Abstract
This chapter addresses the ways in which the Internet offers possibilities for empowerment, along with the components of empowerment. In a context of social and digital divides, inclusion and recognition become central concerns. With the Internet having penetrated so deeply in the society as to change the daily lives of people and the way they interact and see one another, the real possibility of “being” online becomes fundamental. However, the users’ social context and their level of insertion in the offline society define the importance they will ascribe to online experiences and how empowered they will feel. Especially for those who somehow felt socially excluded in offline social structures, online experiences represent a way to feel connected, closer, and recognized.
From the perspective of deliberative agents taking part in a democracy that unfolds through the flux of exchange and interaction beyond the institutions, from the perspective of people who bore the status of second-class citizens in the history of Brazilian democracy, the Internet might open new possibilities for recognition. It is interesting to observe how these opportunities are being used and the emancipations they are making possible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The discussion was mainly focused on access, even if this was in public spaces, but there were also discussions about including the right to access the Internet at home in the menu of fundamental rights. The debate was triggered by the problem of illegal downloading and the threat of cutting off Internet access as a punishment. The French Minister of Culture Christine Albanel was in favour of that solution. She claimed that, despite the importance of Internet access, access at home could not be considered a fundamental right, since there were other ways to gain access. “L’accès à Internet est il un droit fondamental?” Le Monde, 12/03/2009. A detailed discussion of the right to Internet access will be presented in Chap. 6.
- 2.
Other definitions followed, such as the digital normalization divide, referring to the temporal dimension of access, or the digital participation divide (or democratic divide), defined by the use of the Internet for political engagement. On the question the of digital divide, see Norris (2001). Digital Divide, Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press. DIJK (2000). “The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon”. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. Acapulco, 15 June 2000. Rose (2005). “A Global Diffusion Model”. Journal of Public Policy 25, no. I: 5–27. UK: Cambridge University Press. Calderaro talks about a divide between those who contribute and those who do not. He lays out a map of the digital divide worldwide, focusing not only on access but also on contributions to the Internet. Calderaro (2009). “Framing the Digital Divide: Bridging the Gap between Users and Makers of the Internet”. Presented at the 59th International Communication Association (ICA) Conference, Chicago, USA.
- 3.
Couldry, N. et al. 2007. “Communicative Entitlements and Democracy: The Future of the Digital Divide Debate”, pp. 383–401. In Mansell, R., et al. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Information and Communication Technologies. Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 389.
- 4.
Rose (2005), op. cit.
- 5.
Yu (2002). “Bridging the Digital Divide: Equality in the Information Age”. In Cardozo Law School Jacob Burns Institute for Advanced Legal Studies Working Papers Series No. 44, pp. 8–16.
- 6.
YU, P. K., op. cit., p. 23.
- 7.
Yu is also concerned about security problems in the global scenario: “Since the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, commentators including myself, have noted the ties between the attacks and the global inequalities in Internet access”. YU Peter K., op. cit., p. 28.
- 8.
There are authors who claim that access and use are determined not only by socioeconomic and demographic factors, but also by physical, psychological, cultural, and ecological factors.
- 9.
For instance, the argument that the Internet is not as democratic as it was thought to be, because it would deepen the gap between those who had access first and the laggards, or between the more educated and the less educated, as the former will know how to make better use of the Internet to their advantage, does not seem relevant. If we consider books, it is true that people who had access to books early on, and who began to acquire the habit of reading, or in general more-educated people, will probably read faster and have a greater ability to relate information and to use it, but this fact does not make libraries devoid of democratic potential, and hence responsible for deepening the divides. In an ideal world, everybody would have access to the same high level of education and training, but this is not possible for now, and I do not feel that these inequalities undermine the democratic benefits of any kind of access to information.
- 10.
