Tag Archives: Comunicação

To reinvent the Internet by creating community networks

Posted on by

In the Digital Transformation Towards a New Civilization Plenary session at Universitas Airlangga in Surabaya (Indonesia): with Pr. Nisar Ul Haq (Jamia Milia Islamiya University, Delhi), Pr. Gracjan Cimek (Polish Naval Academy, Gdyna), Pr. Irfan Wahyudi (Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya),
and Wolfgang Pape (CEPS Centre for European Policy Studies, Bruxelles).

Source: Rohman Obet.


This intervention occurred in a plenary session at Bandung – Belgrade – Havana International Conference at Airlangga University in Surabaya – Indonesia, on 11 November 2022.

The title of our session, “Digital Transformation towards a New Civilization”, evokes several questions about the digital as a milieu/a civilization/a “new religion”, dare I say, and the transformations that its culture introduces in our lives. It reminds me of the French sociologist Dominique Cardon (2019), who writes in his book Culture numérique the following:
“It is important to have varied and interdisciplinary knowledge to live with agility and caution (in a new world that digital enriches, transforms and monitors) because if we fabricate digital, digital also fabricates us”.

It leads us to think about the problems of our calculation society that encompasses connections between machines and the human being in its three versions:

  • A Human-trace (Ichnos Anthropos): who is a product and a producer of traces (especially of digital traces in this context);
  • A Homo economicus (Omo Oikonomikos): the human as a market actor;
  • and a Homo politicus (Oikonomikós Anthropos): a political animal intended to live in a polis, a city.

Digital has established itself as a new culture-changing our relationship to space, politics, things and ourselves. These transformations come from the interaction between intelligent machines (computers, then artificial intelligence) and users in innumerable fields and domains. These transformations became dynamics that characterized human society, turning it into an algorithmic society driven by a computing infrastructure. In this extensive environment/system (built from multiple layers), humans and machines are set up together – where our clicks, conversations, purchases, bodies, finances, and sleep become calculable data – a “new civilization” arises. The civilization of the Internet is known as the digital era. However, the Internet is not abstract. It is an object with a body, a language based on scientific operations, that generates new entities (digital traces) that restructure our reality. Furthermore, the most important is that it has a history. Moreover, this history interests us in analyzing and understanding so that we can deconstruct and adjust this civilization process.

The history of the Internet led us to search the history of old civilizations about common elements and contradictions that help us understand the mutations we are witnessing in our present. A comparative analysis between the Internet and Phoenicia seems essential to us. What relation can we find between an information and communication network and a model of urban city-states on the Mediterranean coast that existed more than three thousand years ago?
In a brief explication that we will develop later in a presentation in another session, we can say that there are three intriguing aspects to be discussed:

  1. The Internet has a body. It started as a public-military project before being privatized. Phoenician city-states experimented with the transition from a political and economic power from the royal palaces to a mercantile class.
  2. The Internet has a universal language that allows anyone to connect and use. Phoenicians invented alphabetical writing that was accessible to all, and thanks to it, Phoenicia got its political entity.
  3. The Internet is in crisis because of the privatization process that gave private firms the right to manage their actions for profit while neglecting the rights and needs of users. Phoenicia, characterized by trade activities, could not survive as a civilization and did not become a model of democracy and citizenship.


Talking about/remembering Phoenicia from a historical point of view concerning the Internet has a linkage to memory. Memory is the process of mobilizing resources, which aims less at restitution’s exactness than regeneration (Merzeau, 2017). Sharing a memory is not limited to this often interesting production of heritage objects disconnected from all social ties. It consists less of recording, storing or preserving traces than of embedding them in a common framework — whether a place, a rite, a device or a story. In our case, it is a study/analysis for a scientific purpose. Here, saying a word about memory in the digital context is essential.

