has certain advantages; it would be good if they could be retained. Thaler and Sunstein argue that while it may be somewhat immoral trying to shape someone's worldview, offering them the option of other choices as long as the original options they wanted are present, is perfectly fine and arguably justified as a public good.
     
      Stray has several suggestions to fix these issues, and I think correctly identifies that this problem needs to be solved from several angles. From arguing that the web needs curation of high quality or socially relevant media to claiming that mapping web activity would identify biases, he touches upon the multi-dimensional aspect of the issue. His thoughts are that there should be settings available on websites to tailor information by categories like importance, relevance, popularity, and diversity from your one's viewpoint. While a nice idea and assuming that bias in selection in kept to a minimum, I think this works great in theory, but considering that most people operate in "straight-lines," rarely changing ho they do something unless it's an emergency, I think proactive change is for the best. I think his argument is strongest when he says:

"Another possibility is to analyze social networks to look for alternate perspectives on whatever you're reading. If people in our personal social network all hold similar opinions, our filters could trawl for what people are reading outside of our home cluster, retrieving items which match our interests but aren’t on our social horizon.\

      The benefits of search customization could be easily paired with the diversity of other opinions; 1 of every 5 results could be from differing opinions. Alternatively, they could be from the pages of people who vary mostly with your opinions but have a common interest in that one. Graells-Garrido et al seem to believe that option is acceptable; their research indicates that there is a statistically significant portion of people who are open to seeing diversity in their online access. 

      That's not to say that filter bubbling can be solved in one fell swoop, but I think that change can be slowly integrated into how we use the internet. For both our sake and the future of sustainability, it will remain important in the coming years to see how other sides view various arguments and meaningfully interact with them in the digital world. 

Citations

Ali T. Bubble 2. Flickr.com. 23 Aug, 2008. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1xBG2tt

Az, d-221 books. Flickr.com. 16 Oct, 2010. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1oNMpcr

Graells-Garrido et al. Data Portraits: Connecting People of Opposing Views. Cornell University Library. 19 Nov, 2013. Digital.

Internet Movie Database. Network. Photo. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

Jairoagua. Networking. 5 July, 2005. Flickr.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1o5Rz2R

Levy, S. Has Google Popped the Filter Bubble? Wired.com. 10 Jan, 2012. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2012/01/google-filter-bubble/

Pariser, E. "Beware online filter bubbles." Ted.com. Mar, 2011. Video. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles

Stray, J. Are we stuck in filter bubbles? Here are five paths out? Nieman Journalism Laboratory, Harvard University. 11 Jul, 2012. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1zxswdc

Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, 8 Apr, 2008.

Is it culturally appropriate to culturally appropriate? (2)

Problems with problems with CA

      I previously overviewed why I was discussing cultural appropriation. To reiterate, I'm not trying to destroy the concept, nor do I think I can. Rather, I want to carefully examine the aspects of the issue to try and find a logical middle ground that appeals to all people. 

      There are a number of arguments available pertaining to why appropriation is bad; I'm going to try and address all of the most persuasive that I have found. It's completely possible that I've missed some; if you're concerned that they undermine my argument, send me a message and I'll try to edit this post to include them. 

Theft

     

      First and foremost is the argument that cultural appropriation constitutes theft from a culture. (Uwujaren, swanblood, Scafadi). After all, an individual using cultural elements is using them without permission and never pay for their usage, something most people construe as theft. 

      The first problem with this is with their conception of ownership. The argument acts as if there are owners for various cultural attributes, when in reality there are not. There's no one person you can ask for permission from or pay a fee to; there is a group that is somewhat cohesive in certain areas and divided in others. Maybe the act of appropriation is theft...but there's no way to truly ever tell if the group is opposed to it or not. 
      
      The second problem is that nothing is, strictly speaking, "stolen." There is no loss to the group, no physical theft, no one is harmed and may ever know that something was taken from them. Culture is not a "thing," but an idea, and ideas can be copied ad infinitum with no repercussions. On Philosophy makes a fascinating argument that ownership must be predicated in both the belief that one owns something and their ability to protect it; if a group cannot protect their ideas, they do not truly "own" them. 
     
      The third problem is that there is no logical endpoint for appropriation; cultures intermingle all the time and thousands of everyday objects, beliefs, and practices are from different regions of the world. Eating and enjoying hummus might be appropriation, as might be using a base 10 number system. Uwujaren admits this problem, noting there is a significant problem separating legitimate exchange from appropriation. If you can't even define the problem, then the likelihood theft is occurring is fairly low. 

