 |
| http://www.pantherkut.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/crab-attack-5.jpg |
There's always something to get hot under the collar about. Something to get you hopping mad, something to make you write a letter to the newspaper about, something to get you signing petitions, making signs. Something important enough to you that you take to the streets.........
Or not?
Maybe you'll protest smarter, not harder and 'work' your issue from your laptop, pc, mobile or other device.
It would be difficult to argue against the idea that digitisation of the Internet, along with the uptake of social media platforms, has greatly helped to organise groups and distribute messages widely and with increased speed.
 |
| http://www.ucsc-extension.edu/sites/default/files/imce/public/images/Around%20computer.jpg |
What was once done via word of mouth, posters in shop fronts or on power poles or walls, fixed line telephones, radio or television - can now be done with a click. Short films, blogs and online groups are often utilised to highlight, inform and facilitate an action - whether a petition, a march, a strike, a street performance, a charity event, whatever unique action is required.
There are a number of perspectives and an ongoing debate on the question of the value of digital activism.
Information system researchers Sivitanides and Shah (2011) put forward three perspectives:
http://www.virtualbackgrounds.net/backgrounder/Feb2010Images/happy-sad-faces.jpg
Optimistic - sees digitally enhanced social media as a way to work outside of or in opposition to the traditional hierarchical power structures. It is thought that the peer-to-peer principle of networks may change how the power structure works in the real world. Also, in this context, technology is seen as socially constructed. In other words 'ordinary' people can create meaning by their choice to post, for example, political content alternate to the status quo on Facebook, YouTube, a blog or other social media platform.
Pessimistic - this view warns that the use of digitally enhanced social media could lead to further repression in anti-democratic regimes.
Persistents - the persistent view is that the tools of digitally enhanced social media have not made changes to the philosophy of activism as such. They are "not too impressed by digital activism" (Sitivanides & Shah 2011). Digitally enhanced social media only helps facilitate what can and has already been done in the real world.
Social Media theorist Clay Shirky (2009) is associated with the optimistic perspective, as he sees benefits to the use of social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, blogs, wikis and Twitter in particular in times of emergency to get messages out early. In this TEDtalk he describes a situation in Sichuan province in China when a significant earthquake occurred and it was 'tweets' that informed the world, before earthquake registering bodies or government. He informs us how a few years prior, a quake of similar magnitude had occurred and it took around three months for the notoriously secretive Chinese government to 'admit' it had happened.
Evgeny Morozov (2009) is in the pessimists camp - an Internet scientist who studies the social and political aspects of the Internet - he describes himself as a "grumpy Eastern European" from the former Soviet Republic of Belarus. Morozov (2009) puts forward the possibilities that digital technologies may afford repressive regimes. They may, for example, be able to mine information from citizens' communications and use the information to control or even persecute them. There is also the idea that these same 'tools' available to citizens and government, could also be used by hackers and terrorists.
Marshall Ganz engineered Barak Obama's grassroots organising campaign in 2008. He is a fit with the 'persistent' perspective. He believes that for every online petition there is, there could be an offline one, every Facebook campaign an on-the-ground one and so on. He and others of the same view believe that as "institutions of political and social power exist offline" (Ganz & Kohn 2010), all campaigns sooner or later must come offline into the real world to be successful.
Media commentator Mary C. Joyce (2013) finds that "reality is more complicated than either cyber-optimism or cyber-pessimism", and that a blend of technologies - hybridity - can either succeed or fail. She states that "digital technology does not have uniquely positive or negative effects on activism" and that much depends on context, complexity of problem and political system in power under which digital activists are working.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Cyber-Hedonism and Culture Jamming and Clicktivism
Evgeny Morozov (2009) counterpoints the question of how the new 'tools' are being used by the people. On one hand, the Internet and social applications such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube may be used to heighten the level of digital activism. Conversely, they can also be used for shopping, entertainment, gaming and other recreations that all come under the banner of cyber-hedonism; or as Morozov (2009) puts it, a new opium for the masses. Other commentators, such as Mary C. Joyce (2011/12/13), researcher and blogger on digital activism, concurs, saying: "the Internet can help activists mobilise and re-frame public isssues. It can also distract citizens and feed apathy."
There is another, unique, form of activism, known as culture jamming.
AdBusters call themselves the culture jammer network, known for their anti-brand, anti-consumerism campaigning. AdBusters founder Kalle Lasn is credited with sparking the Occupy Wall Street movement on September 17th, 2011. They are passionately anti-capitalist, pro-environment and employ slick graphics to take on advertisers, government and corporations by subverting some of the messages put out via mainstream channels.
 |
| http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1045235402002071-gr2.jpg |
"Gone is faith in the power of ideas, or the poetry of deeds, to enact social change....The end result is the degradation of activism into a series of petition drives that capitalise on current events. Political engagement becomes a matter of clicking a few links. In promoting the illusion that surfing the web can change the world, clicktivism is to activism as McDonalds is to a slow-cooked meal. It may look like food, but the life-giving nutrients are long gone" (Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism 2010).
 |
| http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/assets/christmas-island-red-crab-migration-2-thm.jpg |
I have, quite recently, rallied and marched, been immersed in a crowd with the threat of a clash with the authorities. Sang "We Shall Not Be Moved", chanted slogans. Stood with arms linked in the bush, trying to get a point across about saving the beautiful tall trees in my area. Attended the Supreme Court to try and get some recognition for an endangered species. Sat in numerous usually cold venues, hired at the last minute for a rallying huddle or a debate with invited speakers from the 'other side'.
But I've also clicked on numerous online petitions, watched YouTube clips of events that have captured my attention and sometimes ire. I actually think that it doesn't matter how you organise your group, or get a message out. Anyway you can, whatever is possible. New technologies are proving invaluable in connecting people and ideas, but talking to people face-to-face is also. And while studies are being done on the effectiveness of these new tools and methods, activism won't and can't wait, it will forge ahead no matter what.
.jpg) |
|
|