Louise Merzeau, a French Professor and researcher from Paris 10 University who left us in 2017, and I had the honour to work with her for several years, demonstrates that the digital culture has introduced an anthropological mutation concerning memory. She writes that until the advent of the digital (le numérique), the fight against oblivion required an actual deployment of energy, tools and technological innovations. In other words, investing in archiving, preserving and building memories is needed digitally. It has introduced a break, even a reversal of this process: communication, production, registration and sharing systems via networks or digital media have generated automatic traceability, a condition of our activities and, therefore, before any real intention to “make a trace”. Today all efforts, technological means, knowledge and policies must no longer be used to memorize in traditional ways but to regulate oblivion, as the Internet is a kind of auto-memory, which is, in reality, an anti-memory. So the individual or the community decides what it wishes to transmit or, on the contrary, to erase. Moreover, as there is no memory without a thought of oblivion, it is therefore imperative to rethink oblivion collectively to regulate it and structure it so that it makes sense.


However, the Internet privatized does not give an option to its users to do that. That is why, getting back to our comparative analysis between the Internet and Phoenicia, we back the emergence of two proposals, one concerns the upper level of the Internet (what to do on the platforms), and the other is related to the lower level of the Network:

  1. As digital writing is exhibiting new traces while pushing back others to be forgotten, the first suggestion is to transform our interaction in the digital into participation by developing individual or collective digital cultural memories. Our digital traces are removed from their contexts and scattered in the networks. They are alimenting the Big Data and used by private firms to make money. When we appropriate these traces in memory projects, they become commons, a part of a heritage policy that raises issues of knowledge. In this direction, we ensure a transition in the status of the digital user, from homo econimicus to homo politicus, from a market actor to a citizen/netizen (digital citizen) who has control over decisions with self-determination in the digital environment as well as in the social life.
  2. The second proposal seeks the basement of the Internet. Let us not forget that the Internet is first made of pipes. Everything we do up the stack depends on these pipes working correctly. What if users and communities manage to hijack the privatization of the pipes and the monopoly of the Telecom companies and start creating their networks with the support of Public institutions with technical expertise and infrastructure? The purpose is to establish an Internet managed by community networks, an Internet that “places people over the profit”, as Ben Tarnoff (2022) says. In his Book Internet for the People: The Fight for Our Digital Future, Tarnoff writes, “The internet is not just material and historical, then; it is also political”. In this sense, our proposal is political, can bring people into new relationships of trust and solidarity, and encourages caring for collective infrastructure and one another.

Thank you.

BBH2022 Round Table on Digital and Inclusive City

Posted on by

Onsite with Dorien Kartikawangi and Nia Sarinastiti (Atma Jaya-Jakarta), Rowena Capulong Reyes (FEU-Manila) in Jakarta and Bandung. Online with Jantima Kheokao and Monvadee Siripremruedee (UTCC-Bangkok), Célia Matsunaga, Nayara Moreno, and Virginia Tiradentes (Unb-Brasilia) in Bandung-Indonesia.

“How do we go beyond an inclusive digital city?” is the title of a round table session presented at the Bandung-Belgrade-Havana International Conference in Bandung (Indonesia) on November 09, 2022. It is a group work on digital culture and the city developed by scholars from different institutions and fields from France, Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. The work presented multicultural aspects of city thought in its digital forms and inclusive models and conditions.

The International Conference was organized by colleagues from the GRIC research laboratory at Le Havre Normandy University, the National Archives of the Republic of Indonesia, Universitas Padjadjaran Bandung, Universitas Airlangga Surabaya and Universitas Udayana Bali, with the participation of hundreds of scholars from 54 countries, from 07 to November 14, 2022, in Indonesia. It has Patronage Board, Honorary Board and Scientific Board; and three committees: International Organising Committee, National Organising Committee (Indonesia) and Local Organising Committee (Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya and Bali).

The authors of the collective round table were Dorien Kartikawangi (1), Nia Sarinastiti (2), Rowena Capulong Reyes (3), Jantima Kheokao (4), Monvadee Siripremruedee (5) Célia Matsunaga (6), Nayara Moreno (7), Virginia Tiradentes (8), and Hadi Saba Ayon (9).