Misrepresentation

      
      Second is the argument that cultural appropriation misrepresents other cultures, showing only partial representations of who they are and embodying stereotypes. Berlatsky notes that Miley Cyrus' VMA performance embodied this problem: "because of racist stereotypes, black women are seen as embodying sex [and] Cyrus wants to revamp her image so she appears more sexy and knowledgeable; therefore she has black female dancers on stage and indifferently imitates a style associated with black performers." Swanblood argues that the solution is to spend time learning about other cultures thoroughly when you want to use their imagery or rituals and study only original sources.       
      

      The first problem is that the problem is nonunique. Saying that Miley Cyrus is embodying stereotypes only logically makes sense if the stereotypes were there to begin with. Any representation of the culture using said imagery will perpetuate the problem; it is not uniquely non-natives that are doing the harm. The response to this would be that they're doing harm anyway and should stop that; my problem with that is that the culture then can't be represented at all and slowly ceases to exist outside of itself. Cultural survival, after all, is predicated on spread.      

      The second problem is that singular characteristics rarely make stereotypes. Twerking alone does not give people bad impressions about Africans; I doubt most people understand where it came from to begin with and thus aren't even stereotyping at all when they see someone use that dance style. It is numerous conceptions of a people's identity that combine to create images, good and bad, of who they are (I'm not saying that these images are accurate, just that they exist). Calling out use of one as stereotypical...only serves to build a stereotypical image.       
      

      The third problem is that cultural appropriation could equally serve to better a person's view of a given culture, making it a good thing. The Chinese and Japanese governments have been deeply opposed for centuries due to various stereotypes about each other and memories of historical atrocities. A Chinese person learning about the historical Japanese practice of seppuku might think of them as a honorable people, or learning about their similar tea ceremonies might think of them as common brethren. There's no reason to presume that "theft" of culture is necessarily bad.     
      

      The final problem is with the solution, one that is both impossible to achieve and potentially damaging. Again, since there is no logical endpoint for appropriation, people  trying to do this will spend impossible amounts of time judging each action. There doesn't seem to be a unique qualifier that would allow a separation between exchange and appropriation. But even if there was, research might be far worse for the people than whatever stereotypes people have now. If I'm exploring African tribal culture to see if twerking has some sort of deeper meaning and importance, I might stumble across a discussion of the Rwandan genocide, something I haven't been exposed to before. Even if I closely examine the event and find that it may have been rooted in white imperialism, my thoughts about African civility could be greatly affected by such a revelation, and my stereotypes radically worsened, only increasing the problem's scope.

Respect

      Third is the argument that cultural appropriation is occasionally disrespectful to other groups; materials like religious imagery can not be understood as significant by outsiders, taken, and used disrespectfully, undermining tolerance. Julious notes that part of the issue with Miley Cyrus' VMA performance was exactly this; black women were used as accessories to complement Cyrus's image as rebellious and angsty, rather than actual people. Mannie follows this by noting that black women face an assortment of social problems that thieves will never understand or experience. Taking from the group only the "best" elements undermines their problems by depicting their lives as relatively banal to outsiders, preventing effective social change. 

      While I really like this argument and think it bears a great deal of relevance, I also feel it isn't perfect. I think disrespect and intolerance are remarkably different things; borrowing a verse for clothing is far different than burning a Koran. One can be genuine admiration at the beauty of such words, the other, genuine hate. 

      It also seems that there are really two issues being discussed here; appropriation and issue ignorance. The assumption seems to be that anyone who does the research will suddenly realize that groups have been wrongfully denied rights. There's no reason that they suddenly will lobby for social change and ally themselves with the marginalized; after all, what they wanted to do in the first place was something like twerking or wearing dreadlocks. Real social change is achieved in part by breaking down stereotypes and raising awareness of issues, but there doesn't seem to be a clear link between that and prohibiting cultural use. Marginalized groups need representation by people who actually care about the issue, rather than those obligated under their schemata to learn about varying social issues they face. 

Exchange

      
      Fourth is the argument that cultural appropriation is inherently racist as it lacks any sort of exchange element; it allows white groups (receivers of privilege), to use other culture's materials, but prevents those cultures from giving anything back in return. Uwujaren argues that having Indians wear business suits to operate in a professional setting is wrong when other cultures aren't required (or similarly incentivized) to wear bindis and saris; the analogy extends elsewhere as well. 

