ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

Yanuar Nugroho

Outsider Theory1

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying
to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
(George Bernard Shaw, 1903)

1. Introduction
The scale and speed at which the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have gone through
ordinary life in almost all aspects is very striking. Civil society organisations (CSOs) as social entities have this
unprecedented opportunity to use the technology to support their quest for a better, more just and peace
world. But, although the tools are in their hands, most of them have not decided yet how to do so. Clearly,
despite the popularity and the rate at which ICTs use has broadened, it is still relatively new to allow much in
the way of retrospective reflection on its nature and impact to society (Graham, 1999), particularly in the
context of social transformation.

The review covers three areas of literatures and their overlapping, i.e. ICTs, CSOs and social transformation.

Civil Society ICTs &

Organisation Society
Appropriation of
ICT in CSO for
transformation

Social
Transformation

Fig1. What the paper covers

1
Outsider Theory, from Habermas-Gadamer debate page, available online at http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/habermas07.htm

1
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

As an analytical means and approach, Giddens’ Structuration Theory (1984) is used to portray these areas and
understand how they interrelate one to another.

Firstly, in the area of ICT and society, this paper sees the dynamics between the two from Internet CMC
viewpoint which reflect the immense power of communication technology (Thurlow, et al., 2004; Graham,
1999), and the emergence of ‘information age’ (Castells 1996, 1997) and ‘modernity’ (Giddens, 1999). Then,
the paper looks closely at CSOs and their roles, as the third social actor after the state and ‘economy, in social
dynamics. Being explanatory, the review exposes the way in understanding society and civil society (Eldridge,
1971; Danermark, et al., 2002) and evaluates the role of CSO as an agent of social transformation (Held and
Mc Grew, 2000) in the context of modern Information Society (Miles, 1996). Further, this review investigates
the landscape for ICTs appropriation by understanding the path from access to appropriation (Surman &
Reilly, 2003) and examines the role of ICT as convivial medium (Illich, 1973) for civil society to foster
democracy and social justice (Riker, 2001; McConnel, 2000). And finally, before reaching conclusion, the
paper offers a closer look at Miles’ ‘competing perspectives’ which shapes information societies (Miles, 1996) and a
complementary view from Giddens’ ‘structuration theory’ to explain societal changes (Giddens, 1984) in the
Information Society.

2. Rethinking ICTs and Society – What interaction?

“Instantaneous electronic communication is not just a way in which news and information is
conveyed more quickly. Its existence alters the very texture of our lives.” (Giddens, 1999:3)

The dynamics between technology and society has long been acknowledged as eminent topic in science and
technology study. It started from the ‘technological determinism’, which saw technology as the only driving
force behind much of history and was gleaned from an underlying physical reality, to the classic question
whether technology is socially shaped (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985) or is socially constructed (Bijker, et al.,
1989), which recognises the ‘push and pull’ between technology and society and that technology is a
‘collective product’ of society.

Particularly today, with the emergence of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) especially
the Internet, this issue has become more important for communication –which is central in human life—has
been broadly mediated by computer. As Thurlow (et al., 2004) suggests, although most of theories and
debates on the Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and society come from Western scholars, it is
important to explore beyond what have been in existence since social and cultural transformations are
brought about by the Internet, specifically CMC, which has ability to change and influence identities,
relationships and communities. He says, furthermore, “… whether you own a computer or not –and billions of people

2
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

don’t—these days everyone’s lives are transformed by new media like the internet, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively.”
(p. 2).

To my mind, opinions about the cultural and social impact of new technologies is initially polarised into
extreme positions. On the one hand, it is those who create a lot of hype about the wonderful, unique
advantages of the technology –this view is referred to as technophilia. On the other hand there are those who
appear more hysterical about the terrible effects they foresee –known as luddites or technophobics.

Following Postman’s conception (1993) about technopoly, a world whose advancement is characterised only by
technological innovation2, Graham (1999) addresses this tension very clearly,

“At the same time, to declare all doubts and questions about the Internet to be luddite, is to run the danger
of falling victim to the other extreme, an extreme we might call ‘the ideology of technology’. The ‘ideology
of technology’ is most evident in Technophiles: those who believe that technological innovation is a
cornucopia which will remedy all ills… Their motivation lay … in the fact that they were intrigued by the
technical problems. This is one aspect of the ‘ideology of technology’– technological problem-solving
becomes an end in, and of, itself irrespective of larger considerations. To say more accurately, the
question of means is the dominant (even sole) consideration and the question of the value of ends to
which they are the means is left to take care of itself. A second important aspect of the ideology of
technology is its assumption that the most technologically advanced is the best. This might be taken as the
defining characteristic of technophilia, in fact. It is also the belief that has ushered in ‘Technopoly’ a world
ruled by technological innovation (Graham, 1999:pp.9-10)

In this light, Kling (1996) defines what he sees as the basic beliefs of the ‘utopian’ and ‘dystopian’ visions
people tend to have regarding the effects of ‘computerisation’ on human interaction and social life. The
utopian vision emphasises the life-enhancing, exciting possibilities of CMC with claims for global
connectivity, democratisation and the opening of the frontiers of human experience and relationship. The
anti-utopian vision concerns itself with people’s enslavement to digital technology, their growing dependency
as well as the relentless, unstoppable growth of technology which brings with it information overload and the
breakdown of social structure3.

So too, this may suppose with ICT. The world is indeed being altered by it and will continue to be. But the
scale and depth of the alteration will not be of the sort that either optimists or pessimists predict, and the task
is to explore the perennial issues which need to be understood if we are to make a reasonable assessment of
its value and significance. To my mind, steering a reasoned middle course between luddism and technophilia
requires the following: that we are not swayed by technological innovation for no better reason than that it is

2
Postman (1999) contrasts the modern world, especially in America, with earlier ‘tool using’ societies, when technology was the servant of other
independent purposes and regulated by them. Technopoly, by contrast “eliminates alternatives to itself” (p.48). Although criticised as putting
too much generalisation, Postman identifies an important assumption that all that went before is redundant and to be discarded because
inferior. With this, also comes another assumption, that countries and individuals who want to increase or preserve their prosperity must invest
heavily in hi-tech.
3
With reference to the Internet, Berland (2000) in similar way refers to ‘cyberutopianism’ to explain what she observes as the ‘overly optimistic
belief’ often held in society that technology necessarily means progress and, therefore, what is new is always good and always better than
what went before. This also assumes that progress is always a good thing, which may explain why many people rush out to buy the latest
version of everything.

Sometimes people forget that the new product may not be better but that we are told it is in order to satisfy the interests of hard core
commerce. This view, supported by the current practice of neoliberal economy, changes entirely the way society perform. If Descartes were
around, he might say “Emo ergo sum” (I shop, therefore I am) instead of “Cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). This is my personal note to
this issue, which is published in an English newspaper in Indonesia. See: Nugroho (2002)

3
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

innovatory, and that at the same time we remain open to its actual character and possible advantages. In other
words, we must be alive both to the possibility that ICT may be a truly new way of doing things with real
increases in value for those individuals and societies who adopt it, and to the possibility that its novelty and its
advantages have been exaggerated.

