Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-nwwvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-23T04:02:39.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Culture and Global Networks: Hope for a Global Ethics?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

By
Charles Ess
Edited by
Jeroen van den Hoven  and
John Weckert
Charles Ess
Affiliation:
professor of philosophy and religion and Distinguished Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University in Springfield, Missouri
John Weckert
Affiliation:
Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

From Global Village to Electronic Metropolis

At the height of 1990s, optimism regarding the rapidly expanding Internet and World Wide Web, Marshall McLuhan's vision of a global village seemed within more or less easy reach. By wiring the world, it was argued in many ways, we would enter into the ‘secondary orality of electronic culture’ (Ong 1988) and thereby open up an electronic information superhighway that would realize a genuinely global village – one whose citizens would enjoy the best possibilities of democratic politics, social and ethical equality, freedom of expression, and economic development.

This optimism, however, was countered by increasing tensions in the economic, political and social arenas between two contrasting developments. On the one hand, the phenomena of globalization – including, for example, growing internationalization and interdependencies of markets – appear to lead to increasing cultural homogenization. As terms for this homogenization such as ‘McWorld’ (Barber 1995) or ‘Disneyfication’ (Hamelink 2000) suggest, it is strongly shaped by the consumer and entertainment cultures of Western nations. On the other hand, and at least in part in reaction against real and perceived threats to given cultural traditions and identities, new (or renewed) efforts to defend and sustain these identities and traditions were seen by some to lead to fragmentation and indeed violence – most famously and disastrously, of course, in the attacks of September 11, 2001 against the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.

Type
Chapter
Information
Information Technology and Moral Philosophy , pp. 195 - 225
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aguilar, J. R. 2000. Over the rainbow: European and American consumer protection policy and remedy conflicts on the Internet and a possible solution. International Journal of Communications of Law and Policy, 4, 1–57.Google Scholar
Ames, R., and Rosemont, H. 1998. The Analects of Confucius: A philosophical translation. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Anderson, I.-E., and Jæger, B. 1997. Involving citizens in assessment and the public debate on information technology, in Feenberg, A., Nielsen, T. H., and Winner, L. (Eds.), Technology and Democracy: Technology in the Public Sphere – Proceedings from Workshop 1, Center for Technology and Culture, Oslo, pp. 149–172.Google Scholar
AoIR (Association of Internet Researchers) 2002. Decision-making and ethical Internet research. Retrieved January 10, 2006 from http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.
Barber, B. 1995. Jihad versus McWorld. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Barney, D. 2004. The vanishing table, or community in a world that is no world, in Feenberg, A. and Barney, D. (Eds.), Community in the digital age: Philosophy and practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Becker, B. 2000. Cyborg, agents and transhumanists. Leonardo, 33, 5, 361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, B. 2001. The disappearance of materiality? in Lemecha, V. and Stone, R. (Eds.), The multiple and the mutable subject. Winnipeg: St. Norbert Arts Centre, pp. 58–77.Google Scholar
Becker, B. 2002. Sinn und Sinnlichkeit: Anmerkungen zur Eigendynamik und Fremdheit des eigenen Leibes, in Jäger, L. (Ed.), Mentalität und Medialität, München: Fink, pp. 35–46.Google Scholar
Benhabib, S. 1986. Critique, norm and utopia: A study of the foundations of critical theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bizer, J. 2003. Grundrechte im Netz: Von der freien Meinungsäußerung bis zum Recht auf Eigentum [Basic rights on the net: from the free expression of opinion to property right], in Schulzki-Haddouti, C. (Ed.), Bürgerrechte im Netz [Civil rights online], Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, pp. 21–29. Available at http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/UZX6DW,0,B%fcrgerrechte_im_Netz.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blocker, H. G. 1999. World philosophy: An East-West comparative introduction to philosophy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bonevac, D., Boon, W., and Phillips, S. 1992. Beyond the Western tradition: Readings in moral and political philosophy. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
Bonevac, D., and Phillips, S. 1993. Understanding non-Western philosophy: introductory readings. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
Borgmann, A. 1999. Holding onto reality: The nature of information at the turn of the Millennium. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boss, J. A. 2004. Ethics for life: A text with readings. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Buchanan, E. (Ed.) 2003. Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, J., Thompson, P. B., and Peterson, T. R. 2002. The first European Congress on Agricultural and Food Ethics and follow-up Workshop on Ethics and Food Biotechnology: A US perspective, Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 4, 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrell, D. 1973. Analogy and philosophical language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chan, J. 2003. Confucian attitudes towards ethical pluralism, in Madsen, R. and Strong, T. B. (Eds.), The many and the one: Religious and secular perspectives on ethical pluralism in the modern World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 129–153.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. 2005. Privacy in China. Unpublished Master's thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