      First, I think this argument ignores that society usually pushes for things that it deems "best" or "most suitable" for an action. A suit has been deemed proper attire for business as it places nearly everyone on equal footing, dress-wise. The counter to this is that a sari or bindi might be just as suitable to wear for business, and that suits were only chosen for their origins in privileged culture. This again brings up the problem of scope; how does one know that their clothing choice won't offend people? Where is one to learn that they can wear a bindi to the office without offending people, especially considering that it has such religious significance?

      Second, the previous problem of people inside of groups disagreeing about cultural iconography access occurs again; some might be perfectly willing to share their culture while others aren't. Who owns culture? I already discussed that it seems that if one can't defend their claim of ownership, their claim over a thing lacks validity; if someone gives me "permission" to wear dreadlocks or say the "N-word," do they have any less legitimacy than someone from the same group then banning me from use? Actor Samuel L Jackson asked an interviewer to use the "N-word" when discussing his involvement in Django Unchained; did the interviewer (who refused the opportunity) have the right to do so? If a single person voices discontent and discomfort with the extension of a cultural norm, should all stop doing it? In both instances, I don't know if there is a right answer.

      Third, outside of the French debate over the burqa, I have difficulty finding actual suppression of culture occurring anywhere. Moreover, the reason the French banned the burqa was for communal bond growth, with the government hoping middle eastern French would now commingle with people outside of their social circle. This wasn't an issue of them saying that the culture was "wrong," nor was it a religious restriction. I wonder if Uwujaren's argument that certain hairstyles and clothing are deemed "unprofessional" is even applicable here; things like business focus on reducing distractions and focusing on a company above the individual; brightly colored clothing serves to undermine both of those goals. I'm not saying this applies to all situations, but I think it's worth questioning if the use of certain "white-oriented" things is done to be demeaning or to promote some aspect of use that the other culture's objects can't offer. 

Closing Notes


      I think reasonable objections to cultural appropriation boil down to a few main categories. There's the objections that nothing is stolen, that there's no logical way to get permission for use, that there's no endpoint to determine what's racist or not, and that there are other reasons certain problems associated with appropriation are actually arising. I've spent far too long pointing out flaws in the logic of cultural appropriation; now I want to see if there's a valid solution to the issue. 

      From a cosmopolitan standpoint, sharing is crucial for the survival of the planet; relations are built on interactivity and dialogue. Misconceptions about a people serve to limit tolerance, while spreading as much of their culture as possible does the opposite. Cultural appropriation attempts to limit misconceptions, but as I've noted, I don't think it achieves that goal.

      The same problem again arises; what is offensive? Rephrased, where do offensiveness and appropriation lie on a continuum between something like hummus and the "N-word?" Do you need to acquiesce to the demands of some or the many? It seems silly to force guilt into discourse and force people to second-guess everything that they do, especially when quantifying. But I can also see the importance of a culture wanting to protect things that they consider important, at least until people recognize them as only the better aspects of their marginalization.

      My proposal is this. Every complaint about cultural appropriation should be evaluated upon a case by case basis, where the burden is on the "afflicted culture" to prove that they're being maligned. I think substantiating claims of abuse should be mandatory; proof that this is their culture (from a historical standpoint) being abused. Numerous individuals should voice their dissent on the use of said culture; it should never be done by a single disaffected person. If no one is willing to do those things, clearly the issue isn't that important to begin with.  

      The objection I can see to this is that white people have a burden to educate themselves on the privilege they're using. I've already argued why this is arguable, so I won't reiterate that; what I will say is that pushing the burden of proof to the affected culture gives them the ability to control the discourse and bring light to serious issues. Miley Cyrus' use of black imagery was controversial because blacks were offended, and it gave them the chance to comment on how this marginalized them. Letting privileged groups find that they've "transgressed," keeps the power of discourse in their hands; letting other groups point out the problems with abuse begins a gradual power shift and removes stereotypical representations. I anticipate that this will draw attention to the broader, more wide reaching issues rather than the small scale and unimportant ones.

      I think that it's also important for the "privileged" to think about how their actions impact others, but I pushing this to the side for the reasons listed above. I think Uwujaren agrees with me here; the real problem of cultural appropriation is power structure imbalance; consideration of that is really the first step to removing inequalities. 