Digital has taken over the city, thanks to its network of infrastructures, dematerialized services (e-administration, e-commerce), and of course, uses that strongly redraw the way of living today. How does the digital culture modify the structure of the city, its space, and its living forms? How to inhabit the physical and digital environments of the city? The city does not have one definition or model. However, it has one common characteristic: gathering people in a specific place with a central authority. In his essay Two linguistic models of the city (Deux modèles linguistiques de la cité), Emile Beneviste (1974) exploits an opposition between the Roman and Greek versions of the city. In Latin, the word “civis” indicates a relationship of reciprocity and interdependence between two individuals or groups. Its correct translation is not “citizen” but “fellow citizen”.
In Greek, the word “polis” defines citizens and citizenship. “Polis” specifies the rules of membership, the rights of participation in the city’s activity, and what results from it: the responsibility and privileges linked to citizenship. The differentiation between the two words, the two models, draws limits between full participation in the city and a confident presence.
What about the citizens and their participation in the digital city? How to include those who do not belong to the city, transformed continuously by digital technology and reshaped in its space, architecture and role? Milad Doueihi wrote about a “new virtual urbanism” (2011) that has become our refuge and the space for our activities. It has its architecture, aesthetics, values, literature and agents. According to him, it constitutes hybrid urbanism inhabited by traces, documents, and fragments but also animated by the voice and the body, by a different temporality, or a new culture. According to Philippe Vidal (2018), digital technology creates territorial differentiation (between spaces) and social differentiation within the same space, for example, within the same city. The city’s digitalization increases the possibilities for making society more inclusive, but the “smart city” generates many obstacles and risks of exclusion for diverse individuals and populations.

The round table onsite with Dorien Kartikawangi and Nia Sarinastiti (Atma Jaya-Jakarta), Rowena Capulong Reyes (FEU-Manila) in Bandung, and online with Jantima Kheokao and Monvadee Siripremruedee (UTCC), Célia Matsunaga, Nayara Moreno, and Virginia Tiradentes (Unb-Brasilia).

The round table, divided into two sessions, questioned how digital technology’s social and cultural uses redefine everyday life’s diverse practices. It brought two topics from Indonesia: the first addresses the need for social participation in sustainable, inclusive cities. It discusses three main interrelated: city and differences, sustainable city, and inclusive city. It talked about how digital technology creates connectivity and transforms services and culture.

The second topic questioned how can business become inclusive in the digital era and highlighted inclusive services design at the heart of a government’s mission that can help tackle complex issues and build trust with customers/citizens more effectively. It talked about inclusiveness, connecting the city with business. In addition, when an innovation mindset is six times higher in the “most-equal” cultures – workplace environments, it helps everyone attain higher positions – compared to the “least-equal”.

Another topic from the Philippines presented Manila as a smart city and discussed the digital social participation of its inhabitants. It talked about the city of Manila on Facebook, showing how users/inhabitants engage with the city and its information. It gave an example using data from October 25 to 31, 2022, showing that Tourism, Culture and Arts are the highest engagements, followed by Disaster and Risk Services. It pointed out that good governance in a digital space is also brought to the fore. It concluded with a C.I.T.Y proposal to achieve the full potential of a highly engaged digital city based on developing Consistency, Inclusivity, Training and Yield.

From Brazil, three presentations evoked the city’s artistic, commercial and educational aspects. The first deals with structuring the Brazilian handicraft management system and comprises diagnosis and strategic planning. One of the several aspects raised in this work is the need to increase the insertion and use of digital technology in the feasibility of formalizing and training artisans and marketing via e-commerce of the artefacts they produce.

The second discusses a unified virtual space for art and crafts exhibitions. It suggests a mobile application where artisans and artists can promote their work and get in touch with customers.

Moreover, as the city in the Amazon region can take the form of villages inhabited by indigenous communities, the third topic seeks to evaluate the process of indigenous Education, considering the use of technological devices. It discusses implementing an indigenous virtual library model that will assist elementary and high school students based on crafts productions of the Munduruku of Bragança indigenous group.
Furthermore, a final presentation from Thailand brought to the debate a special touch: Discussing the city from the point of view of colours and talking about the Thai colour scheme that connotes Thai identity in packaging design for brand communication.

The Bandung-Belgrade-Havana International Conference is a part of the Bandung Spirit Conference Series, community-based conferences organised around the Bandung Spirit Ideals. It is conceived as a shared space based on a common concern on global issues among international scholars, activists of social movements, academic institutions and public services inspired by the Bandung Spirit. It is a collective work to formulate recommendations to be submitted to world political leaders. In addition to sharing academic works, speakers and participants are supposed to participate in elaborating the recommendations.