Sergio Silveira claims that the public policies for digital inclusion should always adopt free software, as it is cheaper and fosters the development of the national market through innovation. Moreover, it is not correct to use public money to train citizens in the proprietary language of a transnational private monopoly. The adoption of free software would be more aligned with the democratically inclusive goals of digital inclusion. Silveira (2003). “Inclusão Digital, Software Livre e Globalização Contra-Hegemônica”. In Software Livre e Inclusão Digital, 1st ed., vol. 1, pp. 17–47. São Paulo: Conrad Editora do Brasil.
- 11.
Couldry adapts Scannell’s notion of communicative entitlement—the rightful claim to be listened to and taken seriously in a democracy—in order to formulate claims to a minimum share of the resources for the purpose of receiving and producing information. Couldry, N., op. cit., p. 389.
- 12.
He prefers to ground the argument in Amartya Sen’s notion of “functionings”, as he believes that this would have a better chance to reach a transnational consensus than a given democratic theory. Sen’s approach on the ethical consequences of not enabling people to fulfil their capabilities is based on a concept of human needs where a functioning capability is one whose absence is a deficiency. See Couldry, N., op. cit., p. 397. See also Sen (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- 13.
In particular, for those studies focused on the Internet as a channel of direct participation, the digital divide has a more direct consequence, as people who do not have access or do not use the Internet for political activities end up being excluded from political debate and decisions. Min (2010). “From the Digital Divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet Skills, Political Interest, and the Second-level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use”. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7, no. 1.
- 14.
Even if there are authors who see the situation more as a process of “digital diffusion” that will be naturally balanced and overcome, they still acknowledge that given the way things stand now, there are people deprived of access to the Internet. See Rose (2006). “Internet Diffusion not Divide: A Proximity Model of Internet Take Off in Russia”. Oxford Internet Institute Research Report No. 10.
- 15.
For digital-divide data related to education, gender, and age in the global arena, and how this distribution affects international politics, see Calderaro (2009), op. cit., pp. 12–16.
- 16.
The Internet Affordability Report 2015/2016 indicates that the high cost of connection still keeps many digital excluded. If nothing changes, the goal of connecting the world will not be achieved before 2042, (22 years more than expected). See http://a4ai.org/affordability-report/report/2015/#, accessed 22/02/2016.
- 17.
In his analysis of direct participation in the online portal edemocracia, Faria draws attention to one single contribution made by an indigenous young woman, who presented herself as the leader of the young Indian people from the Reserva dos Dourados. He emphasises that she, and other people in similar position, could be the channel for her community’s digital expression. Faria and Cristiano (2012) O Parlamento Aberto na Era da Internet: Pode o Povo Colaborar com o Legislativo na Elaboração de Leis? Câmara dos Deputados, Edições Câmara (Séries Temas de Interesse do Legislativo, n. 18), Brasília, p.278. Her community as well as other Indian communities might benefit from online opportunities in what regards their common understandings, even if they do not have direct access.
- 18.
See Mosca (2010). “From the Streets to the Net? The Political Use of the Internet by Social Movements”. In International Journal of E-Politics 1, no. 1 (January-March): 1–21.
- 19.
Della Porta and Mosca (2005). “Global-Net for Global Movements? A Network of Networks for a Movement of Movements”. Journal of Public Policy 25, no. 1: 165–190.
- 20.
Hindman highlights the differences between rhetoric and reality, pointing out that most of the bloggers and information producers are professional white men, and in this sense it is hard to claim that the Internet has caused a power shift that furthers inclusion (Hindman (2009). The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Oxford: Princeton University Press, pp. 127–128). However, even if the opening of new possibilities for expression and participation is not ideal, as became clear in the presentation of all the divides, it is always a democratic conquest.
- 21.
Lessig notes that the low cost means that publishing is no longer a barrier to communication. He also claims that the Internet’s architecture in relation to speech is perhaps the most important model to have been developed in the US since its founding. If the meaning of the First Amendment illustrated and embodied by the Internet is to be taken seriously, deep changes in the architecture of offline speech would be required. Lessig, L. 2010, CODE 2.0. 2010. U.S: Soho Books., pp. 236–237.