      I've rambled for far too long on this, so it's time to wrap things up. If I haven't completely de-legitimized where I stand, I hope that I've at least promoted some thought about how people misuse the issue and how their can be improvements in the discussion of it. I'm sure I'm wrong about something that I've said and I'd love for the issue to continue to be considered, so please leave a comment and further the discussion.

Citations

Berlatsky, N. If Miley Cyrus's Twerking Is Racist, Isn't Janis Joplin's Singing Also Racist? Atlantic Magazine. 29 Aug, 2013. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/08/if-miley-cyruss-twerking-is-racist-isnt-janis-joplins-singing-also-racist/279162/

freshfeminism. Is it Cultural Appropriation? Tumblr.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://i.imgur.com/DrgKWSl.jpg

Julious, B. How Miley Cyrus’ Image Evolved Into Calculated Racism. Thought Catalog. 26 Jun, 2013. Digital. Retrievd from  http://thoughtcatalog.com/brittany-julious/2013/06/how-miley-cyrus-image-evolved-into-calculated-racism/

Makarechi, K. Miley Cyrus Brings Her Race Problem to the VMAs. Huffington Post. 26 Aug. 2013. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kia-makarechi/miley-cyrus-race-vmas_b_3817286.html

McWhorter, J. You Can't Steal a Culture: In Defense of Cultural Appropriation. The Daily Beast. 15 July, 2014. Digital.  Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/15/you-can-t-steal-a-culture-in-defense-of-cultural-appropriation.html

Minnesota Historical Society. Dr. Martin Luther King speaking against war in Vietnam, St. Paul Campus, University of Minnesota. Flickr.com. 14 Jan, 2011. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1xmALWq

On Philosophy. Ownership and Its Paradoxes. Wordpress.com. 21 Jan, 2009. Digital. Retrieved from http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/ownership-and-its-paradoxes. 

Scafadi, S. Who Owns Culture?: Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law. Rutgers University Press. 8 Jun, 2005. Print. 

swanblood. What is Cultural Appropriation and How to Avoid It. Tumblr.com. 21 Jan, 2014. Retrieved from http://swanblood.tumblr.com/post/16222547334/what-is-cultural-appropriation-and-how-to-avoid-it

stavos. Hold the thief! Flickr.com. 12 Jan, 2014. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1tfpwl3

stutler. Anonymous Question Answer. Tumblr.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://i.imgur.com/A5w9egC.png

transgenderpresident. TwerkingDave Follow Comment. Tumblr.com. 20 Feb, 2014. Photo. Retrieved from http://i.imgur.com/7roUgSQ.jpg

Uwujaren, J. The difference between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation. Everyday Feminism. 30 Sep, 2013. Print. Retrieved from http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/cultural-exchange-and-cultural-appropriation

Is it culturally appropriate to culturally appropriate? (1)

Cultural Appropriation Intro

   

      As a heterosexual white male, I enjoy a great deal of privileges in my everyday life. As a result of this, writing about certain topics is construed by some, in the worst case scenario, as inherently logically or morally wrong, with said privilege clouding my judgment and said topic demonstrating my commitment to the ideals of patriarchy. I find this bothersome because it limits democratic discourse on important socio-political issues and all I have to work with, if indeed I operate from a perspective of privilege, is the immutable truth of logic. In my mind, logic is accessible to people of all distinctions, including class, race, or gender, so all critiques against an argument should be grounded in it rather than the status of the speaker. I completely accept that my argument about cultural appropriation may be completely wrong, but I need to know where the logic fails in order to make such an assessment. Finding a solution to the complicated issue of cultural appropriation ultimately is only possible if all sides are willing to interact meaningfully to understand the positions that must be represented when debating the issue.
   
      Cultural appropriation is still not an issue of national relevance, but the term has been increasing in usage; here is the rising prominence of the term over time. Debates about various cultural controversies have hinted at it as an underlying issue for years; one of the more recent examples is the controversy surrounding Miley Cyrus' use of "black" imagery in her music (Atlantic, Huffington Post, Thought Catalog), with many of the arguments against her coming down to theft of certain race's culture or abuse of their image through stereotyping. These arguments make out her iconography as cultural appropriation, a thing which author Susan Scafidi argues is

      “Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission...[including] unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc." 