George, R. T. 1999. Business ethics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Döring, O. 2003. China's struggle for practical regulations in medical ethics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 4, 3, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dreyfus, H. 2001. On the Internet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Elberfeld, R. 2002. Resonanz als Grundmotiv ostasiatischer Ethik [Resonance as a fundamental motif of East Asian ethics], in Elberfeld, R. and Wohlfart, G. (Eds.), Komparative Ethik: Das gute Leben zwischen den Kulturen. München: Chora, pp. 131–141.Google Scholar
Ess, C. 1983. Analogy in the critical works: Kant's transcendental philosophy as analectical thought. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
Ess, C. 1996. The political computer: democracy, CMC and Habermas, in Ess, C. (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 197–230.Google Scholar
Ess, C. (Ed.) 2001. Culture, technology, communication: Towards an intercultural global village, with Fay Sudweeks, foreword by Susan Herring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ess, C. 2002a. Cultures in collision: Philosophical lessons from computer-mediated communication, in Moor, J. H. and Bynum, T. W. (Eds.), CyberPhilosophy: The intersection of philosophy and computing. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 219–242.Google Scholar
Ess, C. 2002b. Liberation in cyberspace … or computer-mediated colonization? / Liberation en cyberspace, ou colonisation assistee par ordinateur?Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication, 12, 3 & 4. Available at: http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v12n34.htm.Google Scholar
Ess, C. 2003. The cathedral or the bazaar? The AoIR document on Internet research ethics as an exercise in open source ethics, in Consolvo, M. (Ed.), Internet Research Annual Volume 1: Selected papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conferences 2000–2002. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ess, C. 2004a. Beyond Contemptus Mundi and Cartesian dualism: Western resurrection of the bodysubject and (re)new(ed) coherencies with Eastern approaches to life/death, in Wohlfart, G. and Georg-Moeller, H. (Eds), Philosophie des Todes: death philosophy east and west, Munich: Chora, pp. 15–36.Google Scholar
Ess, C. 2004b. Discourse ethics. in Mitcham, C. et al. (Eds), Encyclopedia of science, technology and ethics. New York: MacMillan Reference.Google Scholar
Ess, C., and Sudweeks, F. 2003. Introduction and special issue on liberatory potentials and practices of CMC in the Middle East. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8, 2. Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue2/essandsudweeks.html.Google Scholar
Ess, C., and Sudweeks, F. 2005. Culture and computer-mediated communication: Toward new understandings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 1. Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/ess.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Parliament 1995. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data. Retrieved 16 May 2006 from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31995L0046&model=guichett.
Fixdal, J. 1997. Consensus conferences as extended peer groups, in Feenberg, A., Nielsen, T. H., and Winner, L. (Eds), Technology and Democracy: Technology in the Public Sphere – Proceedings from Workshop 1. Oslo: Center for Technology and Culture, pp. 75–94.Google Scholar
Floridi, L., and Sanders, J. W. 2004. Internet ethics: The constructionist values of homo poeticus, in Cavalier, R. (Ed.), The Internet and our moral lives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
GVU Center (College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology) 1998. GVU's 10th WWW User Survey. Retrieved 25 November 2003 at: http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/survey-1998–10/.
Gupta, B. 2002. Ethical questions: East and West. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie des Kommuikativen Handelns. 2 vols. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. Translated by T. McCarthy as The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984 (Vol. 1) and 1987 (Vol. 2).Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1983. Diskursethik: Notizen zu einem Begründungsprogram, in Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Translated by C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen, as Discourse ethics: Notes on philosophical justification, in Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990, pp. 43–115.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1989. Justice and solidarity: On the discussion concerning stage 6, in Wren, T. (Ed.), The moral domain: Essays in the ongoing discussion between philosophy and the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 224–251.Google Scholar
Halavais, A. 2000. National borders on the World Wide Web. New Media and Society, 2, 1, 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamelink, C. 2000. The ethics of cyberspace. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hayles, K. 1999. How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. 1999. Posting in a different voice: Gender and ethics in computer-mediated communication, in Mayer, P. A. (Ed.), Computer media and communication: A reader, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 241–265.Google Scholar
Herring, S. 2001. Gender and power in online communication. Center for Social Informatics Working Papers, WP01–05B. Retrieved 15 December 2003 from: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/csi/WP/WP01–05B.html.
