What does radicalisation mean, part II: grooming?

Why do UK media reports on ‘radicalisation’ now include the term ‘grooming’? The latter term has migrated from stories about paedophiles to stories about ‘indoctrinating the vulnerable young’ to commit acts of violence. On what basis can we conflate paedophilia with terrorism? What the two have in common is a medium – the internet – and that both are considered crimes that are inexplicable or ‘beyond the pale’, so to speak, and associated with evil. The implicit suggestion of such media reporting is that the Internet appears responsible for enabling evil to diffuse through society. Its connectivity makes evil ever-present, proximate, only-a-click-away. Parents and government cannot control the internet. So society cannot protect its most vulnerable. Society is internally corrupted, because of the medium of the internet.

Such vague language from journalists and indeed politicians reflects the continued lack of an evidence-based understanding of radicalisation. If the phenomenon was understood, a clear definition could be used. Without a clear definition, media must piece together their own ‘picture’, so images of ‘Arabic-looking men paintballing’ or ‘handing out leaflets outside a mosque’ come to signify ‘radicalisation’. This often arbitrary and unsubstantiated picture can do little more than stigmatise more individuals in the UK, and perhaps even lead to their alienation and, ultimately, violence.

Becoming Digital

This week and next are pretty significant for the Department of Politics and International Relations at Royal Holloway. On August 29 the Department and its three research centres move from their current location on the first floor of the Arts Building to a suite of offices in the College's Founders Building (the fancy big red one in all of the photos).

This is good news for all kinds of reasons. We are expanding, and there are simply not enough rooms in our current location to cope. Our new accommodation provides us with a bit more room for PhD students, a good sized administrative hub, and an academic common room. We also get to hang out in what is arguably the finest university building in the whole of the United Kingdom (Oxford and Cambridge have fine buildings, but none to match the sheer scale and majesty of Founders, though I admit it is not to everybody's taste).

Over the last couple of weeks, staff have been busy packing boxes and attaching sticky labels to things in anticipation of the big day. Many of us have taken the opportunity to chuck out some of the detritus that inevitably gathers over time. Academics are notorious hoarders. "When in doubt, keep it" is our motto, often in the vague hope that some old History and English Literature A-level revision notes (guilty) or a pile of prospectuses from 2001 (guilty again) might one day come in useful. I even found a form letter from 1989 (when I was 18), from none other than Neil Kinnock, then leader of the Labour Party, welcoming me as a member. For some unknown reason it was nestling within those A-level revision notes.

As I wandered up and down the corridor last week, I witnessed quite a few rueful smiles as colleagues landed upon dog-eared postcards, yellowing newspaper clippings, long-forgotten publishers' rejections, proudly retained student thank-you letters, obscure journal article offprints, and miscellaneous electronic artifacts, such as a Sony digital camera from the mid-1990s that actually stored images on 3.5" floppy disks. One colleague bitterly described how he had taken the momentous decision to give away - to a library in Zimbabwe - thousands of pounds' worth of legal documents dating back forty years, such was his desire to purge.

The laxative effect of the Department's move has sparked several discussions of scholarly practices in these digital times. What, and where, is the "archive", even in a personal sense, these days? I have about 3000 PDF documents on my hard disk, mostly journal articles and conference papers that I've gathered over the last five years. All of my published work, apart from a few book reviews, is stored in various file formats on the same disk. These are instantly searchable, indexed by Copernic, my desktop search engine. Sometimes I have to ferret around in directories and subdirectories to find something, but this usually doesn't take too long. The convenience is amazing. Contrast this with the eight box files of photocopies, scraps of notes, none of them searchable, that provided the raw materials for my PhD thesis, published as my first book.

But while we gain convenience we lose permanence. The dusty piles of documents, the bottom drawers of filing cabinets, even those individually-labelled floppy disks, have a fixity about them. Adobe's PDF is a standard and has been around an eon in "internet time", but will it be the same in a decade? Will I be able to read the files? Will I have lost the lot in a catastrophic hard disk crash? Don't even mention Microsoft Word, a programme that has been through several well-meaning, though irritating, file format changes in only the last few years (".docx", anyone?).

In thirty years' time, will somebody going through the office of a scholar who started out in the late 1990s be able to construct a reasonable narrative of their life's work? I doubt it. And even if they could, it would not look at all like it would have done in the pre-digital era. In days gone by, retiring professors would often deposit their "papers" with their university library, the idea being that their judgment over what to hoard had some intrinsic value worth passing on to future generations. What would "papers" even mean these days?

Librarians have pondered the problem of the digital era archive for more than a decade, but my sense is that we are still massively underprepared for what lies ahead.

Those A level revision notes and PhD box files went to the recycling plant last Thursday. They are gone forever. It felt good. And the 19 year old letter from Neil Kinnock? Sitting safely in a folder waiting to be transported to room FW114, of course.

Number 10 goes blogtastic with WordPress

Number 10 have just launched their new website and it is quite an interesting beast to say the least. It is not only powered by WordPress, but also uses a tweaked free theme (according to a commentor on Gudio Fawkes) called Network-10. On top of that it is full integrated with Flickr, Twitter and YouTube. The Twitter stream is particularly impressive, as the team running the website seem very keen to use Twitter's messaging functionality, used by inserting @DowningStreet into your own tweets, to interact directly with people (I've just sent them a tweet linking to this blog post and asking a question. Let's see if they reply).