  • 1) School of Communication, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia.
  • 2) School of Communication, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia.
  • 3) Institute of Arts and Science, Far Eastern University, the Philippines.
  • 4) Department of Communication Arts, University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, Thailand.
  • 5) Monvadee Siripremruedee
  • 6) Faculty of Communication, University of Brasilia, Brazil.
  • 7) Department of Design, University of Brasilia, Brazil.
  • 8) Department of Design, University of Brasilia, Brazil.
  • 9) UMR 6266 CNRS IDÉES, Le Havre Normandy University, France.
  • Presentations from Indonesia, the Philippines, Brazil and Thailand on the digital and inclusive city at the BBH 2022 International Conference in Bandung-Indonesia.
  • In the plenary session of the BBH 2022 International Conference in Bandung: “NEFOS IS BACK!” (BRICS, NAM AND OTHER EMERGING FORCES IN A GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING”.
  • With Beatriz Bissio (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), Marina Shilina (the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics in Moscow), Azzah Kania Budianto and Sayf Muhammad Alaydrus (Universitas Airlangga in Surabaya and Secretariat of BBH International Conference), Rowena Capulong Reyes (FEU-Manila), Dorien Kartikawangi and Nia Sarinastiti (Atma Jaya-Jakarta)
    Rania Nuralfath (Universitas Padjadjaran in Bandung and Secretariat of BBH International Conference).
Darwis Khudori (ULHN and Coordinator of the International Organising Committee and Steering Committee) spoke at Jakarta’s BBH Conference opening session.
The members of the scientific board and the Organising Committee of the Conference in Jakarta.

Introduction to the online short course Disability: Communication and Social participation, at Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma-Jaya

Posted on by 

This short online course entitled "Disability: Communication and Social participation" is delivered by Dr. Hadi Saba Ayon, at the School of Communication at Catholic University of Indonesia Atma Jaya in Jakarta. It is divided into 3 sessions/2 hours; on 22, 27, 29 of July of 2021, 15:00 - 17:00 Jakarta Time.

Good afternoon fellows and participants, and welcome to my second course on disability. I am very glad to see you in my virtual class to discuss and exchange our experiences.

Today we talk about disability and its information and communication questions: How can we understand disability situation using information and communication theories? How to deal with it in the Covid-19 pandemic context? How to define social participation for disabled people in a networked era?

In this course, we conceive disability as a variation of human development (Fougeyrollas et al., 1998, 2010, 2018); in another words, it is a difference in the level of achievement of life habits or the exercise of human rights. We approach it from a communication angle, that of constructivism, to understand the individual-environment relationship; and that of symbolic interactionism, to apprehend the individual-society relationship analyzing the social interaction and defining its context.

We talk about disability as a situation of dysfunction in the communication, defined by Gregory Bateson and Jurgen Ruesch (1951) as processes by which subjects influence each other. We approach digital culture and changes that it brought and that affect our whole society and our way of thinking and acting.

We talk about disability in exceptional times: Covid-19 pandemic. It drives us to question policies and forms of interaction concerning disabled people.

Our human society was seduced by the promises of technology of a better future, and we were taken aback by the digital. Historian Milad Doueihi described this fascination as “a new civilizing process”, borrowing the term from the German sociologist Norbert Elias. The latter defined “Civilizing Process” as a correspondence between the historical process of seizing power by a centralized state on the one hand, and the self-control exercised by individuals over their spontaneous violence, their instincts and their affects- on the other.

Has SARS- CoV-2 triggered a process of “uncivilization”? Do the thousands of deaths around the world; the hundreds of testimonies of families and organizations on abandoned disabled and vulnerable loved ones and the heartbreaking stories of triage of patients recreate a “humiliation processes” (Smith, 2001) against the most vulnerable, in particular those with disabilities?

Overwhelmed by their physical or functional differences throughout their life, disabled persons find themselves in the digital environment, in times of a pandemic, on equal terms with Internet users. The body is at the heart of social interaction: we live, and we build ourselves through our body. However, at present, this social (physical) interaction – is severely limited – because of Covid-19. Bodies become suspicious in public and even private spaces. They are inspected, evaluated, often sidelined, abandoned, sometimes even ousted. Sars-Cov-2, like AIDS, disrupts the relationship with others, dims the practices that build trust, and reinforces the constraints towards the contaminating agent.