Hinman, L. M. 1998. Ethics: A pluralistic approach to moral theory. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Hjarvard, S. 2002. Mediated encounters: An essay on the role of communication media in the creation of trust in the global metropolis, in Stald, G. and Tufte, T. (Eds.), Global encounters: Media and cultural transformation. Luton: University of Luton Press, pp. 69–84.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organisations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G., and Bond, M. H. 1988. The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organisational Dynamics, 16, 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hongladarom, S. 2004. Personal communication, 20 January.
Jacoby, I. 1985 The Consensus Development Program of the National Institutes of Health. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1, 420–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johns, M.Chen, S., and Hall, J. (Eds.). 2003. Online social research: Methods, issues and ethics. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. G. 2001. Computer ethics (3rd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Jones, W. T. 1969. The Classical mind: A history of Western philosophy (2nd ed.), Vol. 1). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Kawasaki, L. T. 2003. Personal communication, December.
Kemerling, G. 2000. Kant: The moral order. Retrieved 13 June 2006 from: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm.
Keulartz, J., Korthals, M., Schermer, M., and Swierstra, T. (Eds) (2002). Pragmatist ethics for a technological culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolko, B., Nakamura, L., and Rodman, G. B. (Eds.). 2000. Race in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, C. 2002. Revisiting Confucian Jen ethics and feminist care ethics: A reply. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 17, 1, 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lü, Y. 2002. Xin Xi Lun Li Xue [Chinese information ethics]. Hunan: Middle South University.Google Scholar
Lundh, L. G. 2003. Personal communication, 15 December.
Madsen, R., and Strong, T. 2003. The many and the one: Religious and secular perspectives on ethical pluralism in the modern world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mall, R. A. 2000. Intercultural philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Michelfelder, D. 2001. The moral value of informational privacy in cyberspace. Ethics and information technology, 3, 2, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1913. Utilitarianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moon, J. D. 2003. Pluralisms compared, in Madsen, R. and Strong, T. B. (Eds.), The many and the one: Religious and secular perspectives on ethical pluralism in the modern world. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 343–359.Google Scholar
Nara, Y., and Iseda, T. 2004. An empirical study on the structure of Internet information ethics behaviors: Comparative research between Japan, US and Singapore, in Feenberg, A. and Barney, D. (Eds.), Community in the digital age: Philosophy and practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 161–179.Google Scholar
National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for samfunnsvitenskap og humaniora [NESH], Norway) 2001. Guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences, law and the humanities. Retrieved 15 May 2006 from http://www.etikkom.no/Engelsk/NESH/Publications/NESHguide.
National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for samfunnsvitenskap og humaniora [NESH], Norway) 2003. Research ethics guidelines for Internet research. Translated by L. G. Lundh and C. Ess. Retrieved 15 May 2006 from http://www.etikkom.no/Engelsk/Publications/Internet03/.
National Institutes of Health, Office of Human Subjects Research. 2005. Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Department of Health and Human Services, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects. Retrieved 15 May 2006 from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/45cfr46.html.
NUA Internet Surveys. 2003. How Many Online? Retrieved 15 December 2003 from http://www.nua.com/surveys/how_many_online/index.html.
O'Neill, O. 2001. Agents of justice, in Pogge, T. (Ed.), Global justice. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 188–203.Google Scholar
Ong, W. 1988. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Persondataloven [Personal Data Law, Denmark]. Lov. nr. 429 af 31. maj 2000 som ændret ved lov. nr. 280 af 25. april 2001. Retrieved 2 December 2003 from http://147.29.40.90/_GETDOC_/ACCN/A20000042930-REGL; English version: http://www.datatilsynet.dk/eng/index.html.