In the area of socio-economic development, the similar debates also exist. The opinions are sharply divided
into two categories. Utopian category, which paints a very beautiful picture, is called ‘silver bullet’ (Sein and
Ahmad, 2001) where ICTs is seen as a catalyst for national development by being the vehicle for
transformation. The rationale is ‘leapfrogging’: by being late adopters of ICTs, developing countries benefit
from declining cost, advances in technology and bypassing the problem associated with new technology. ICTs
is a tool of empowerment and enabling for common people (Hamelink, 1997). Open information flow is
theorised to lead to more open government, broad citizen participation and entrepreneurship. This view,
clearly, is in line with the western view of development –and is in the core of optimistic views4.

This picture is of course examined critically, e.g. by using the dependency perspective of development, to
convey in order not to be entrapped in the dystopian category called ‘doom and gloom’ (Sein and Ahmad,
2001). This perspective argues that as of today there are few links between ICTs and national development.
Referred statistics show increased investment in ICTs in developing countries and all corresponding decrease
in all economic growth indicators (Hamelink, 1997). In contrast to the benefits espoused by the optimists,
this view argues that ICTs can actually lead to more repression by authoritarian governments who now have
more powerful tool to control citizens. In addition, ICTs also magnifies the digital divide, i.e. the difference
between knowledge and technological capabilities of the developed and developing world.

Having been aware of the issue, it seems that what is seen from any technological developments or
innovations is a mixture of hype and excessive optimism on the one hand and hysteria or fierce scepticism on
the other. I would like to take up the discussion about ‘life on the screen’, which introduces the notion of the
‘subjective computer’ (Turkle, 1990), to react. People tend to project on to computers and digital technology
their own individual fears and aspirations. As result, ICTs end up being treated like a ‘Rorschach inkblot’.

Fig 2. Rorschach inkblot

Source: http://photoinf.com/General/Robert_Berdan/Composition_and_the_Elements_of_Visual_Design/image014.gif

4
Note that international organization like The UN also braces this view.

4
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

In psychology, therapists sometimes ask people to imagine what they see when looking at an image similar to
the one above. The idea is that the things people say they see reveal important clues about how the person is
feeling and what is really on their mind. About this, Thurlow (et al., 2004) concludes, “And so, in much the same
way, people talk about technology often says more about them than it does about the technology itself” (p.40).

To bridge this utopian-dystopian vision, Castells (1996) instead raises a ‘dialectical interaction’ between
technology and society. To his mind, technology does not determine society. Instead, it embodies it. But
neither does society determine technological innovation since it uses it. The present phase of capitalism has
become possible because of innovations in microelectronics, telecommunications, digital electronics, and
network computing, which represent the rise of a new technological developments in ICTs – the paradigm
which becomes the basis of socio-economic relations.

“Technological innovation and organizational change, focussing on flexibility and adaptability, were
absolutely critical in ensuring the speed and efficiency of restructuring. It can be argued that without new
information technology global capitalism would have been a much-limited reality, flexible management
would have been reduced to labor trimming, and the new round of spending in both capital goods and new
consumer products would not have been sufficient to compensate for the reduction in public spending.
Thus, informationalism is linked to the expansion and rejuvenation of capitalism, as industrialism was
linked to its constitution as a mode of production” (Castells, 1996:19, my emphasis)

Giddens confirms what Castells proposes by reminding that the changes are happening not only ‘out there’
but also ‘in here’ –in our homes and inside our heads, in how we see the world and our place in it (Giddens,
1999). This consequently implies that as society people have a responsibility to think about and debate the
experiences of these societal transformations. The fact is it is impossible to remain neutral to their
consequences. This is why it is important to see how all the changes are affecting everyday human interaction.

A fundamental question about any technology should be: what is the problem to which this technology is a
solution? This question however presupposes that the desires which technology is intended to fulfil exist prior
to such technology and are independent of it. The problems to which technology is an answer are subjectively
defined and that technology is just a means to an end. These assumptions are in fact questionable. This is also
the case with ICT. One of the most interesting and important speculations about the ICTs is that it will help
establish a world with much greater freedom of expression and democracy. The assumption here is that
democracy is desirable.

We live now in the information age when ICTs and society do interpenetrate each other to an extent that they
cannot be separated anymore (Castells, 1996; 1997). On the one hand, in our society, we see how ICT plays a
role in almost all of its aspects – on the other we know that social arrangement is embodied in the
development of ICT. It may be better to understand the role of technology by conceptualising technology as a
process in which society is reorganising itself into ever new forms dialectically, i.e. while an arrangement of elements (be it
institutional, technical and cultural) stabilises in new technological artefacts, these artefacts provide new
possibilities of doing things and in the process of putting the artefacts to use, they are actuated.

5
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

Before Castell came into this conclusion, Giddens (1984) actually has confirmed this dialectic in his ‘Theory of
Structuration’ as duality between structure (i.e. in this case: technological structure of ICTs) and agent (i.e. in this
case: end-user individuals within society). The fact that the actor (or, agent) is different from the structure is
obvious. Yet, how do we give notion to this difference? According to Giddens, ‘agent’ is knowledgeable, with
a knowledge of most of the actions he or she undertakes – in the other words, a concrete person within the
continuous flow of actions and events. Meanwhile ‘structure’ is set of rules and resources which are shaping
and in the same time being shaped by the recursive social practices. In the other words, it is recursively
implicated in the institutional articulation of social systems – both structure and agent presume one another.
The duality of agent-structure lies in the process in which the structure is both the outcome of and the
medium (means) of agent’s action. Considering the development and innovation of ICTs as social practices,
we can see how Giddens’ view matches with Castells’ idea.

Moving further, we need to pay attention to the notion of time and space, in which the action and structure in
social practices take place. In Giddens’ view, time and space cannot be any longer understood as an arena or
‘stage’ of social action (i.e. to where we get in and from where we get out – including technological
innovation). Time-space is not only the arena of actions, but also the constitutive and integral element of social
practices (Giddens, 1984)5. The simplest implication is that we cannot understand the social practice today
from what we saw it yesterday. For example, in this modern world societal forms does not lie on the
difference of production modes (as conveyed by Marxism), but in the way each society organises the
relationship within time and space. Modernity, for example, is a phenomenon of ‘disembedding’ time from
space. Globalisation, another example, is a simultaneous act of ‘expanding’ and ‘compressing’ time and space
–in other words, ‘action at distance’ (Giddens, 1999). And precisely, it is the ability to perform ‘separation of
time and space’ that is central to all characteristics claimed by technology, particularly ICTs.

These are all what have been the context of the discussion about the interaction between ICTs and society
today. So, it then seems a good point to move on to rethink the civil society organisations (CSOs) as part of
society and their roles in social transformation.

3. Rethinking CSOs – Agent for social transformation?

“We are challenged to break the obsolete social and economic systems which have divided our world into
the haves and the have-nots. We, all, the government leaders or the protestors, the businessmen or the
labours, the professors or the students, are to be responsible for this situation. We have failed to
understand how the important changes of the societal ideas and structures are able to be undertaken.”
(Ivan Illich, ‘Celebration of Awareness’, 2002)

5
This point gives birth to the latest social theory, The Theory of Structuration (Anthony Giddens). The name of this theory, as the suffix ‘isation’,
points the process: time-space as the constitutive element of social phenomena (e.g. modernisation, urbanisation, de-human-isation, etc.)