- 22.
See Sections 1.3. Power Shifts and 1.4. The Commodification of the Internet: from Barlow to Zittrain.
- 23.
Holmes (1997), op. cit., p. 42.
- 24.
Amichai-Hamburger (2007). “Personality, individual differences and Internet Use”. In Joinson, N. et al. The Oxford Hand Book of Internet Psychology. Oxford University Press, pp. 187–204.
- 25.
Whitty (2007). “Love Letters: The Development of Romantic Relationships Throughout the Ages”. In Joinson et al., op. cit., pp. 31–43.
- 26.
According to Lessig, the Internet’s architecture defines and can change who is enabled and who is disabled. He claims that the Internet has enabled the deaf, the ugly, and the blind, but when cameras were brought into its structure, the balance of empowering factors was changed again. Lessig, L. 2010, op. cit., p. 84.
- 27.
Kokswijk compares this picture to the habit of wearing masks in carnival celebrations as a form of breaking free. Van Kokswijk (2008). Digital Ego: Social and Legal Aspects of Virtual Identity. Eburon Publishers.
- 28.
See Schmitz (1997) “Structural Relations, Electronic Media, and Social Change: The Public Electronic Network and the Homeless”. In Jones, S. Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety. London, Thousand Oaks, pp. 80–101.
- 29.
This expression was used by Lessig. Lessig, L., op. cit.
- 30.
Cammaerts, B., Internet-Mediated Participation Beyond the Nation State. Manchester: Manchester University Press, p. 87.
- 31.
Whitty, M., op. cit., p. 39.
- 32.
Smith gives the example of Womenspeak, a project that managed to engage women who have suffered domestic violence in a process where they can exchange experiences and discuss policies. Although the women did not feel they were influencing law and policy, the project proved a success for group networking and mutual support. See Smith (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press, p. 154.
- 33.
Tanis (2007). “Online Social Support Groups”. In Joinson, op. cit., pp. 139–53.
- 34.
Postmes (2007). “The Psychological Dimensions of Collective Action Online”. In Joinson, N., et al., op. cit., pp. 165–185, p. 167–168.
- 35.
Bugeja (2005). Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community in a Technological Age. New York, Oxford. Oxford University Press.
- 36.
Wilson (1997). “Community in the abstract: a political and ethical dilemma?” In Holmes, D. Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace. London, Thousand Oaks, pp. 145–162.
- 37.
Haythornthwaite (2007). “Social Networks and Online Community”. In Joinson, N., et al., op. cit., pp.121–38.
- 38.
In the same direction, see Steven G. Jones, for whom cyberspace is not a social world in itself but is part and parcel of the social world. Jones (2007). “The Internet and Its Social Landscape”. In Joinson, N., op. cit., pp. 7–35.
- 39.
Lillie (1997). “The Empowerment Potential of Internet Use”. JOMC 340—Mass Communication and Society. Available at http://www.ibiblio.org/jlillie/340.html, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 40.
Lillie, op. cit., p. 10.
- 41.
Mehra et al. (2004). “The Internet for Empowerment of Minority and Marginalized Users”. New Media Society 6 (2004): 781. Available at http://nms.sagepub.com/content/6/6/781.abstract, accessed 16/01/16.
- 42.
Mehra, B., Merkel, C., & Bishop, A. P., op. cit., p. 787.
- 43.
Cruz (2007). Vozes das Favelas na Internet: Disputas Discursivas por Estima Social. Master’s dissertation presented in 2007 for the title of Master in Social Communication, supervised by Prof. Dr. Rousiley Celi Moreira Maia. Available online in https://rededepesquisasemfavelas.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/104.pdf, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 44.
According to a study published by the United Nations Agency for Human Settlements (UN-HABITAT) cited in the aforementioned Master’s dissertation, in 2005, 52.3 million people lived in the favelas (28 % of the population at the time). According to the last re-edition of the same study, State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 Prosperity of Cities (Series Title), 44,947,000 people lived in favelas (26,9 % of the population). The figures are based on countrywide household data using the four components of the slum (improved water, improved sanitation, durable housing, and sufficient living area). See Page 125 of the report. Available for download at http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3387, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 45.
Valladares and Do (2005). A Invenção da Favela: do Mito de Origem a favela.com. Rio de Janeiro. Editora FGV, p. 162.
- 46.
Ibid, 36. See also Rinaldi (2008). “Marginais, Delinquentes e Vítimas: um estudo sobre a representação da categoria favelado no tribunal do júri da cidade do Rio de Janeiro”. In Zaluar, A. & Alvito, M. (orgs.) 2008. Um Século de Favela. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. FGV. 2008.
- 47.
For a further analysis of the use of the word favela and its diverse meanings in Brazilian popular song, see Oliveira, J. S. de, & Marcier, M. H. “A Palavra é: favela” in Zaluar, A. & Alvito, M. (orgs.) 2008, op. cit., p. 61.
- 48.
http://www.cufa.org.br/, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 49.
http://of.org.br/en/, accessed 16/01/2016
- 50.
Complexo da Maré is an agglomerate of favelas in the North Zone of Rio de Janeiro. For further details, see http://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexo_da_Mare
- 51.
- 52.
http://www.favelaeissoai.com.br/oprojeto.php. See the section titled “Principais problemas e necessidades dos artistas da periferia” (Main problems and needs of artists from the periphery), accessed 16/01/2016.
- 53.
- 54.
It is a project by Viva Rio. Viva Rio is an NGO whose aim is to conduct research, develop fieldwork, and formulate public policies for the purpose of promoting a culture of peace and social inclusion. For more details, see http://vivario.org.br/en/about-us/, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 55.
See http://vivafavela.com.br/o-viva-favela/, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 56.
http://www.ocupar.oficinadeimagens.org.br, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 57.
Aglomerado Santa Lúcia.
- 58.
- 59.
Tacca (2005). “Antropologia e Imagens em Rede. A Periferia na Internet.” In Colóquio “Direito Autoral, de Imagem, Som e Produção de Conhecimento”, Laboratório de Imagem e Som em Antropologia, USP. 2005. Available at http://www.iar.unicamp.br/docentes/fernandodetacca/Antrop_imagensrede.pdf, accessed 15/01/2016.
- 60.
Tacca gives an example where a group of quilombolas (communities of slave descendants) negotiated with the producers of a university book, coming to an agreement that their community should have control over the way its self-image is portrayed in the media. See Tacca, op. cit., p. 156.
- 61.
See http://www.olharesdomorro.org/en/uma-historia/2/#.UNigOKVgPzI, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 62.
Tacca uses the term real, and stuck to that usage, even though I would prefer the word offline, as real may suggest that online communities are not real. See Tacca, op. cit., p. 157.
- 63.
The YPPSP is a research team of the MacArthur Research Network on Youth and Participatory Politics.
- 64.
Cohen, Cathy J. et al. Participatory Politics: New Media and Youth Political Action. Research conducted between January and July 2011, p. 37.
- 65.
Lemos, R. “O Brasil na rua(6): o futuro em rede” Atlântico-Sul Blogues, O Público, Portugal, published 17/08/2013, available at http://blogues.publico.pt/atlantico-sul/2013/08/17/o-brasil-na-rua-6-o-futuro-em-rede/, accessed 20/01/2016.
- 66.
Kahne Joseph et al. (2013). Youth, New Media and the Rise of Participatory Politics. Youth and Participatory Politics Research Network Working Paper 1, p. 7
- 67.
The YPPSP reports that Facebook posts and tweets from family and friends are among youth’s most common sources for news, information and perspectives (p.37). This fact could indicate influence but also pollarisation, however, Magrani points out that a research using Facebook data suggests that people tend to share information of their close friends, but news posted by acquaintances. This fact indicates that often people share information they would not have accessed without Facebook. Magrani, E. 2014. Democracia Conectada: a Internet como Ferramenta de Engajamento Político-Democrático. Curitiba: Juruá p. 134.