Obviously there is a huge difference between using technology and getting it. Thus far the track record of British politicians has not been especially good. But, given its use of open source software and integration with free web services, this is a pretty bold attempt. Only time will tell how it works out.

My favourite story of the day

According to the BBC, an Island community of Monks get hacked off with dial up, so upgrade to broadband. According to Father Daniel:

"Patience is one of the characteristics of monastic life, but even the patience of the Brothers was being tested by our slow internet".
Best of all is the reason the Monks need a faster link-up. They are engaged in e-commerce, selling handmade candels and sweets. The Internet is impacting people in the most unlikely circumstances.

Ghosts

What happens when material posted online such as self-made videos and blogs becomes the material of a dead person? In Speaking into the Air, John Durham Peters writes, ‘Our bodies know fatigue and finitude, but our effigies, once recorded, can circulate through media systems indefinitely, across wastes of space and time’. The words, images and voices of those not just distant but departed can reach us. A certain percentage of soldiers’ emails or blogs (milblogs) will be written by individuals who, by the time you read their words, are dead. Their presence endures. A YouTube video posted by a soldier who has died since the posting seems to be in limbo, their voices and appearance suspended in time. You can see and hear them. You can even appropriate their content, mash up their video into something new, “steal” their apparition, re-invigorating them as you see fit. How do we deal with the ethical problems this creates? Who is to decide how such material is used? Can anybody know how the original personality of the soldier intended their communications to be used? When it comes to using their material, can the dead hold us to account?

Crack legal minds

I was passing through Waterloo station today, a couple of hours of after the verdict in the big Max Mosley / News of the World court case. The Evening Standard billboard was so inspired that I had to snap it with my phone. It should be remembered that Justice Eady, who was presiding, said in his ruling: “I found that there was no evidence that the gathering on 28 March 2008 was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes.”

The very clever legal minds at the Evening Standard though turned their laser like intellect onto the issue and quickly found a way around it however.

Following the letter of the law: great use of inverted commas

Talkin' Radio

Yesterday, I went to another excellent YouGovStone event at the US embassy (you may remember that Andy addressed an earlier meeting on online politics). This seminar was on the role of talk radio in election politics. I didn’t find it as intellectually rigorous as the first seminar, but it was very entertaining nonetheless, and offered some great first hand accounts by a number of practitioners (the panel consisted of American talk show hosts Stephanie Miller and Neal Boortz as well as British radioman Nick Ferrari and Indy journalist Yasmin Albi Brown).

The central question the panel aimed to address was what exactly was the influence of talk radio on the electorate. The hosts were keen to play down their role. Conservative Boortz claimed that he encouraged his audience to away and check the facts for themselves (the slightly odd implied logic of this argument is that one person can only influence another if they are telling them a lie). Miller agreed that she didn't greatly influence people; instead, those who listened to progressive radio were whipped up by the actions of the White House. Likewise Ferrari said that he didn't have influence, his show just reflected what his listeners were thinking. In contrast, Albi Brown argued that talk radio did influence people, citing the argument that there is a level of equivalence between what we feel able to say and what we actually aspire to do. 

My first reaction to these positions is to think they aren't so mutually exclusive, although they can seem so if they are taken to be two polar opposites, as seemed to occur last night. Remember, the classic definition of power is the ability to get someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. That doesn't necessarily entail changing their mind, but might involve catalysing opinions they hold into action or even giving them the confidence to express them in public. For that reason, both the positions expressed by members of the panel last night seem a bit wide of the mark. Albi Brown's view that Talk Radio generates alien opinions that would otherwise not be there is far too simplistic (and, as I blogged before, a position which the left is too frequently comfortable retreating to when seeking to explain their electoral failings). However, it is also wrong to claim, as the Talkshow hosts did, that the ability to broadcast and harness latent political feeling is not influence - and like any form of influence, that can be abused.

My theory gets me so excited

infinity.jpgWhy do so many books on new media and society have such hyperbolic titles? In the last year we’ve had David Weinberger’s Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder, Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, and Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail: How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand. Everything, everybody, endless, unlimited! But there is nothing new about having an impression of a trend and then extrapolating from it a book title suggesting a total transformation of human organisation. Nine years ago we saw James Gleick’s Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything. Whether just about everything has accelerated has been the subject of many sociological studies since. However, asking if the claims of Weinberger, Shirky and Anderson will be verified by studies in a decade is perhaps missing the point. Books like these are missionary. The authors want to make everything miscellaneous, help everybody organize without organizations, or deliver endless choice.

My (very small) piece of citizen journalism

[This post and another previous post relating to this issue were originally published on my own personal weblog].

Good news for anyone who read this recent post that I put up and agreed with my sentiments.If you go to the urls for the two ads on the Guardian website (here and here), you will see that they are listed as expired. However, if you refer back to the links in the original post – which are stored on my furl archive, so are still accessible – you will see that both jobs were due to come down on the 18th July, a full week in the future.

I don’t know, but I hope that my original post (and far, far more importantly, the coverage it got from other more prominent blogs, such as DSTPFW and Comment Central) had a little bit of an impact and helped shame the Guardian into removing these ads, which should never have appeared on their website in the first place.