      I feel that this is an interesting definition, especially considering how Scafidi seemingly implies that the solution is merely asking permission. I don't know how that would work (can I ask any member of the culture if use of their materials is fine?), but even if that is the case, most discussions of the topic seem to see the very use of appropriation as harmful, allowed or not. Saying that it promotes racism, disrespects religious symbols, and constitutes theft, others argue that it should be discouraged in nearly all instances. While important arguments, I find that too many of them rely on logical fallacies and misunderstandings about how ownership and exchange work. That's not to say that the idea is silly and promoted by people who are overly sensitive; it is to say that there are merits to the arguments that are overshadowed by illogic and failures to keep in mind the needs of a sustainable global order. An ethos of cultural defense that balances the needs of sustainability is certainly possible, but the arguments for and against current schemata must be closely analyzed to determine the best possible compromise for the parties currently invested in the issue. With that in mind, the next post will focus on a comparison of arguments, a discussion of the nature of ownership, and potential solutions to the problem. 

Citations

Berlatsky, N. If Miley Cyrus's Twerking Is Racist, Isn't Janis Joplin's Singing Also Racist? Atlantic Magazine. 29 Aug, 2013. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/08/if-miley-cyruss-twerking-is-racist-isnt-janis-joplins-singing-also-racist/279162/

booksexual. Cultural Appropriation. Tumblr.com. 13 Nov, 2013. Photo. Retrieved from http://booksexual.tumblr.com/post/63377029278\

jaythenerdkid. stop calling your makeup "war paint." Tumblr.com. Jun, 2014. Photo. Retrieved from http://i.imgur.com/7xGHGdO.jpg

Julious, B. How Miley Cyrus’ Image Evolved Into Calculated Racism. Thought Catalog. 26 Jun, 2013. Digital. Retrievd from  http://thoughtcatalog.com/brittany-julious/2013/06/how-miley-cyrus-image-evolved-into-calculated-racism/

killvolume. A guide to cultural appropriation according to Cracked. Reddit.com. Feb, 2014. Photo. Retrieved from http://i.imgur.com/O6ZrqLe.png

Makarechi, K. Miley Cyrus Brings Her Race Problem to the VMAs. Huffington Post. 26 Aug. 2013. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kia-makarechi/miley-cyrus-race-vmas_b_3817286.html

Scafadi, S. Who Owns Culture?: Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law. Rutgers University Press. 8 Jun, 2005. Print. 

Is "Traditional" College Dying?

Assessing the Threat of Online Universities

      Sustainable business thinking attempts to determine the likelihood of various industries' success in the near future. One could easily argue, for instance, that the death of the DVD market is quickly approaching or already here; digital streaming and downloads have rendered physical copies essentially obsolete. I mentioned that this blog would try to occasionally explore topics like this; hopefully this is but the first post of many. 

      The days of brick and mortar or "traditional" universities seem to be numbered, with online education's extent ever-increasing in size; with the price of education continuing to rise across the board, more and more students are turning to online courses to either supplement their education or replace it. According to Columbia University’s Community College Research Center, approximately a third of all current college students are enrolled in at least one online course (NYT ed) a number unthinkable a decade ago and one likely to only rise. Some advocates of online education see it as a logical response to the current failings of various education systems (Department of Business Innovation and and Skills), offering several key benefits that traditional colleges currently lack, an argument that is both well supported and neatly intuitive. In that vein of thought, the Online Education Database spells out 10 reasons online education is special; reproduced here are the 3 most distinct.

• First, the access of online college is far greater than that of a traditional school. While a physical location artificially limits it's audience to those in the area or who travel from afar specifically for it, online education can be accessed by anyone with an internet account. Considering that number is currently hovering around 3 billion people (http://bit.ly/RdZ6QH), that's a far larger market than all colleges combined might have access to. 

• Second, the cost of online education can be much lower than traditional education, something that will likely only increase in the near future. Since coursework and materials can be recycled ad infinitum once created, the costs to maintenance drop significantly after the first year, coming down mostly to web hosting costs and payment for teachers or assistants to grade certain things computer software is unable to. This is admittedly circumstantial, as some colleges charge more for the online course "convenience," but the lack of room and board, travel, and supply costs more than make up for this. With the rise of MOOC's (massive open online courses), free online classes sometimes for credit usually led by a qualified professor, the competitive advantage only rises; normal colleges do not give away credits for free.

• Third, the time flexibility of an online course is a much more open; students can complete assignments whenever they want before the due dates (most normal classes assign them a day at a time) and watch lectures whenever they choose. Normal college has course schedules and expected completion dates and times to study, all of which interfere with attempting to balance things like heavy credit loads or a job. 

      But even with all of these benefits, I don't think the logical  conclusion is that "traditional" colleges are dying; I think the right answer is that their current model is unsustainable. My argument is that online education's rise is doing more to correct that model than destroy it, and "traditional" colleges can easily survive online universities' rise by stressing the key benefits that they offer. Offline colleges might need to alter the shape of their offerings in the next decade, but as long as properly managed, they will be able to weather the oncoming storm of internet offerings. 

The Strengths of "Traditional" College

      There are five primary reasons that traditional college isn't dying out. There are definitely more; these should however encompass most of them. 

• First, brick and mortar schools have mostly expanded into the online classes market already. Most universities now offer certain classes online, or hybrid classes that place the homework on the web and the activities in the classroom. It doesn't matter then if online college encroaches on the college's potential students, as it seems unlikely that third parties can encroach on the market when the market already supplies classes run by qualified faculty.

• Second, it is very unlikely that online classes can possibly offer every single course that a university can. Many classes are specialized seminars or composed of hands-on laboratory assignments or require special field trips or need student to build models to build their respective skills. Online courses can't do all of that; those things require a physical presence. A strange but likely objection is that virtual reality is becoming steadily more advanced and could soon (Facebook's acquisition of the Oculus Rift technology at least indicates that the market is advanced in VR development). It seems likely that in the near future students could experience lectures and labs and model-making all from the comfort of their homes. But even if that occurred...

• Third, colleges have a great deal of resources that online classes cannot offer.  In a single word, these resources all are "connections." Online professors can't access your skills, work with you on research, and draw conclusions about your character. They can't recommend you to important contacts and build up your social network to increase your chance of job placement. You won't meet new friends and build solid relationships in online colleges, two things that could again land you a career. It is my belief that much of the role of college currently is building yourself as a person, exploring different career possibilities, debating moral, political, and philosophical views to decide what you believe independently from parents and the views of those you've grown up with. This won't apply to everyone, but should generally apply to most people. College is less about the "learning" and more about the "education," the development of people into individuals able to face the world. Online schools lack that unless classes are merely additions to current workloads and not the only form a student is receiving credits. 

• Fourth, the incentive to complete a course is much higher in a physical setting. There are huge attrition rates for MOOC's, sometimes topping 90% in each class (Brinton et al, NYT ed). A 2011 study of Washington students similarly found that a higher percentage of students dropped out of college entirely when they took more online classes (NYT ed). This is due to several reasons; lower costs might incentivize people to drop more courses if they get too difficult, the use of a computer might be far more distracting than a normal classroom, students who join online might already be under-performing and never get proper teacher engagement, physical involvement (such as living in dorms and attending lectures) might make normal students place more value in their education, and normal colleges have far more resources (and motivation) to prevent students from dropping classes. Either way, online universities' can't compete with the success of traditional schools.

• Finally, the education of traditional schools will likely be valued far higher by employers for years to come, placing great value on obtaining a degree from a physical location.The University of Phoenix has greatly soured the online universities' reputation; with several federal lawsuits and accusations that they prioritized money making and scamming over educational quality, employers have likely been convinced that the education is substandard. For the reasons listed above concerning the resources of traditional colleges, that's likely accurate. I can't quantify exactly how this changes the value of the degree, but I think the internet does a good job for me; Google has pages of forums discussing former student's plights of being unable to use their degrees to obtain jobs. 

     
      The point is that traditional college isn't dying and will continue to offer innumerable degree programs for years to come. Online colleges might appeal to those who can't afford the costs of ordinary college, older people who want to supplement former degrees, those who normally don;t have access to certain courses at their university, and those on strange schedules that require flexible coursework. But this population isn't nearly high enough to wipe out traditional college's willing student body; all it will do is deflect certain sections of prospective students away from them.

Results

      I mentioned earlier that online schools were correcting the unsustainable nature of current colleges; here's where I'll return to that idea. Traditional college is getting progressively more expensive as the years past, far beyond the pace of normal inflation. Having a foil that could offer a way to supplement or completely circumvent the traditional system will place great pressure on universities to reduce their prices to compete. 

      Will this affect the Ivy Leagues and similarly pretentious liberal arts schools? Probably not, because they sell education alongside both name status and a certain intellectual atmosphere, but state universities and lower-regarded schools will have to reduce costs to compete. 
      
      Where will this come from? Likely reduced administration (pushed to automated online formats), less emphasis on specialized housing and university resources, and less physical classes; purely fact-acquisition classes like introductory sociology might be pushed entirely online, freeing up professors to conduct more research. This won't work for all schools though; non-state institutions might go bankrupt under the pressure. This is just normal market fluctuations at work; if they weren't sustainable to begin with, weathering this storm will be nearly impossible. 

      More companies like Starbucks might start offering college course compensation coverage as part of the normal salary (Vrdolyak); with cheaper education, this won't cost them much and will be seen as a valuable benefit to employees. Starbucks itself is doing this likely because it's good PR at a cheap price; their offer only covers online courses anyway. 

      Cheaper education won't necessarily be for the better though; online classes will still be cheaper for the reasons mentioned above. This will mean that more minority and poor students will turn to them for education. Remember that the education is less regarded than a normal degree, so a new education "class" distinction might grow. Where currently there is a gap between the employment options of an Ivy League and non-Ivy League graduate, there will be a further one growing between these and online-educated students. More people will have education access, but the respective worth of their education will decline.

Conclusion       

      
      Online education is interesting because it poses a viable threat to the normal college order. That said, it isn't killing college anytime soon because of the unique attributes normal colleges possess. What will happen in the near future is likely a price war between the two types of schooling, something that will reduce prices across the board but potentially segregate education. All in all, there is definitely good in the rise of online education, but the potential risks will have to be closely monitored in the years to come to prevent the negative effects such a model might produce. 
     

Citations

401(K) 2012. College. Flickr.com. 24 Dec, 2011. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1kVK1LI

Brinton et al. Learning about social learning in MOOCs: From statistical analysis to generative model. Princeton University paper with Boston University and Microsoft collaboration. 19 Dec, 2013. Digital. 

Department for Business Innovation and Skills. The Maturing of the MOOC. Sep, 2013. Digital. 

Lawrence OP. University College. Flickr.com. 20 Apr, 2009. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1nhx6Z3.

MacEntee, S. college lecture. 18 Nov, 2010. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1ugrSBE.

Montecruz Foto. Kumbia et Internet. Flickr.com. 4 Sep, 2012. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1sTHHMU 

New York Times Editorial. The Trouble With Online College. New York Times. 18 Feb, 2013. Digital.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/opinion/the-trouble-with-online-college.html?_r=1&

Online Education Database. 10 Advantages to Taking Online Classes. 10 Jan, 2012. Digital. Retrieved from http://oedb.org/ilibrarian/10-advantages-to-taking-online-classes/

Tlng~. sunway university college. Flickr.com 18 Nov, 2007. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/WFnkWC

Vrdolyak, H. Starbucks to Offer Employees Online Degrees. The Heartland Institute. 27 Jun, 2014. 
Digital. Retrieved from http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/06/27/starbucks-offer-employees-online-college-degrees

Localized Government's role in Sustainable governance (Part 2)

Recap

      I previously discussed the role localized government could play in benefiting citizens of large democracies, but stopped before I discussed the respective benefits such an arrangement might bring. That, and the detriments of such an arrangement, will be the content of this post.
      
      Two caveats before I begin. The majority of research I cite deals with third world nations. I don't think that discredits the conclusions though; all are from a sociological perspective and aren't grounding their statements in quantitative facts. Rather, the benefits and concerns they outline can be applied to any scenario where localized governance shifts begin.
      
      Second, most papers cover decentralization, a broad-sweeping term that covers many types of power transfers away from state level. I'm talking about the same thing; broadly speaking, my conceptualization of localizing government deals with moving power and authority from the national to the regional level.

Benefits of Localized Government

      Case studies seemingly indicate that localized governance accomplishes the aims of national governments better than they do. Grasa and Camps found that service offerings were improved across several African regions by the integration of decentralization, while the TRA reported that similar results were true in Latin American and Caribbean case studies as well. Remington argues that there are several key features of the local scale that contribute to this success.

• First, the size of resources are far more manageable on a smaller scale. Compared to the tight budgets, large land areas, and numerous priorities of national institutions, local governments can easily focus on their areas and abilities to make effective decisions. This directly helps environmental efforts by allowing leaders control over the outcomes of their areas.

• Second, any scarcity problems are known and felt by the community. Balancing usage rates is far easier when all know how much is left and are adversely affected by said things disappearance. 

• Third, social norms can more easily pressure people into doing the right thing. Whether indirect or direct, corruption levels can decrease merely because the people operating the governance feel bound by the communal rules of the place in which they live. The direct connection mayors have to the people plays a crucial role here; more sides of more issues can be considered by the leaders when they know many of the important problems of their area. 