6
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

What is civil society organisation (CSO) and how it differs from non-governmental organisation (NGO)?
Many literatures seem to have used both terms interchangeably and put little attention on their difference (e.g.
Eldridge, 1971; Danermark, et al., 2002; Hill & Sen, 2002; Bennet, 2003, among others) and thus analysed
them as a single entity. Yet, according to Clayton (et al., 2000), doing so is an analytical mistake, since,

“Civil society constitutes a vast array of associations, including trade unions, professional associations,
religious groups, cultural and sports groups and traditional associations, many of which are informal
organizations that are not registered. Nonetheless, despite the huge variety of different types of
organizations that are found in the developing world, most of the funding from international sources for
service provision is channelled through non-governmental organizations. The NGO sector in most
developing countries is formally organized and often subject to certain government regulations, and has
developed considerable capacity and experience in the delivery of development projects. For this reason,
although it is important to keep the terms CSO and NGO analytically distinct, in practice the majority of
CSOs involved in service provision are NGOs (pp.1-2)

Based on my personal involvement in Indonesian social movement, I share the same view with Clayton, that
CSOs should be distinguished from NGO. To my mind, the term CSO should be used as a broad category
that takes into account any organisation outside of both the state and business, and operates on a non-profit
basis –including NGO. Uhlin (2000) supports this preposition:

“Civil society is a public sphere in which different kind of groups –which have some degree of autonomy in
relation to the state, economic entities and the family, but constantly interact with institutions of these other
spheres– develop identities, articulate interests and try to promote a specific political agenda” (p.10)

This distinction is important since NGO, as its name implies, is a CSO built upon identity merely as a non-
state, or non-state-apparatus, actor. Whereas, there are other groups, formally organised or not, whose
identity is not, or not only, built upon such position. The emergence of student movement groups, anti-
globalisation movements, urban poor groups, anti-business/anti-TNC (transnational corporation) movement,
among others, are simply proofs that using the term ‘NGO’ to label this kind of groups or organisations is
inadequate, although NGO is the most visible and vocal subset of CSO6.

Suffering from inability to find more scholarly literatures addressing this distinction, particularly in Indonesian
context, I take deliberately Ibrahim’s (et al, 2003) position to justify my arguments above as he puts it more
clearly, that:

“In Indonesia, the term NGO means organizations that focus their activities toward social and economic
empowerment through poverty alleviation programs and policy changes through advocacy programs. The
terms CSO is conceptually wider than NGO; CSO also includes the academic community such as student
organizations, universities and research agencies that function as think tanks, the media (independent
newspapers, radio and television), community organization, social religious organizations and labor
unions.” (p.130)

This is the position which this literature review (and my PhD thesis) would adapt in differentiating NGO
from CSO, and vice versa.

6
I come to this temporary conclusion after reflecting my involvement in Indonesian social movement since I was a university student activist in
1990 to my close work with many other organisations, particularly NGOs and student movement during Indonesian reform (1997-1999).
Having established my own NGOs, i.e. a developmentalist-then-research-based NGO (www.elsppat.or.id), a political NGO
(www.unisosdem.org) and an advocacy-and-research-based NGO working in business accountability issue, I gradually understand the
importance of this distinction.

7
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

The recent study (SustainAbility.com, 2003) reveals that as a working sector, NGO globally is worth over US$
1 trillion and employs 19 million people. Meanwhile, the World Development Indicator (2003) reports that
NGOs in OECD countries have channelled around US$ 10.5 billion in grants to their partners in non-OECD
countries in 2001. This could easily be understood since 83.6% of international (or internationally-oriented)
NGOs are located in OECD countries (WDI, 2003). As an employment sector, while the number brings
optimism among CSO workers, is it something worth praising with regards to their role as a social
transformer? Surely, we need sharp analytical views to answer.

Amy Chua criticises the role of CSO activists as the ‘retailer’ of liberal democracy a la USA, which in turn
would contribute to the emergence of tribal conflicts, which has been evident in Asia, Africa and Balkan
(Chua, 2002). The similar view is also addressed by James Petras who sees current CSOs’ role as ‘moderating’
the fight against capitalism and even taking part in establishing the global capitalist infrastructures in the
Southern countries (Petras, 1997). This perspective is actually tuned to Edwards & Hulme (1996) who view
CSO as a ‘magic bullet’ which delivers ideology and social infrastructure far more effectively compared to
state, corporations or religious institutions. Moreover, what is trivial is the fact that CSOs, particularly NGO
could be ‘used’ by any other political as well as economic actors, mostly from foreign (or more developed)
countries, without they even realise it. Is it a new imperialism done through CSOs/NGOs?

So far reviewed, there are two basic, grand theories to explain this phenomenon. The first one is what is
referred by Kunio Yoshihara as post-colonialism ‘soft power era’. This is the era when discourses originated
from the northern (developed, rich, capitalist) countries are blindly ‘transplanted’ to the southern (developing,
poor) ones through CSOs, particularly the ‘developmentalist’ NGOs. Therefore, there will be always what-so-
called ‘discourse dependency’ of the south on the north following ‘erzats capitalism’ phenomenon (Yoshihara,
1988).

The second theory comes from Fukuyama (1993), who is like Huntington (1993), is unclear if he predicts or
otherwise provokes about the democratic system of liberal capitalistic as ‘the end of the history’. The claim of
the arguments is that the mushrooming issues of good-governance, human-rights, and the likes promoted by
CSOs are part of democracy to streamline the investment. So, while the CSOs get their legitimacy of their
existence, they might not realise that the issues they are promoting is within a big scenario to expand
capitalism through wider investment in the developing countries (Fukuyama, 1993)

These theories have brought about new ‘awareness’ among CSO activists and they have started criticising
themselves, their organisations, and their activities in transforming the society (Uhlin, 2000). In developing
countries context, like in Indonesia, this can be seen even much clearer from the point that the birth of
NGOs took place in the time of ‘grant booming’ (purposed for poverty alleviation) and became intensely by
the time ‘developmentalism’ fostered by states.

8
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

This awareness is inevitably part of the history of social movement itself. And, as Giddens (1984) proposes
when emphasising the importance of actor (agent) in order to change the structure, it becomes extremely
important nowadays for CSO activists (as agent of social movement) to reflect the direction and ‘setting’ of
their action: whether they let themselves to be utilised by capitalist or otherwise shift to the more radical and
strategic program against social and economic injustice. Because, it is the ‘discursive consciousness’ of the
agent (i.e. the CSO activists) which can cause the ‘de-routinisation’ of social practices (i.e. NGOs/CSOs as
agent of capitalist) that can change the structure (i.e. NGOs/CSOs as agent of transformation) (Giddens,
1984).

The question is then: what transformation? And how is it formulated?

To answer this is firstly by paying particular attention to the problem of democratisation and social change
(structure). Toepatimasang (1993) and Holland & Henriot (2002) develop a basic sociological model below.

