Turner’s Frontier Thesis and the Internet
My junior year of high school, we learned about Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis in AP US history.
To quote Turner, “American democracy was born of no theorist’s dream; it was not carried in the Susan Constant to Virginia, nor in the Mayflower to Plymouth. It came out of the American forest, and it gained new strength each time it touched a new frontier. Not the constitution but free land and an abundance of natural resources open to a fit people, made the democratic type of society in America for three centuries while it occupied its empire.”
In other words, the frontier shaped democracy. Of course, that frontier is long gone. But, could we look towards the internet as a new kind of frontier?
The question popped into my head a few days ago. But it’s been asked before — the Wikipedia page on the frontier thesis has a section titled, “Electronic Frontier”, which speculates on that exact possibility. It’s an interesting proposal, and I have a few thoughts on the matter.
The internet is not good for democracy
Not in it’s present state. Once upon a time, people believed it was, and they had some reasons to believe this — remember the Arab Spring and how involved Twitter was? Now, nobody looks at the headlines on Cambridge Analytica and Twitter’s Hong Kong bots and seriously believes tech is somehow good for democracy. Democracy’s naive love affair with the internet is over.
So if we’re comparing the internet to the American frontier, we have to contend with that obvious difference. The frontier was good for democracy, it looks like the internet isn’t. What gives?
Safety Valve Theory
One reason the frontier was considered good for democracy was because it served as a “safety valve”. Society’s malcontents were able to leave for the frontier and make a living for themselves, so the larger cities on the East Coast were able to continue without radicals and societal rejects.
The internet is like the American frontier in that it’s attracted malcontents and rejects. However, unlike the American frontier, the internet cannot offer these malcontents a living. What it offers instead is a place for their anger and resentment to fester communally. Instead of siphoning off society’s rejects and giving them a second change, it amplifies their discontent — think white nationalists and incels on 4chan.
In this sense, the internet is almost diametrically opposite to the American frontier. It is a reverse safety valve.
Conclusion
Turner’s thesis was controversial to begin with — similar frontiers in history in Rome, Russia and Australia did not have the same effect of fostering democratic institutions. It should come as no surprise that this new electronic frontier isn’t an absolute positive for democracy.
Turner’s uncurbed optimism on the effects of frontiers may be unjustified. Still, it’s helpful to look at the internet as a frontier; a source of great risks and rewards.
