Social Change and Acquaintances on the Internet are not a Good Combination
Last week’s readings concerned themselves with the role of new media in the democratic process – particularly the extent to which they help to create societies of a democratic nature.
Different opinions are shared by three different distinguished individuals, all of whom present well-formed arguments on this topic. Morozof takes a negative stance, using the events of the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia to posit that New Media, “transforms the nature of dissent by shifting it into a more virtual realm” (2011). Shirky however, argues that New Media has the power to, “strengthen civil society and the public sphere” (2010) and uses the impeachment trial of Philippine President Joseph Estrada. Finally, Gladwell insightfully contrasts modern activism with a Civil Rights protest in 1960 to demonstrate that “social media can’t provide what social change has always required”. I believe that this viewpoint is the most correct.
First of all, if anyone is qualified to draw conclusions about the role of New Media in today’s democratic society, it’s Malcolm Gladwell. All five of his books were on The New York Times Best Seller list, and his insightful observations of unusual phenomena in sociology and psychology, such as the concept of The Tipping Point, have received extensive critical praise. Essentially, he understands the ingredients required for social activism and change.
(Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Tipping-Point-Little-Difference/dp/0316346624)
Online activism is simply a different ballgame. Gladwell references sociologist Mark Granovetter who observes that, “Our acquaintances—not our friends—are our greatest source of new ideas and information. The Internet lets us exploit the power of these kinds of distant connections with marvellous efficiency. It’s terrific at the diffusion of innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, seamlessly matching up buyers and sellers, and the logistical functions of the dating world. But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism” (2010).
Unfortunately, Social Media (in its current form) are not suitable for true activism in the traditional sense. I believe any individual would be hard pressed to think of a time when they were truly passionate about instigating change with acquaintances or total strangers. That sort of thing simply doesn't happen unless it is with people whom you have formed a close relationship with. The internet is incredibly impersonal because, at the end of the day, we are communicating with our computer screens, and the other users of the internet will always be secondary to this.
Furthermore, the simple fact remains that the majority of internet users are consumers, rather than contributors, and social activism requires serious contribution. Social Media are far more suited to things of a more trivial nature such as entertainment in the form of viral videos and memes, as opposed to serious content intended to create social change.
This spectacular fail of online social activism is definitive proof.
New Media are a powerful tool, but using them for social activism is like using a lawn mower to brush your teeth.