MODEL CONSENSUS CONFLICT

Line of Thoughts DEVELOPMENTALIST LIBERAL/REFORMIST TRANSFORMATIVE
The result of consensus, subject to preserve, not to be The result of power domination, thus
Social Structure
questioned need to be scrutinised
The Problem of Lack of education, poverty, Malfunction of order (pol- Unjust and undemocratic order (pol-ec-
Democracy uncivilised society, etc. ec-soc-cult) soc-cult)
The lack of opportunities to
The Root of the Problem The fault of the actors share the participation and Unjust social structure
access.
Providing and expanding
Changing the value and
opportunities of
Problem Solving norms (culture and Structural change
participation and access to
mentality)
the group/society
The Model Mentality and cultural Functional & structural
Conflict management
of Changes change change
Human Rights enforcement,
The capacity of society to undertake and
Motivation Duty including law, and
to manage the change.
constitution
Actor Elites (government and business) Society
Populist, participating, providing ways to
Style of Leaderships Bureaucracy Technocracy-Bureaucracy
bottom-up leadership.
Paradigm Developmentalist Reformist Liberalist Liberal Transformist
Table 1. Sociological Model to Understand the Problem of Democratisation and Social Change
Source: Adopted from Toepatimasang (1993) and Holland and Henriot (2002)

Then, categorising CSOs (as agents) based on this sociological model, to figure out the paradigm(s) they
embrace. Toepatimasang (1993) calls this categorisation as ‘Five basic paradigms of CSOs activities’ as presented in
the table below.

9
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

LIBERAL /
MAIN PARADIGM CHARITY DEVELOPMENTALIST RADICAL TRANSFORMIST
REFORMIST
Situation and
The low education level, Malfunction of
View about the condition beyond Repression,
life standard, the scarce structures:
cause of social human control. E.g. control & Improper structure.
resource of education, service &
problem natural disaster, domination.
money/resource. farming
disease, etc.
Reconstructing the
Lessening the Increasing the Fixing the current Challenging and
new structure:
Medium suffering of the production, to conquer structure ‘s changing the
economics, politics,
target groups the nature performances current structure
laws, education.
Awareness
Food aids for the Technical training on: Trade Unions,
Program,
refugees, farming, small protesting
Forms of Supporting services: alternative
handicapped, industries, credits, movement,
Activities LBH, extra class structures, new
orphans, curative income generation and awareness
forms of education
clinics. health. program
program.
Functional Changes Structural Changes
Types of
Changes
Consensus Model Conflict Model
Bottom up & Animation,
Types of Believe in the Participative, equal delegation of participatory
Consultative
Leadership authority responsibility authority, high guidance, equal
discipline. responsibility
The equality of Cursing the bad
Inspiration/ love, helping the Helping people to be Renewal by all,
rights & and preaching
Motivation poor independent together
opportunities the good
Table 2. Main paradigms of CSO activities
Source: Adopted from Toepatimasang (1993)

What is emergent from the model is that social transformation idealised by CSOs is straightforwardly hitting
the issue of repression, social injustice, undemocratic governance. The transformation consequently is
achieved through structural change with a proper ability to manage the conflict counting on the capacity of
the social to undertake and to manage the change. What is important is also the way society in general is
involved through populist movement, participatory action which provides ways to possibly lead from the
bottom.

Although developed in the Indonesian context7, the view above, to my mind, is valid to be applied to analyse
the dynamics of CSOs in other developing countries for they are sharing the common social problem of
severe poverty, human rights violations and critical economic inequality. This model helps not only to
categorise CSOs in a clearer taxonomy based on their paradigm but also to map the social change that takes
place.

Yet, as a critique, using structuration analysis (Giddens, 1984), I found the models above to be ‘structure-
biased’. What does it imply? If the discursive consciousness as well as practical consciousness is merely
targeted on the structure, it discourages the enactment of agents and only raises dilemma. The failure of
Leninist model which suggests the proletariat political party as the structural way to change the capitalist
world, to my mind, is undeniable proof which may bring impasse in social transformation.

7
Holland and Henriot and particularly Toepatimasang base most of their works in Indonesian context.

10
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

Therefore, despite that dilemma may be seen an obvious part of social movement, the discursive
consciousness and practical consciousness must also be targeted to empower the agents, i.e. the CSO
activists, through whom the transformation as a result of ‘de-routinisation’ can be facilitated. Only through
this route can Giddens, in my view, come to the ‘renewal of social democracy’ as an alternative (although
probably speculative) to the old tension between capitalism-socialism which was tried to be bridged by ‘old
version’ of social democracy (Giddens, 1998). To put it simple, regardless circumstances, it is the act ‘to take a
side’ that can be freely done by the agent, even when it is against the structure’s objectives. This is the central
of social transformation, which can take place through any variants of CSOs.

With this, I would like to conclude this part by clearly stating that what is firstly needed in a true social
transformation is the awareness and consciousness of the agents, i.e. social activists, on both what they are
doing that enforces the structure and what the structure is influencing that has an effect on them. Only in this
light the use of any theory of social movement can be properly referred when addressing social
transformation for theory is not the sole guidance of action from the external, but needs to be constructed
into the internal.

Therefore, the option for achieving social transformation does not necessarily mean to be within the
framework of proletariat movement (which has been proven to fail) but open to CSOs as the basis of the
action. In fact, recently there has been growing acknowledgement of the important role of CSOs in the social
change. Yet, a perpetual internal reflection needs to be undertaken towards what have been achieved by
CSOs, because otherwise CSOs are in the real danger of being opportunistic and thus utilised (e.g. by donors)
to gain other objectives than a true social transformation.

What is implied with regard to the Indonesian context is that we should be more optimistic when assessing
the CSO movements, i.e. those which are the likes of peasants/rural movement or labour/urban movement.
Yet, the role of NGOs is indeed significant as that they are not just part of the CSO movement, but their role
can be constructed (as they are more organised and educated). What is not needed is the absence of
continuous reflection on the roles of CSOs, which may result them to be only the ‘caretaker’ or even worse,
‘dish washer’ of the ‘capitalist agenda’. Thus, it may be seen as naïve if we consider NGO as only a
compromising form of CSOs aiming at social transformation for we ignore the capacity of actors of NGOs
to ‘reform’ themselves.

With these all in mind, let us now focus on how CSOs, in fostering the transformation they aspire, use their
resources –one of which is the access to ICTs.

11
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

4. Landscape for ICTs appropriation – Convivial medium for CSOs?

“Because informationalism is based on the technology of knowledge and information, there is an
especially close linkage between culture and productive forces, between spirit and matter, in the
informational mode of development. It follows that we should expect the emergence of historically
new forms of social interaction, social control, and social change.” (Manuel Castells, 1996:18)

The problem with talking about the ‘use of ICTs by CSOs’ is that ‘use’ has more than one meaning to many
people. Some would think of having access to physical equipments linked to a network, other would point to
the use of basic communication application or software, and still others would refer to the strategic use of
communication technology for own purpose. So, how can we mark they way organisations must travel across
different kind of ‘use’ as they are exposed to new technologies? Camacho (2001) and Surman (2001)
introduce ‘spectrum of use’ of ICT among CSOs below.

Appropriation

Adoption

Access

Constraints to access / Most transnational CSOs Pioneers and innovators

slow adopters and some local CSOs
Fig 3. Access/Adoption/Appropriation Ladder
Source: Surman & Reilly, 2003
Therefore all perspectives of ‘use’ make sense as they fit along the ‘spectrum of use’ above, which presents
three steps in a ‘ladder’, i.e. access, adoption and appropriation.