- 68.
Garcêz and Maia (2009). “Lutas por Reconhecimento dos Surdos na Internet: Efeitos Políticos do Testemnunho”. Revista Sociológica Política, Curitiba 17, no. 34 (October 2009): 85–101.
- 69.
Juliana de Faria, founder of ThinkOlga, a feminist page. http://thinkolga.com/a-olga/
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
In this regard, Markell quite interestingly proposes as a politics of acknowledgement rather than one of recognition. In this picture, democratic justice requires that no one be reduced to any characterization of his or her identity for the sake of someone else’s achievement of a sense of sovereignty or invulnerability, regardless of whether that characterization is negative or positive. Markell (2003). Bound by Recognition. Princeton University Press.
- 73.
The YPPSP points that people share news from people who are distant friends with them in social networks, and would probably not have an offline friendship or contact.
- 74.
The survey included the participation of 400 favela residents in the Complex of Manguinhos, the North Zone of Rio de Janeiro, and 413 “asphalt” residents from all the zones of the city. Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econômicas (Ibase). 2009. “Dimensões da Cidade: favela e asfalto”. The results are available at http://www.ibase.br/userimages/PesquisaIBASE-RESUMO.pdf, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 75.
Faria also points out that given the elimination of the social status, people tend the attention paid to the content of the speech in online debates grows in comparison to face-to-face interaction. See Faria Op. Cit., p.89.
- 76.
Ribeiro (2010), ibid.
- 77.
Terêncio and Soares (2003). “Internet como Ferramenta para o Desenvolvimento da Identidade Profissional”. In Psicologia em Estudo, Maringá, vol. 8, no. 2: 139–45.
- 78.
Nicollaci da Costa 2000. Apud Terêncio and Soares (2003), op. cit.
- 79.
Suler, J. Rider University psychologist and Web researcher, quoted by Murray. “A mirror on the Self”. Monitor on Psychology 31, no. 4. Available at http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr00/mirror.html, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 80.
Turkle (1996). “Who Am We? We Are Moving from Modernist Calculation toward Postmodernist Simulation, Where the Self Is a Multiple, Distributed System”. Wired Magazine, issue 4.01, January 1996. Available at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle.html, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 81.
Murray 2000. “A Mirror on the Self.” Monitor Staff 31, no. 4 (April 2000): 36. Available at http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr00/mirror.html, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 82.
Murray cites the example of homosexuals who can only be who they are online and remain uncomfortably heterosexual offline. A further example is that of people who get mired in secret cybersex and might miss out on offline intimacy.
- 83.
Ookita and Tokuda (2001). “A Virtual Therapeutic Environment with user Projective Agents”. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 4 (1): 155–67. Apud. Terêncio, M. G., & Soares, D. H. P., op. cit., p. 143.
- 84.
Turkle (1996), op. cit.; Suler, J. (2001). “The Psychology of Cyberspace”. Available at http://truecenterpublishing.com/psycyber/psycyber.html, accessed 16/01/2016.
- 85.
Turkle sees this as the important new role of therapists: to help netaddicts integrate viable online identities into their offline life and abandon the rest. Murray (2000). op. cit.
- 86.
Murray (2000), op. cit.
- 87.
Murray cites an example from Turkle’s research (the case of a party boy who becomes a pillar of his online community in MUD) and also cites the research of Patricia Wallace, a Ph.D. student at the University of Maryland who has observed that students afraid to talk in class often speak out online.
- 88.
Turkle (1996), op. cit., p. 8.
- 89.
Suler, J. Rider University psychologist and Web researcher, quoted by Murray. Murray, op. cit.
- 90.
Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution (2002) (Free translation). Apud Terêncio, M. G. & Soares, D. H. P., op. cit., p. 144.
- 91.
Turkle, quoted by Murray in Murray (2000), op. cit.
