The Internet and the Global Rise of Identity Politics Stefani HS Nugroho, PhD I would like to talk a bit about how the internet contributes to the global rise of exclusionary identity politics Early research argues that the cyberspace is integrative, it connects people and communities I think we should take into account the disintegrative forces of the internet too and that is what I would like to focus on. There are at least three aspects that contribute to the disintegrative forces: Due to the internet, there’s a higher exposure to people and ideas who are different from us/ ours. At the same time, there is a tendency for homophily, where people “hang out” with people who are similar to them. This creates a stronger boundary and social division. I’m especially interested in supranational polarization, the way that polarization (whether it is political and/or religious/ethnic) in one place has an impact on polarization in another country. Early research: the cyberspace creates new communities, strengthens the public sphere, accommodates public participation & democratization (cf. Rheingold, 1993; Dahlberg, 2000) DOES IT? Essentialization and solidification of “their” vs. “our” identity. Selective exposure and homophily Reuters 2017: 23% of people receive news via messaging service. 51% in Malaysia. 32% share and 25% comment on news with like-minded people. 19% unfriended or blocked people because of news they shared. Main argument: The internet can strengthen the boundary between “Us” and “Them“ and so generate social divisions. (illustration from http://www.theemotionmachine.com/the-us-vs-them-mentality-how-group-thinking-can-irrationally-divide-us/) Higher visibility of people who are different from “us”. Inadvertent exposure: online, people are inadvertently exposed to political standpoints that are different from theirs (Brundridge, 2010) Unintended consequence: 41% of people have been harassed online, 14% of which were due to their political viewpoints (Pew Research, 2017) Supranational Polarization Supranational solidarity within an identity group reinforces intra-national social divisions. Examples (Breitbart, 14 Jan 2016) (hizbut-tahrir.or.id, 23 August 2012) Conclusion and Discussion The Internet enables divisive and exclusionary identity politics. Expansive and intensive connectivity does not lead to higher tolerance and inclusiveness. More study needs to be done in Indonesia where people are historically politically conditioned to prioritize homogeneity over heterogeneity. References Brundidge, Jennifer. 2010. Encountering ‘difference’ in the public sphere: the contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion network. Journal of Communication 60 (680-700). Dahlberg, Lincoln (2001). Extending the public sphere through cyberspace: The case of Minnesota e-democracy. First Monday 6, 3-5 March. Nick Newman et. al ( 2017) Reuters institute digital news report 2017. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Rheingold, Howard (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA. Pew Research Center (2017). Online harassment 2017. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/online-harassment-2017/ References Background picture taken from Wikipedia Commons https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Internet_map_4096.png