The lowest step of the ladder is basic access, i.e. to make available ICT infrastructure to perform a networked
communication (e.g. Internet connection to an office computer, a mobile phone with SMS, internet café).
The middle ladder is the adoption, i.e. the use and development of necessary basic skills to perform ICT in
the ways in which it was intended (e.g. writing memos and notes with a word processor, notify colleagues
with an email client application). The highest point of the ladder is appropriation, i.e. the strategic use where
an individual or an organisation turns ICT to their own purposes, utilises it to achieve their own objectives
and makes it their own (e.g. uploading local content on the web in local languages, specific application design
for specific need).

The research is focussed on the appropriation and strategic use of ICT, not because the access and adoption
is unimportant, but it is at the level of appropriation that CSOs turns ICT to their own ends, creating political
and social impact. In Illich’s conception, it is where CSO turns ICT into a ‘convivial medium’ to achieve their
goals. It is a level where people are not any longer subordinated by technology, but have full control over it
and use it for their own purpose (Illich, 1973).

“For a hundred years we have tried to make machine work for men and to school men for life in their
service. Now it turns out that machines do not “work” and that people cannot be schooled for a life at the

12
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

service of machines. The hypothesis on which the experiment was built must now be discarded. The
hypothesis was that machines can replace slaves. The evidence shows that, used for this purpose,
machines enslave men. Neither a dictatorial proletariat nor a leisure mass can escape the domination of
constantly expanding industrial tools. The crisis can be solved only if we learn to invert the present deep
structure of tools; if we give people tools that guarantee their right to work with high, independent
efficiency, thus simultaneously eliminating the need for either slaves or masters and enhancing each
person’s range of freedom. People need new tools to work with rather than tools that “work” for them. They
need technology to make to most of the energy and imagination each has, rather than more well-
programmed energy slaves.” (p.10)

One can probably think of this assumes that access to technology (in this case ICT) is relatively not any
longer a problem. Or in the other words, appropriation can only be discoursed when full access is available.
Yet, it is not always true. As Surman & Reilly (2003) posits:

“Ignoring the question of how we appropriate these technologies – or even subjugating this question to the
issue of access – threatens to leave us in the same boat. Unless we move beyond the role of information
consumers to also act also producers and participants, those technologies that have powerful potential
today may quickly become the consumer mush of tomorrow.” (p.10)

In particular context of CSOs and social movement, although their access to ICTs sometimes is still problem
or not fully available time to time, CSOs must learn the principle of appropriation. That is that ICT is not
only a technology that can quickly pass memos and reports to colleagues, but it also has the potential to be a
‘platform’ for organising strategic activities of CSOs.

Among possible appropriations are building and strengthening the identity of CSOs in cyber-civic space for
social reform (Lim, 2002, 2003) through coalition building (Rucht, 1989; Diani 1990). This can be done by
creating networks of opposition (Osa, 2003) which to some extent can be of important factor in leading to a
creation of ‘insurgent space’ (Lim, 2002). International CSOs have been proved to appropriate ICTs for
establishing collaboration, publishing (campaign), mobilization and observation (watchdog activities) (Surman
& Reilly, 2003). ; Camacho, 2001; Lim, 2004)

As alternative media (Bennet, 2003) to foster social movements as networks linking a multiplicity of actors
(Gerlach & Hine, 1970; Curtis & Zurcher, 1973; Anheier, 2003) which is necessary for facilitating
democratisation (Uhlin, 1998, 2000) and taking initiatives for conflict resolution in volatile areas with
continuous fighting among tribes as well as civil groups (Hill & Sen, 2002). To put it short, appropriation of
ICT for social transformation would be optimum when it is addressed strategically towards movement
development and organisational networks.

Yet, given possibilities of such an appropriation, the actual use of ICT among CSOs seems to be seriously
lacking behind what they actually can benefit from ICTs. This is, by all accounts, not only the problem for
CSOs in developing countries whose limited access to ICTs, but CSOs world wide in general (Surman &
Reilly, 2003) which is characterised that:

“…in many cases, they are simply using them without any thought about where and how these
technologies fit into the political work for which they feel so much passion. It is not that these organizations
use networked technologies completely without question or critique, but rather that they don’t take the time
to consider how they can be using these technologies most strategically.” (p.1)

13
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

To them, lacking of time to learn how to appropriate ICTs may be a valid problem –given other dimensions
of CSOs activities. While it is true, another problem arises: what is the embedded character of ICTs that
makes them on the one hand not as convivial as it is expected, but on the other hand have the potential to be
a truly convivial medium for transformation? Nicolas Garnham gives clue that it is the ‘communicative
power’ or ‘information politics’ in the ‘social dimensions of the technical’ of ICTs that makes it so (Garnham,
1999). To his mind:

“ICTs have raised question of social power ever since their birth with the invention of forms of writing. One
communication expanded beyond face-to-face interaction and the natural endowments of speech and
gesture, the question of who commanded the cultural and material resources for communication –and for
what purposes—became central to an understanding of the social order. I refer this as ‘information politics.
The differences between individuals and groups in their ability to mobilize communicative power on pursuit
of their goals have always been intertwined with ICTs. Since we also know historically that those patterns
of power distribution only change slowly, rarely and with difficulty, it would be safe to assume that the so-
called new ICTs are unlikely to be either as new or as dramatic in their impact, for good or ill, as
technologically focussed approach assumes. And we should not let this focus distract us from attending to
more fundamental questions concerning the unequal distribution of communicative power.” (p.78)

It seems, in order to properly understand the landscape of appropriation of ICTs, we must take into account
both the dimension of control and change. And as suggested by Garnham above, we cannot but enter the
discourse area of power relation in the modern society we are living now – the information society.

5. Constructing the Information Society as social practice

“Not all developments will involve the new technologies, but often they will be central. Standing still is
rarely an option. Although beleaguered services and individuals may resent being told about the need to
adapt, a sea change is taking place – hence the importance of elucidating and understanding competing
views of the information society.” (Ian Miles, 1996)

Advances in ICTs have generated many perspectives (be it theoretically or otherwise) on the formation of the
‘information society’ (IS). ICTs that help to perform many human activities are a significant progress on
earlier technologies and offer great possibility for transforming the ways in which we produce and use
information and thus the way we transform our societal life.

Here, as Ian Miles (1996) addresses that,

“… developments in ICTs are at the heart of the process shaping the ‘information society’ and the many
important unanswered questions about it. For example, some people believe that the widening of political
support for public services is the result of developments and improvements stemming from the application
of ICTs. They regard the likely alternatives to be new forms of social inequity and continuing decay of the
welfare state. However, the choices offered are not open-ended, nor are the individuals and groups
concerned anything like equal players. Inequalities between the information-rich and information-poor may
grow if commercial interests gain undue precedence over citizens’ groups and voluntary associations as
new services proliferate.” (p.38)

To him, there are two important dimensions underlying the debate on the social implications of ICTs in
constructing the IS, i.e. dimension of depth and width.

14
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

In the dimension of depth, it is the speed and extent of ‘change’ which is very much influential. At one
extreme, ‘continuists’ (which have a ‘more of the same’ view) regard that all claim about IS and ICTs are
overstated –some continuists even rejected the concept of the IS. In this extreme, main features of society
and basic power structures are unlikely to change. On the other extreme, ‘transformists’ (which have a
‘something different’ view) view the IS as a major historical shift which is able to change the bases of political
power and social classes and ICTs as revolutionary technology with practical benefits.