The body of the disabled person, already a source of social stigma, suddenly becomes equal to other bodies. What matters (alarms) is the presence of another, at a distance far enough to be perceived as reassuring (less than 1 meter). Thus, all bodies become equal in their vulnerability to fear, sickness, and death.

During the current crisis, the digital is providing our community with leeway, thus enabling us to function. Whether it is to inform, communicate, telecommute, study, shop, or manage administrative work: more than ever, the digital proves to be an environment for social processes.

In the era where digital technology affects personal and environmental factors and everyone’s life habits, can we think the full social participation of disabled people in relation to the access? To the usage? What can we do with and in digital so that our presence is not limited to one or more identities exploited by trackers (governments, companies, individuals, and others)?

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006) recognizes:

“The importance of accessibility to the physical, social, economic and cultural environment, to health and education and to information and communication, in enabling persons with disabilities to fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

The access is therefore an essential condition for the exercise of human rights.

We are facing a socio-technical ecosystem where the user is the center and the brain. It is therefore essential, for the disabled person as well as for any other person, to create methods and find ways to develop social links, self-esteem, control of one’s life and time, quality of life, and to build online communities. How to think digital traces in an approach that no longer refers to an identity but to an ability to manage communication?

How to operate actively in the knowledge society? How to bring out a new “living together”?

Despite the progress made in recent years, people with disabilities still face obstacles in accessing healthcare, education, employment, recreational activities or participation in political life, and also present a risk of increased poverty and social exclusion.

The World Health Organization (WHO) published last year a guidance on basic protection measures for disabled people during the COVID-19 outbreak. It calls for actions needed to be taken to ensure that people with disability can always access the health-care services, water and sanitation services and public health information they require.

It includes considerations for actors: to reduce the potential exposure to Covid-19; to put a plan in place to ensure continuation of the care and support the person needs; to prepare household for the instance the person should contract Covid-19; and to ensure that all members of the household and caregivers enact the basic protection measures.

The WHO calls also governments for actions, to ensure public health information and communication is accessible; to undertake targeted measures for people with disability and their support networks; to undertake targeted measures for disability service providers in the community; to increase attention given to this population living in potentially high-risk settings of developing the disease; and to ensure that emergency measures include the needs of disabled persons.

It urges to ensure that Covid-19 health care is Accessible, Affordable and Inclusive; to deliver telehealth ; to develop and implement service continuity plans; to communicate frequently with disabled people and their support networks; to reduce potential exposure to Covid-19 during provision of disability services in the community; and to provide sufficient support for disabled people who have complex needs.

And finally, it calls for actions in institutions to reduce potential exposure to Covid-19; to prepare for Covid-19 infections in institutions; to provide sufficient support for residents with disability and to guarantee the rights for residents during the Covid-19 outbreak.

On the side of civil society, organizations defending the rights of disabled people criticized governments for not acting in favor of people with disability. For example, the League of Rights and Freedoms in Quebec in Canada, underlines in a text entitled “Defend the right to participation, crisis or not” published in a special issue of its review “Rights and Handicap” (2021), that the crisis produced by the Covid -19 was marked by a deficit of democratic mechanisms for participation and consultation of the population (in Quebec). She recalled the importance of citizen participation – especially during a pandemic – stressing the idea that action and democracy are not mutually exclusive, but complementary.

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, called in March of this year (2021), to remove the remaining barriers for disabled people by defining flagship initiatives focused on three main themes: their rights; their independent life and autonomy and; finally, equal opportunities and non-discrimination. “We all have the right to a life without barriers. And it is our duty, as a society, to ensure the full participation of all on the basis of equality with others”, she said.

Finally, we remember that effective participation must have a significant impact on decisions, especially with regard to the most marginalized and vulnerable populations. The right to participation presupposes taking part in the public decision-making process and, consequently, having the assurance of being considered in the design, planning and implementation of policies or services that must guarantee respect for its rights.