- 92.
We should avoid simplistic dichotomies: online vs. offline, face-to-face vs. mediated. These oppositions fail to capture the multiplexity characterising the personal roles, relationships, ties, and means of communication that form our environment. See Haythornthwaite, Caroline (2007), op. cit.
- 93.
Vocational because from this perspective the Internet bears a closer relation to speech than to spaces. It does not create space: it suppresses it. See Cheser (1997). “The Ontology of Digital Domains”. In Holmes, D., op. cit., pp. 79–91.
- 94.
Cheser, Chris, op. cit., p. 85.
- 95.
The case of online support groups is also worthy of special note here. Participants find the necessary conditions to open up, and in sharing their experiences, they have an opportunity to review and reflect on their feelings. When one has an opportunity to explain oneself, one acquires an expanded possibility of self-understanding. There is a possibility for the creation of transformative links that could hardly be reached through face-to-face interaction.
References
Amichai-Hamburger Y. 2007. Personality, individual differences and internet use. In The oxford hand book of internet psychology, ed. Joinson, N. et al. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Autoral, de Imagem, Som e Produção de Conhecimento”, Laboratório de Imagem e Som em Antropologia, USP.
Bugeja, M. 2005. Interpersonal divide: The search for community in a technological age. New York: Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Calderaro, A. 2009. Framing the digital divide: bridging the gap between users and makers of the internet. Presented at the 59th International Communication Association (ICA) Conference, Chicago, USA.
Cammaerts, B. 2008. Internet-mediated participation beyond the nation state. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Cheser, C. 1997. The ontology of digital domains. In Holmes, D., op. cit.
Cohen, Cathy J. et al. 2012. Participatory politics: New media and youth political action. Oakland: YPP Research Network.
Couldry, N., et al. 2007. Communicative entitlements and democracy: The future of the digital divide debate. In The oxford handbook of information and communication technologies, ed. R. Mansell, 383–401. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 389.
Cruz, M. M. 2007. Vozes das Favelas na Internet: Disputas Discursivas por Estima Social. Master’s dissertation presented in 2007 for the title of Master in Social Communication, supervised by Prof. Dr. Rousiley Celi Moreira Maia.
Della Porta, D., and L. Mosca. 2005. Global-net for global movements? A network of networks for a movement of movements. Journal of Public Policy 25(1): 165–190.
Dijk, J. van. 2000. The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. Acapulco, 15 June 2000. ROSE, R. 2005. A Global Diffusion Model. Journal of Public Policy 25, no. I: 5–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Faria, Cristiano F. S. 2012 O Parlamento aberto na era da internet: Pode o povo colaborar com o legislativo na elaboração de leis? Câmara dos deputados, edições câmara (Séries temas de interesse do legislativo, n. 18), Brasília.
Garcêz, R.L.O., and R.C.M. Maia. 2009. Lutas por Reconhecimento dos Surdos na Internet: Efeitos Políticos do Testemnunho. Revista Sociológica Política, Curitiba 17(34): 85–101.
Haythornthwaite, C. 2007. Social networks and online community. In Joinson, N., et al. op. cit.
Hindman, M. 2009. The myth of digital democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Holmes, D. 1997. Virtual identity: Communities of broadcast, communities of interactivity. In Virtual politics: Identity and community in cyberspace, ed. D. Holmes. London: Thousand Oaks.
Instituto Brasileiro de Anaálises Sociais e Econômicas (Ibase). 2009. Dimensões da Cidade: favela e asfalto.
Jones, S. G. 2007. The internet and its social landscape. In Joinson, N., op. cit., pp. 7–35.
Kahne, Joseph et al. 2013.Youth, new media and the rise of participatory politics. Youth and participatory politics research network working paper 1.
Lemos, R. “O Brasil na rua(6): o futuro em rede” Atlântico-Sul Blogues, O Público, Portugal, published 17/08/2013.
Lessig, L. CODE 2.0. 2010. U.S.: Soho Books.