In the dimension of width, it is the extent of ‘control’ that matters. ‘Concordists’ deems access to information
liberating and communication systems promoting decentralisation and democratisation. To this view, ICT
and IS is characterised by greater democracy, devolution of power and personal choice and expression. In
contrast, ‘antagonists’ associated the IS and ICTs to increasing social and political control through greater
surveillance characteristic of the powerful toward the powerless.

For both dimensions, Miles (1996) offers his structuralism approach to remedy the ills by looking for
synthesis. He proposes ‘structuralism’ as it recognises that a diversity of actors confront a multiplicity of
choices which lead to many possible outcomes. In the ‘change’ dimension, structuralism recognises barriers to
change and openings for innovation in which outcomes depend on actors and interests shaping ICTs with
uneven diffusion of technology. In the ‘control’ dimension, the view treats the IS as a shift between different
regimes of social actors with unequal opportunities to intervene but all whose actions have consequences.

Miles diagrammatises the typology of views of ICT and the IS below.

CONTINUISM
I: Shallow, Broadening II: Shallow, Narrowing

Social change is essentially steady and Social structures remain frozen. New
generally benign. New technology slowly technology and social innovation leave major
introduced with the little upheaval problems and inequalities

CONCORDISM STRUCTURALISM ANTAGONISM

a synthesis

Rapid move to information activities as the Inequalities grow. New technologies used for
basis for more egalitarian, participative manipulation and social control in a more
political and economic life. divided society.

III: Deep, Broadening IV: Deep, Narrowing

TRANSFORMISM
Source: Ian Miles (1996: 41)

Why is it important to search for synthesis? Miles departs from his concern about the classic debate on
‘consensus versus conflict’ which has long been pathological in social science and literature about ICT and
the IS8– and also about the prominent theme of expanding information opportunities versus growing
information inequalities. Structuralist analysis implies that there is not simply one future outcome of the IS.

8
Interestingly, this ‘debate’ in social theory is instead seen as ‘spectrum of paradigm’ in social action as proposed by Holland and Henriot
(2002) and Toepatimasang (1993) when mapping the characteristic of CSOs and its activities. See the 3rd part of this essay.

15
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

Rather, there are many possible ISs. How can Miles arrive at this synthesis? It is because “the significance of the
structuralist perspective as a focal point encompassing both dimensions comes from the way that it seeks to find a synthesis of these
competing views, rather than the middle ground.” (Miles, 1996:40)

For those concerned in the notion of transformation as structural change of society, while Miles’ approach
offers synthesis of the opposite sociological position to explain what change can be made, it may not be clear
enough to explain how the change takes place. I would like therefore to refer back to Giddens’ (1984) theory
of structuration to complement Miles’ (1996) structuralism in explaining the social change.

The basic domain of study of social sciences, according to structuration theory is neither the experience of
the individual actor nor the existence of any form of societal totality, but ‘social practices’ ordered across
space and time. This is based on two theses, i.e. (1) social practice is constitutive of social life –it constitutes
us as actors and embodies and realises structures, (2) as result, social practice is the mediating concept
between agency and structure, between individual and society. This is the duality of agency-structure, i.e. the
structure is the medium and the outcome of the agent’s actions9. Since social practice constitutes us as actors
and simultaneously embodies and realises structure, actor and structure thus become two modes of
considering the same relations: social practice.

For agent (the dynamic aspect of actor) is distinct from agent’s activity (actor’s action) and is knowledgeable
(has practical consciousness as well as discursive consciousness) with a knowledge of most of action
performed, Giddens emphasises that structure do not act behind the back of the actor. The voluntaristic
element is strengthened by the discursive capacity of the agent – and discursive reflexivity around the action,
besides enabling to provide explanation, connotes the possibility of changing the pattern of action. In
addition, social systems are explained as both temporarily and spatially binding and time-space constitutive (Giddens,
1984).

Now, let us apply the IS as structure and the act of constructing it as social practice and social change. While
all actions in constructing the IS imply change, the system of IS –understood as relations which are produced
and reproduced by various types of actors (individual, organisations, etc as users of ICTs)—which is
‘anchored in time and space’ change over time. When analysing social change in the IS, the duality of
structure requires taking into account the level of strategic conduct (the actor aspect, e.g. strategic use, proper
appropriation of ICT) and the institutional level (the structure aspect, e.g. ICT policy, development of
infrastructure).

9
It is Giddens’ emphasis that social science concerns itself with a universe which is continually being constituted, produced, and reproduced by
active acting subjects. To him, the concept of social practice is defined in a long theoretical movement in which the concepts of agent, power,
action, structure, system, and time-space are redefined so that they come to constitute practice. That is correct therefore that Giddens’
contribution is by defining the concepts in terms of each other so that they together can define practice.

16
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

When individual actor acts, it is often based on practical consciousness. Reproduction of action connotes only
the repetition of the same actions and structures. Yet, change can also occur even when actions are
reproduced as actions often have unintended consequences resulting in social change. For instance, Microsoft
wants to save the money by subcontracting software production to software houses in India, but fails to
notice that this makes people there become more computer-literate and in the end many more people choose
open-source software rather than Microsoft’s. That people use open-source software is an unintended
consequence of Microsoft’s intended action10. Take another example: an individual CSO activist improves his
use of email to distribute news to other colleagues. Other activists take up the idea and using email for
distributing news becomes the standard within CSO activities with major consequences as result.

But, not only do the unintended consequences of the agents’ actions contribute to changes of structures and
systems. The agent’s ability to comprehend various conditions in life can also mean that the agent changes his
or her pattern of action. This can occur when the agent’s consciousness moves from practical to discursive
level. Of course, the degree of discursive consciousness can be linked to occupation, education or other social
position. Higher education, for example, can entail more resources and thereby more power to act. Thus,
both the amount of resources and the degree of discursive consciousness can contribute to alterations in
social practice.

Here, we can understand that potential of ICTs are vital factors in constructing the Information Society. The
importance lies not only in the technological character of ICTs, but that in terms of social change, ICTs has
become a revolutionary resource. Together with conscious agents, ICTs can be strategically used and can
result in enormous change in the IS. In case of ICTs appropriation for social transformation, therefore it is
clear that what is needed is not only the access to ICTs available for CSOs with transformative mission and
action plan, but also CSO activists whose reflexive ability and discursive consciousness influences the way they use
ICT as ‘social practice’ and eventually change it into better appropriation.

With this, to conclude as well as to maintain our discursive consciousness, let us bear in mind the following
factors conveyed by Thurlow (et al., 2004) when discussing the involvement of technology (like ICTs) on
people’s lives: [a] what the technology is supposed to do (i.e. its design and commercial ideologies), [b] what
the technology allows people to do (i.e. its practical or material affordances) and [c] what people actually do
with the technology (i.e. its uses and gratifications).

Yet, it is not enough to me. All those factors above will only escort us to the heart of appropriation if we are
also continuously aware what people can do with the technology (i.e. its strategic use) that constructs a better
societal life.

10
But it can also be this way. Bill Gates, say, wants to invest in semiconductor plant in China. To do so, plants are built and many people are
employed. In the opening speech, Gates says “I am pleased that Microsoft provides jobs for local people here”. While the intended action is
investing money to get profit and the unintended consequence is building factory and employing people, he clearly mistakes the unintended
consequence as intended action. The ex-post is claimed as ex-ante.