    
      As a result of these factors, localized governance can do a number of things that national governments can't or don't concern themselves with. One of these is the resource distribution changes that the case studies noted. Why can they provide more? Because they both know the needs of the community and don't have to waste money on the administration side of politics. But there are further benefits. 

• First, localized governments can bring representation to the minority peoples typically disenfranchised by larger, more nationalistic institutions. At the large scale, minority interests are ignored, at the small scale, they're important parts of a community. A smaller scale government could easily consider opinions from fringe groups that have no chance in national elections. 

• Second, they can increase the accountability of the local command by allowing greater oversight to be implemented. When a community has closer connections to their leaders and have members of their community in office, they have a far closer connection to policy decisions, preventing corruption and increasing general approval. 

• Third, as a result of these two things, regional stability can be greatly enhanced (Grasa and Camps). If there are factions competing for representation that are no longer ignored and more resources to be shared among everyone, general levels of conflict seem to decrease. 

      Many of these problems aren't even issues in places like America; people may feel slighted over policies, but few fight because of them. The benefits though can be considered similar if applied to first world nations; both accountability and public service offering increases seem like powerful incentives to shift politics towards the local realm. But returning to the stats mentioned in the previous post, people don't seem to think that there's as much of a reason to participate in local governments. This is what will bring us to the detriments of such a scheme; even if good for democracies, people might not accept it.

Detriments of Localized Government

      There are essentially three detriments that come with localized governance, but honestly depend a great deal on the given instance in which it was implemented.

• First, these governments might become more corrupt if people aren't willing to become civically engaged. Already we've seen that only around 25% of individuals participate in mayoral elections; if that doesn't change when state or regional offices get more control, they could easily begin to abuse those privileges (TRA). Without oversight or public engagement, this whole schemata could fail.

• Second, regional conflict could potentially increase. Yes, Grasa and Camps note that violence has decreased in Africa with this, but that could again be due to a lack of engagement. If individuals knew that more resources were now at stake that they could more easily access, violence could very well increase.

• Third, in the long-term, national protection could be undermined by localized power. If the nation as a whole was facing an exterior threat, decentralized power would not be best for ensuring the public's safety. This isn't necessarily a problem though; as long as national governments give up only what they shouldn't focus on and concern themselves with the larger priorities like defense, global conflicts would not be an issue.

Conclusion

      There's no reason to think that nationalized government is going the way of the horse and buggy, but it's at least important to think about improving how it functions. In some cases, power centralization can be beneficial for developing regions; Nikolov notes that it dramatically improved the economies and regional cooperation of smaller EU nations. But it seems that localized government has a place in parts of the world that are past those concerns. Sure, corruption might soar and efficacy might stagnate in the short term, but if in the long-term with proper civic engagement education the government can better meet the needs of it's people, I think it's worth considering as a viable change in the way democracy functions. 

      I've discussed bringing power back to a more local level, and while I have generally outlined what that might look like, I think the discussion is worth continuing. I'll likely return later to outline what major areas the United States federal government could decentralize, in a discussion of a government's role in a modern-day democracy. If there's something you think is worth including in that, please leave a comment and further the discussion.

Citations

Brenn, M. City. Flickr.com. 25 Oct, 2010. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1rj0e3d

Grasa, Rafael, and Camps, Arnau G. Conflict Prevention and Decentralized Governance: Some remarks about the state of the art in theory and practice. International Catalan Institute for Peace, Gran Via, Barcelona, 2009. Digital. 

JJ, city lights. Flickr.com. 2009. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1jKxcIS

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. New York City in Winter (NASA, International Space Station, 01/09/11). Flickr.com. 18 Jan, 2011. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1p1Md5w

Nikolov, D. Decentralization and Decentralized Governance for Enhancing Delivery of Services in Transition Conditions. Background Paper for Saint Petersburg 2006 Regional Forum on "Enhancing Trust in Government through Leadership Capacity Building." Digital. 

Remington, S. Sustainable World: Approaches to Analyzing and Resolving Wicked Problems.  Kendall Hunt Publishing; 1 edition, 2013. Print

Tuscany Regional Assembly. Decentralized Governance for Democracy, Peace, Development, and Effective Service Delivery. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Digital.

Simon and His Camera. Urban City Love-London Office Life. Flickr.com. 30 Mar, 2013. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1rvQfJu