Plato, . 1991. The Republic of Plato. Translated by Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pohl, K.-H. 2002. Chinese and Western values: Reflections on a cross-cultural dialogue on a universal ethics, in Elberfeld, R. and Wohlfart, G. (Eds.), Komparative Ethik: Das gute Leben zwischen den Kulturen. München: Chora, pp. 213–232.Google Scholar
Rachels, J. 1999. The right thing to do: Basic readings in moral philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Ramasoota, P. 2005. Thai Webmasters Association Code of Ethics. Second Asian-Pacific Computing and Philosophy Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 8 January 2005.
Reidenberg, J. R. 2000. Resolving conflicting international data privacy rules in cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, 52, 1315–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RESPECT Project. 2004. Institute for Employment Studies. Retrieved 16 May 2006 from http://www.respectproject.org/main/index.php.
Rosemont, H. 2001. Rationality and religious experience: The continuing relevance of the World's spiritual traditions (The First Master Hsüan Memorial Lecture), with a commentary by Huston Smith. Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Sandberg, P., and Kraft, N. (Eds.). 1997. Fast salmon and technoburgers. Retrieved 15 May 2006 from http://www.etikkom.no/Etikkom/Etikkom/Engelsk/Publications/fast.
Scheffler, S. 2001. Boundaries and allegiances: Problems of justice and responsibility in liberal thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Serequeberhan, T. 1991. African philosophy: The essential readings. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
Silverstone, R. 2002. Finding a voice: Minorities, media and the global commons, in Stald, G. and Tufte, T. (Eds.), Global encounters: Media and cultural transformation. Luton: Luton University Press, pp. 107–122.Google Scholar
Skorupinski, B., and Ott, K. 2002. Technology assessment and ethics, Poiesis and Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 1, 2, 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, R. C., and Higgins, K. M. 1995. World philosophy: A text with readings. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
S⊘ndergaard, M. 1994. Hofstede's Consequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies, 15, 3, 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, B. C. 2004. Responsible management of information systems. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoltze, L. 2001. Internet ret [Internet law]. Copenhagen: Nyt Juridisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Tang, R. 2002. Approaches to privacy – The Hong Kong experience. Retrieved 16 May 2006 from http://www.pco.org.hk/English/infocentre/speech_20020222.html.
Taylor, C. 2002. Democracy, inclusive and exclusive, in Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swiderl, A., and Tipton, S. M. (Eds.), Meaning and modernity: Religion, polity and self. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thorseth, M. (Ed.). 2003. Applied ethics in Internet research. Programme for Applied Ethics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Torgersen, H., and Seifert, F. 1997. How to keep out what we don't want: On the assessment of ‘Sozialvergträglichkeit’ under the Austrian Genetic Engineering Act, in Feenberg, A., Nielsen, T. H., and Winner, L. (Eds.), Technology and democracy: technology in the public sphere – Proceedings from Workshop 1, Center for Technology and Culture, Oslo, pp. 115–148.Google Scholar
Tu, W.-M. 1999. Humanity as embodied love: Exploring filial piety as a global ethical perspective, in Zlomislic, M. and Goicoechea, D. (Eds.), Jen Agape Tao with Tu Wei-Ming. Binghamton, NY: Institute of Global Cultural Studies, pp. 28–37.Google Scholar
Tufte, T. 2002. Ethnic minority Danes between diaspora and locality – Social uses of mobile phones and Internet, in Stald, G. and Tufte, T. (Eds), Global encounters: Media and cultural transformation. Luton: Luton University Press, pp. 235–261.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved 16 May 2006 from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.
Veatch, H. 1971. A Critique of Benedict, in Weinberg, J. R. and Yandell, K. E. (Eds.), Theory of knowledge. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
Warren, K. J. 1990. The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics. 12, 2, 123–146.Google Scholar
Weiner, N. 1948. Cybernetics, or Control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. 2002. Communication, organizations and diverse populations, in Sudweeks, F. and Ess, C. (Eds), Proceedings: Cultural Attitudes Towards Communication and Technology 2002, Université de Montréal, School of Information Technology, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, pp. 69–88. Available online: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/~sudweeks/catac.Google Scholar
Yu, J. Y. 2003. Virtue: Confucius and Aristotle, in Jiang, X. (Ed.) The examined life: The Chinese perspective. Binghamton,NY: Global Publications, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Yu, J. Y., and Bunnin, N. 2001. Saving the phenomena: An Aristotelian method in comparative philosophy, in Bo, M. (Ed.), Two roads to wisdom? – Chinese philosophy and analytical philosophy. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, pp. 293–312.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×