17
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

6. Conclusion
Having arrived to this point, I realise to have walked a full circle from mapping the relation between
technology and society, to understanding social transformation, to drawing landscape of appropriation of
technology for social change and finally back to understanding societal changes affected by technology. Let
me now offer some points as final notes.

Firstly, although access to ICTs may remain a problem for certain condition in our society, the quest for
appropriation is of paramount importance, since:

““We have passed the stage of the one-way ‘technology transfer’ and arrived in the age of global
collaboration. This is not to say that worldwide economic inequality has all but disappeared overnight due
to the arrival of the computer. However, the image of the ‘digital divide’ is a much too passive description
for the titanic turmoil caused by proliferation of new technologies on a planetary scale. The drive to
communicate and exchange, even under the very difficult circumstances (wars, ethnic conflicts, economic
crisis, poverty) is such a powerful one. It is creating instant ‘cultures of access’, either in the urban sprawls
or in the deprived remote areas.” (Sarai-Waag, 2000)

Appropriateness can lead to a meaningful transformation, yet, we must remember that we will never ‘arrive’ at
the nirvana of appropriation since as social practice, appropriation is not only an outcome but also a process.

Secondly, from literatures discussing the potentials of ICTs, its ability to shrink space and time is often
viewed instrumentally (Surman & Reilly, 2003; Riker, 2001; McConnel, 2000; 2003c; Uhlin, 2000; Hill & Sen,
2002), i.e. as being merely the ability to decrease by degrees the ‘distance’ separating communicator and the
communicant, without in any significant way altering the way of communication. In fact, in ICTs, this time-
contraction is not only instrumental for, but is also constitutive of, the subjectivity of the users/actors.
Because, ICTs’ resources for time-contraction have profound implications for how actors/agents experience
their subjectivity, for their understanding of who they are as subjects. It is this understanding that is extremely
important to construct an Information Society –in which transformation could take place from the
appropriation of ICTs as the result of communication technology innovation—because the understanding
entails a meaningful meaning that enables and enacts the actor to perform a change.

In this light, here I think important to recall the classic debate between Habermas and Gadamer, which
principally concerns the status of epistemic and normative claims to discovering and interpreting meaning in the social
and human disciplines (Simpson, 1995).

Gadamer, a master of hermeneutic (i.e. the art of interpretation to discover meaning) emphasises that there is
an “authority” from which any understanding must proceed and “tradition” which is not itself a product of
reflection, but the working of historical context, which become sources of discovering and interpreting
meaningful meanings. To Gadamer, modern technology and its underlying rationality conspire to deny to
human practical life and to human self-understanding – it is precisely the destroying forces of technology that
partly eliminate this possibility. However, we need to understand Gadamer as one of the pillars of the Old

18
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

Frankfurt School, the first generation, who (like Herbert Marcuse, Theodor W. Adorno and Max
Horkheimer) had strong suspicion of technology.

Suspicious of such appeals to authority and to context, Habermas, the second generation of Frankfurt School,
is primarily concerned with insuring the possibility of maintaining and justifying critical perspective on
tradition and authority. If Gadamer criticises technology because it undermines authority and traditional context
of meaning, Habermas criticise it because it has become authority. Habermas argues that science and
technology become self-legitimising in such a way that practical questions are being subordinated to (and even
replaced by) technical questions, i.e. question concerning the most efficient means for the realisation of ends,
where those ends appear to be beyond our reflective control. He proposes Theory of Communicative Action (1985)
to remedy the gloomy diagnoses espoused by the first generation of Frankfurt School thinkers like Gadamer.
Habermas aims at rescuing the collapse of ‘lebenwelt’ (lifeworld), i.e. to find ways to preserve and protect from
the encroachment of instrumental imperatives, a space for an autonomous, rational and communicatively
achieved consensus about issues of practical life. And technology, whose inherent working is of instrumental
rationality, is detrimental to the re-birth of lifeworld – because it is a means that has become an authority
itself.

Finally, it must be remembered that it is a fact that ICTs as new technologies have been involved entirely in
the whole of society and all levels of production in different sectors as well. Consequently, this causes and
requires new practices in production, as characterised by Castells (1996).

“The emergence of a new technological paradigm organized around new, more powerful, and more flexible
information technologies makes it possible for information itself to become the product of the production
process. To be more precise: the products of new information technology industries are information
processing devices or information processing itself. New information technologies, by transforming the
processes of information processing, act upon all domains of human activity, and make it possible to
establish endless connections between different domains, as well as between elements and agents of
such activities. A networked, deeply interdependent economy emerges that becomes increasingly able to
apply its progress in technology, knowledge, and management to technology, knowledge, and
management themselves. Such a virtuous circle should lead to greater productivity and efficiency, given
the right conditions of equally dramatic organizational and institutional changes” (p. 67).

Taking this into account, we may now understand that that ‘network of ICTs’ in the Information Society is
no longer simply an ‘instrumentum’ but the ‘locus’ wherein/whereby transformation takes place. (***)

Manchester, 11 February 2005

***

19
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

REFERENCES
(Anheier, 2003) HK. Anheier, Measuring Global Civil Society. LSE Yearbook, London, 2003. Retrieved
from www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Yearbook/Pdf/Measuring.pdf
(Bennett, 2003) W. Lance Bennett, New Media Power: the Internet and Global Activism, in Nick Couldry
and James Curran (eds), Contesting Media Power, Rowman and Littlefield: 2003
(Berland, 2000) Jody Berland, Cultural technologies and the ‘evolution’ of technological cultures, in A. Herman
and T. Swiss (eds), The world wide web and contemporary cultural theory (pp.235-58), New
York: Routledge, 2000
(Bijker, et al., 1989) Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of
Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1989.
(Camacho, 2001) K. Camacho, The Internet: A tool for social change? Elements of a necessary discussion, Working
Paper for the Project Evaluation of the Social Impact of the Internet in Central America: The
Case of Civil Society Organisation, January 2001.
http://www.acceso.or.cr/publica/socialchange.shtml
(Castells, 1996) Manuel Castells, The rise of network society: The Information Age – Economy, Society, and
Culture – volume I, Oxford: Blackwell, 1996
(Castells, 1997) Manuel Castells, The power of identity: The Information Age – Economy, Society, and Culture –
volume II, Oxford: Blackwell, 1997
(Chua, 2002) Amy Chua, World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and
Global Instability, Doubleday Books, 2002
(Curtain, 2004) Richard Curtain, Information and Communications Technologies and Development: Help or
Hindrance?, Virtual Colombo Plan, AusAID, Melbourne: 13 January 2004
(Curtis & Zurcher, 1973) RL. Curtis and LA. Zurcher, Stable resources of protest movements: The multi-organizational
field, Journal of Social Forces, (52):pp.53-61
(Clayton, et al., 2000) Andrew Clayton, Peter Oakley and Jon Taylor, Civil Society Organizations and Service
Provision, Paper No. 2, UNRISD Programme On Civil Society And Social Movements,
New York: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD),
2000
(Diani 1990) Mario Diani, The Italian Ecology Movement: From Radicalism to Moderation in W. Rudig
(ed.), Green Politics, vol.1, pp.153-76., 1990
(Danermark, 2002) Berth Danermark, Mats Ekstrom, Liselotte Jakobsen and Jan Ch. Karlsson, Explaining
society: Critical realism in the social sciences, London: Routledge, 2002 (first published in
Sweden, 1997).
(Edwards & Hulme, 1996) Michael Edwards and David Hulme, Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and
Accountability in the Post-Cold War World, Kumarian Press, 1996
(Eldridge, 1971) J.E.T. Eldridge, Max Weber: the Interpretation of social reality, London: Michael Joseph,
1971
(Fukuyama, 1993) Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, London: Penguin, 1993.
(Garnham, 1999) Nicolas Garnham, Information Politics: The study of communicative power, in William H.
Dutton (ed.), Society on the line: Information politics in the digital age, pp.77-78, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1999

