I never thought I'd consider myself an idealist, but I definitely am one when it comes to social media. Clay Shirky defines idealists as those who "believe social media will, on average, improve leverage for citizens seeking representative government" (2011) when put like this, it's hard to believe that there are people out there who aren't idealists, it is even harder to believe that these people are given the title of "realists".
Now, I'm no Thomas More (Utopia) and I am definitely not trying to claim that "Internet = democracy" (Morozov 2011) so giving those who believe that social media is a facilitator of social change the title of idealists is unfair. In the same token I challenge the title of realist because these people who ignore the impact and role social media play in events such as Tunisia and Tharir Square. This obviously is not real and they are resisting a force that can't be fought.
Morozov, a determined 'realist' argues "that these digital tools are simply, well, tools, and social change continues to involve many painstaking, longer-term efforts to engage with political institutions and reform movements" (Nelson 2011). Whilst this is true, Morozov doesn't consider the fact that these 'tools' were designed to reach innumerably large networks of people and groups and the output and spreading of this information by said 'tools' is how messages and support of social change begin.
The best reason to believe that social media can help synchronize and coordinate insurgent action against autocrats is that both the insurgents and autocrats believe that, beliefs that seem to be strengthening on both sides as real-world evidence mounts (Shirky 2011)
An insightful comment made by a reader of Shirky The technology will work about as well as the humans responsible for making it work make it work. This ties in with the idea of the Power of Individuals. Social media is nothing without those who created it, those who use it and those who consume it. Similarly, individuals who wish to facilitate social change, who wish to have their voice heard, could not do this without social media.
Whilst writing this blog post I received some very disturbing news, my favourite subject (no offence Ted) MEDA102 was cancelled because two students got into a fight over the last assignment (a set of instructions which lead to the creation of a work of art) the fight was so bad that one student is now in a coma and the other has 3 broken bones in their face. 3 tutors, including the co-ordinator were fired because the University placed blame on the subject. I was extremely upset by this news and I immediately posted it on Facebook and Twitter, not only as a way to vent my frustration at the decision to punish 3 very competent tutors, one of which just had a baby, but also to rally those who I have on Facebook to see if there is any way we can make our voice heard and fight for these tutors. I am using social media to get my message out there and to gain support for the next step, which will be to confront the University and challenge their decision of blaming the subject. Morozov may call it slacktivism, but without these outlets for people to get their voices heard, it would be very difficult to organise any kind of action at all.
So in conclusion, I'm a person that believes social media is an amazing way to rally supporters and get our voices heard, I'm not so extreme as to say that internet=democracy, but I'm not so dumb as to ignore the role internet has played in social change instances. Morozov needs to wake up and Tweet his feelings if he really wants them to be heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment