Education in Internet Manifestos

As the internet was becoming more widespread throughout the 90s, many people were trying to comprehend its meaning for different areas of societal life. The writers of internet manifestos were not only describing the active changes around them, but also imagining the shifts that this development would bring in the future. Our group was interested in how the authors talked about education, learning and upbringing – in which contexts they mentioned these topics, what they associated with them and how they imagined the relationship between education and digital technologies. All these aspects can be explored through the framework of imaginaries. So the question we wanted to answer was:

Which imaginaries of education come up in the manifestos?

Imaginaries

The framework that we’re using is leaning on the idea of socio-technological imaginaries as defined by Abe Hendriks: they are “collectively held visions of desirable futures, animated by shared understandings of what technologies make possible” (Hendriks, 2026). Most manifestos by their nature offer imaginaries – even though they usually come from a single author, they are written from a place of hope that the text and the ideas are going to be shared by others. They propose an understanding, explicitly or implicitly and center their argument around it.

These imaginaries include metaphors, associations, images, comparisons and appeal to hopes and fears about the future. Whilst each manifesto assumes a shared understanding, when we move between the discourses we find a lot of differences and contradictions.

Among the discourses that we investigated within the internet manifestos of the 90s there was not one discourse to be found. Rather, what we found was a number of loosely intersected and heterogenous debates that addressed the topic of education in many regards. Some made education the main topic of their Manifesto, others referenced to education in a different context. Some read more like policy reports by a public institution, others were written in fury by anonymous authors. Therefore, it proved difficult to perceive common categories of understanding education, as not only the contexts but also the incentives of these Manifestos proved to be very different. The challenge of finding a read thread within a multiplicity of dialogues, proved to be something that would concern us throughout the whole coding process. In the end, we decided to give the reader and possible investigator an overview over different imaginaries that would have to be dug in deeper. Each of these categories needs to be understood as a cut-out from interrelated imaginaries and debates. But we wish to be able to give an impression of what concerned the authors at that time, what their hopes, critiques and ideas were regarding the internet and education. Following below is the list of our findings. We will give a short summary of each imaginary.

Economic good ⬤

Some of the manifestos addressed education from an economic perspective: what worth does education have, does it add something to the economy or not? These debates were tightly interrelated with debates about which possibilities the digital sphere would offer: Could education as a system be replaced through digital means? Which digital skills could prove to be economically useful? The developing digital technologies were seen as a gateway to monetise education and strengthen the perception of education as a commodity.

Means of revolution ⬤

Some discussed which possibilities the internet would bring about for social change. Educating oneself on the internet was regarded as a possible liberatory act, through which one could free oneself from ruling ideologies. Furthermore, possibilities of connection were heightened – more people could be reached and taught that knowledge which would be important for a social revolution.

Democratic institution ⬤

Among those manifestos, which expressed a positive attitude towards education as a democratic institution, there were debates about the conditions for sustaining this institution within the internet. Would people have a say in the conditions of digital exchange? And how was the right to freely exchange information to be ensured? These concerns were raised and either responded to with policy-making-suggestions or a critique of the Status Quo.

Tool for self-fulfillment ⬤

Apart from these discourses, which centered on learning as a social issue, others addressed education as a private matter. What was to be learned was ultimately personal and related to one’s goals, wishes and desires. The internet was discussed as a gateway to learn from others, learn permanently and informally and thereby enhance the scope of learning possibilities. A greater freedom of the self to form itself was to be promoted through the internet.

Digital learning ⬤

The digital realm was also addressed as a topic of education itself: which skill would the user need to navigate through these new structures? How would they need to be designed in order to make learning and connecting easy? And which skills would people have to be taught in order to have an active share in shaping the internet?

Repressive apparatus ⬤

Whilst each of these debates centered around education as something principally positive, there were also some in which education was a negative buzzword. Associated with the US-american-school-system, users regarded education as a way of forming people according to political interest. In the Manifesto "The Conscience of a Hacker" education is something that is considered to have failed. The internet offers an alternative for the youngster who seeks to explore on her*his own terms.

Reciprocal non-hierarchical exchange ⬤

Some of the authors viewed education as a mutual process. Whilst they were not necessarily denying the hierarchical educational processes outright, they were still making a strong argument for creating opportunities for individuals or groups of people to learn from each other in flat constellations. Such education was to be grounded in community and dependent on social connections. These discourses mostly focused on non-formal learning and presented the internet as a facilitator for connecting people of similar educational interest or needs. This imaginary often, though not always, was connected to democratisation opportunities that were thought to be opened by the internet.

The database

You can view the database below or download it via this link.

Sources

Hendriks, A. (2026). Sociotechnical Imaginaries. In Fridzema, N. & Shchetvina, A. (Hrsg.), Imagining the Internet(s): A Collaborative Glossary (pp. 4-5). Institute of Network Cultures.