20
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

(Gerlach & Hine, 1970) L. Gerlach and V. Hine, People, power, change: Movements of social transformation,
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill
(Giddens, 1984) Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, London:
Polity Press, 1984
(Giddens, 1998) Anthony Giddens, The Third Way: Renewal of Social Democracy, London: Polity Press,
1998
(Giddens, 1999) Anthony Giddens, Globalisation: The Reith Lectures, London: BBC News Online.
Available (April 2003) online at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week1/week1.htm
(Graham, 1999) Gordon Graham, The Internet: A Philosophical inquiry, London: Routledge, 1999.
(Habermas, 1985) Jurgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, Beacon Press, 1985
(Hamelink, 1997) CJ. Hamelink, New Information and Telecommunication Technologies: Social development and
cultural change, Discussion Paper No. 6, Geneva: UNRISD, 1997
(Held and McGrew, 2000) David Held and Anthony McGrew, The Global Transformation Reader, Cambridge:
Polity Press, 2000.
(Hill & Sen, 2002) David T. Hill and Krishna Sen, Netizens in combat: Conflict on the Internet in Indonesia,
International Journal of Asian Studies Review, No. 2, Volume 26, June 2002, pp. 165-
187
(Holland & Henriot, 2002) Joe Holland & Peter Henriot, Analisis Sosial & Refleksi Teologis (Social Analysis &
Theological Reflection), Pustaka Teologi, Ed. 9, Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 2002.
(Ibrahim, et al., 2003) Rustam Ibrahim, Abdi Suryaningati and Tom Malik, Indonesia – Background Paper, Asia
Pacific Philanthropy Conference (APPC), 5-7 September, 2003
(Illich, 1973) Ivan Illich, Tools for Conviviality, New York: Harper and Row, 1973.
(Korac-Kakabadse, et al., 2000)
Nada Korac-Kakabadse, Alexander Kouzmin & Andrew Korac-Kakabadse, Information
Technology and Development: Creating ‘IT harems’, fostering new colonialism or solving ‘wicked’
policy problems?, International Journal of Public Administration and Development, No.
20, 2000, pp. 171-184
(Kling, 1996) John R. Kling, Hopes and horrors: technological utopianism and anti-utopianism in narratives of
computerization, CMC Magazine, February. Available online at
http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1996/feb/kling.html, viewed April 2003
(Lim, 2002) Merlyna Lim, Cyber-civic space: From panopticon to pandemonium?, International
Development and Planning Review, Liverpool University Press, 24 (4), 2000, pp. 383-
400
(Lim, 2003) Merlyna Lim, The Internet, social networks and reform in Indonesia, in N. Couldry and J.
Curran (eds), Contesting Media Power: Alternative media in a networked world (pp. 273-288),
London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003
(Lim, 2004) Merlyna Lim, Un-negotiated Truth: the Polarization of Identity through the Internet and the
Struggle for Democracy in Indonesia, Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue
Electronique de Communication.
(MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985) Donald A. MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman (eds), The Social Shaping of
Technology, Bristol: Open University Press, 1985.
(Mansell & Steinmueller, 2002) Robin Mansell and Edward Steinmueller, Mobilising the information society:
Strategies for growth and opportunity, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002

21
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

(McConnell, 2000) Scott McConnell, A champion in our midst: Lessons learned from the impacts of NGO’s use of
the Internet, Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries,
http://www.ejisdc.org, 2 (5), 2000, pp. 1-15, viewed 2/01/05
(Miles, 1996) Ian Miles, the Information Society: Competing Perspectives on the Social and Economic Implications
of Information and Communication Technologies, in William H. Dutton, Information and
Communication Technologies: Visions and Realities, pp. 37-52, New York: Oxford University
Press, 1996.
(Nugroho, 2002) Yanuar Nugroho, Descartes might say: 'I buy, therefore I am', The Jakarta Post – Opinion
and Editorial, 10 July 2002
(Osa, 2003) M. Osa, Solidarity and contention: The network of Polish opposition, 1954-81, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2003
(Petras, 1997) James Petras, Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America, Monthly Review, 49, No. 7,
pp.10-27., 1997. Available online at http://www.monthlyreview.org/1297petr.htm,
viewed January 2005.
(Postman, 1993) N. Postman, Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology, New York: Vintage Books,
1993
(Riker, 2001) James V. Riker, Using Information Technology to foster democracy: The promise and perils of civil
society advocacy in Asia, paper for the 2001 Independent Sector Spring Research Forum,
The Union Institute, 2001

(Rucht, 1989) D. Rucht, Environmental movement organizations in West Germany and France, in B.
Klandermans (ed.), Organising for change. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1989
(Simpson, 1995) Lorenzo C. Simpson, Technology, time and the conversations of modernity, New York:
Routledge, 1995
(Sein & Ahmad, 2001) MK Sein and I.U. Ahmad, A framework to Study the Impact of ICTs in Developing Countries:
The Case of Cellular Phones in Bangladesh, Proceeding, BitWorld 2001, Cairo, Egypt: 2001
(Surman, 2001) Mark Surman, From Access to Application, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, 2001.
http://www.volunteersonline.ca/news/environmentalscan.htm
(Surman & Reilly, 2003) Mark Surman and Katherine Reilly, Appropriating the Internet for social change: Towards
the strategic use of networked technologies by transnational civil society organisations, Social Science
Research Council, 2003. Available online at http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/ as
viewed 28/01/05
(Toepatimasang, 1993) Roem Toepatimasang, Lima Paradigma Dasar Organisasi (Five basic paradigms of CSOs
activities), LP3ES Journal, Jakarta: LP3ES, 1993
(Thurlow, et al., 2004) Crispin Thurlow, Laura Lengel and Alice Tomic, Computer mediated communication: Social
interaction and the Internet, London: Sage, 2004.
(Turkle, 1990) Sherry Turkle, The psychology of personal computers, in T. Forester (ed), The information
technology revolution (pp. 287-304), Oxford: Blackwell, 1990
(Uhlin, 2000) Anders Uhlin, Towards an integration of domestic and transnational dimensions of democratisation:
Regime transition in Indonesia, paper prepared for the ECPR Joint Sessions, Workshop 4:
Democracy and Development: Theoretical gains and challenges, Copenhagen, Denmark, 14-19
April 2000
(WDI, 2003) World Development Indicator, United Nations, 2003

22
 ICTs – Instrumentum or locus of transformation?

(Winters, 2002) JA Winters, The Political Impact of New Information Sources and Technologies in Indonesia,
Gazette, April 2002, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 109-119(11), London: Sage, 2002
(Yoshihara, 1988) Kunio Yoshihara, The Rise of Ersatz Capitalism in South-east Asia, Manila: University of
Philippines Press: 1988

***

23