Lillie J. 1997. The empowerment potential of internet use. JOMC 340—Mass Communication and Society.
Magrani, E. 2014. Democracia Conectada: a Internet como Ferramenta de Engajamento Político-Democrático. Curitiba: Juruá.
Markell, P. 2003. Bound by recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mehra, B., C. Merkel, and A.P. Bishop. 2004. The internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users. New Media Society 6(2004): 781.
Min, S.-J. 2010. From the digital divide to the democratic divide: Internet skills, political interest, and the second-level digital divide in political internet use. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7(1): 22–35.
Mosca, L. 2010. From the streets to the net? The political use of the internet by social movements. In International Journal of E-Politics 1, no. 1 (January–March).
Murray, B. 2000. A mirror on the self. Monitor Staff 31(4): 36.
Norris, P. 2001. Digital divide, civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oliveira, J. S. de, and Marcier, M. H. A Palavra é: favela. In Zaluar, A. and Alvito, M. (orgs.).
Ookita, S.Y., and H. Tokuda. 2001. A virtual therapeutic environment with user projective agents. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 4(1): 155–167. Apud. TERÊNCIO, M. G., & SOARES, D. H. P., op. cit.
Postmes, T. 2007. The psychological dimensions of collective action online. In Joinson, N., et al., op. cit.
Ribeiro, S.M. 2010. Direitos Coletivos e Liberdade Individual. Curitiba: Juruá.
Rinaldi, A.A. 2008. Marginais, Delinquentes e Vítimas: um estudo sobre a representação da categoria favelado no tribunal do júri da cidade do Rio de Janeiro. In Um Século de Favela, ed. A. Zaluar and M. Alvito. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. FGV. orgs.
ROSE, R. 2005. A global diffusion model. Journal of Public Policy 25(I): 5–27. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, R. 2006. Internet diffusion not divide: A proximity model of internet take off in Russia. Oxford Internet Institute Research Report No. 10.
Schmitz, J. 1997. Structural relations, electronic media, and social change: The public electronic network and the homeless. In Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety, ed. S. Jones. London: Thousand Oaks.
Sen, A. 1992. Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silveira, S. A. 2003. “Inclusão Digital, Software Livre e Globalização Contra-Hegemônica. In Software Livre e Inclusão Digital, 1st ed., vol. 1, pp. 17–47. São Paulo: Conrad Editora do Brasil.
Smith, G. 2009. Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tacca, F. C. 2005. Antropologia e Imagens em Rede. A Periferia na Internet. In Colóquio “Direito
Tanis, M. 2007. Online social support groups. In Joinson et al. op. cit.
Terêncio, M.G., and D.H.P. Soares. 2003. Internet como Ferramenta para o Desenvolvimento da Identidade Profissional. Psicologia em Estudo, Maringá 8(2): 139–145.
Turkle, S. 1996. Who am we? We are moving from modernist calculation toward postmodernist simulation, where the self Is a multiple, distributed system. Wired magazine, issue 4.01, Jan 1996.
Valladares, L., and P. Do. 2005. A Invenção da Favela: do Mito de Origem a favela.com. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV.
Van Kokswijk, J. 2008. Digital ego: Social and legal aspects of virtual identity. Eburon Publishers Delft.
Whitty, M. 2007. Love letters: The development of romantic relationships throughout the ages. In Joinson et al. op. cit.
Wilson, M. 1997. Community in the abstract: A political and ethical dilemma? In Virtual politics: Identity and community in cyberspace, ed. D. Holmes. London: Thousand Oaks.
Yu, P. K. 2002. Bridging the digital divide: Equality in the information age. In Cardozo law school jacob burns institute for advanced legal studies working papers series No. 44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Moura Ribeiro, S.S. (2016). Online Empowerment: Building Self-Esteem, Recognition and Citizenship. In: Democracy after the Internet - Brazil between Facts, Norms, and Code. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33593-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33593-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33592-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33593-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)