EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is Digital Activism an Effective Medium for Change?
Malcolm Gladwell says social media can't effect real-life change, Facebook and Twitter devotees think otherwise.
"The revolution will not be tweeted" read the provocative standfirst on a piece by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker last week, questioning the value of Twitter and Facebook as a tool for effecting real change.
Malcolm Gladwell has stirred up a hornets' nest with his claim that digital media can't have the same impact on activism as real relationships. Photograph: Brooke Williams In the article, Gladwell questioned claims that social media had galvanised recent protests in Iran and Moldova and argued that this kind of armchair activism can't change the world.
Referencing the American civil rights movement, Gladwell said activism
was tied to relationships and shared experiences – a person is more
likely to protest if they know a friend will be by their side – rather
than the number of people joining a Facebook campaign.
Gladwell's comments are not wholly new. Activists and NGOs have been debating whether "clicktivism" is ruining leftist activism for some time.
So what are your thoughts? Would the Make Poverty History campaign in 2005, for example, have galvanised so many people to march around Edinburgh if it had been conducted by Twitter? Is digital engagement the future of activism, and what can supposedly short digital-attention spans offer to the slow, complex process of development?
We've rounded up a few comments in the blogosphere to start you off.
Sarah Ditum writes of the value in social media. "Yes, social media gives a lot more people the opportunity to be telescopic philanthropists, sitting at our desks plugging our email addresses into petition forms. But that's purely a function of campaigns being able to reach a lot of people – and useless as these pixel-level gestures may be at bringing about the object they're supposedly aimed at, they do at least demonstrate and encourage a movement of attitudes leading to long-term change."
Lina Srivastava, meanwhile, believes that, by arguing the merits of Twitter activism, "we're all now starting to miss the point. The way a campaign engages empathisers, influencers and activists - whether based on what Gladwell notes as weak or strong ties - is really more a matter of strategy: issue identification, context, methodology, desired action, outcome, etc. The medium is not the message here."
Alex Madrigal adds: "I think we can read Gladwell's piece as a fairly specific indictment of the current uses of the current generation of tools. Truth is, very few major activism projects succeed through Facebook or Twitter. Shirky would totally agree with that, I think. And in cases where they seem to have helped, it's quite difficult to quantify how much, if at all."
Juliette at Greenpeace UK writes: "Weak ties can become stronger. I first got involved with Greenpeace reading a blog entry in passing. Then I wrote a comment. Then I joined an online forum, and became a volunteer in a local group, collecting signatures in the street, and convincing people in the street to give us the five euro cents that were left in their wallets. I became an online volunteer for Greenpeace International, then got an internship, and then got a job. I consider myself extremely lucky to be able to work for good like I do every day. And I don't forget that what hooked me in all this is a simple blog entry, five years ago."
Luke Allnut adds that our preoccupation with "overthrowing governments and regime change" risks "overlooking the incremental benefits that digital activism can bring every day. (A hazing video in Armenia goes viral and leads to an officer's conviction. A Russian blogger's harrowing account of the state of a regional hospital trickles up into state-run media.) No, it's not regime change, but it's undoubtedly making a difference".
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
53 Comments so far
Show AllAgree and disagree --
As information spreads, it becomes the foundation for action.
IF "keyboard warriors" are ineffective -- then so too must the blame
be placed on our liberal organizations which need to rethink their
access to the public and how they are using that access.
Repeating worn out and tired actions like busing people to DC when no
one is there -- at great expense for the protesters -- doesn't make much
sense any more. Especially when right wing corporate media refuses to
cover it. It's time for new thinking and new actions.
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
First of all I have trouble keeping a straight face when reading the opinions of a guy who looks like Harpo Marx. Once I get past that it gets even easier. Harpo, I mean Malcolm, doesn't get it. Decentralization of information is THE key to reform, not a hinderence to action. Harpo, Malcolm, whatever, wants centralization to be restored so that those like him can serve as leaders. No thanks! I trust the people.
Your puerile, ad-hom comments on the appearance of the articles author, leave me hardly able to take your remarks seriously.
But allow me to ask you one question:
What actions are you you personally are taking to effect change? Reading and typing on blogs and websites, and other passive use of "information" is not action, it is something one does instead of acting.
Katrine, I've noticed the most strident epithets follow your best points, the ones for which there is no rational response. Keep up the good work.
Gladwell's article appeared in the Oct. 4 New Yorker, and I've been sending it to everyone I know. As chair of the state Green party several years ago, I found out the hard way that the people who were sucking up our time via email, etc. were doing only that and often, I kid you not, from somewhere deep inside their mothers' houses, which they rarely left. Once we finally lured them out, they looked a lot less sane in reality than they did on the internet. As I said, the lesson proved hard and exhausting.
Thanks, Sherry, for reminding me to read the actual article. It's well worth the time.
HONK!
It's true! Look at his hair FFS!! It's aesthetical terrorism!!!
I think it's a cool hair-do. Definitely the hair of a radical-left thinker. The clean-cut look of the stodgy 80's and 90's is quite passe.
Back in 1997, the "respected" neocon-neoliberal Lt. Col. Ralph Peters of the Army War College wrote an article called "Constant Conflict". I'm sure many here know about it, but for those that don't, it warrants a read, or re-read, here:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/
Articles/97summer/peters.htm
It has only become a more fascinating read as the years have passed. The arrogance and hubris expressed in it, as viewed with the hindsight of 13 years of folly, is positively stunning. If humnaity survives, historians will study it for ceturies to come.
But getting back to the topic, one parenthetical comment in the article, 6 paragraphs down, always catches my eye:
"Of note, the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and community".
A more prophetic statement couldn't have been written anywhere.
civic interest will lead to using the Internet technology even better than banking system has developed it today for itself
edweg
Correcton:
In my comment, by "the article" I mean Peters' article where it is written:
"Of note, the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and community".
Dear Sabocat:
I read the article and it certainly is full of hubris. 1997 is a long way from 2010. I wonder if Peters imagined that wikileaks would come along? wiki certainly took the illusion and empowerment away from the military!
You must be young. 1997? 2010? The burst of of some economic bubbles knocked a little wind out of his (and similar-sounding Tom Friedman's) rhetoric, but otherwise, little has changed, except for the worse.
What percentage of USAns have even heard of Wikileaks? Wikileaks is no threat to the US military. The media simply memory-holes everything they put out; done.
Read Peter's prescient remark about the internet again.
Here's where you are wrong ....
QUOTE The media simply memory-holes everything they put out; done. UNQUOTE
As in all other efforts, the weight "arrogance, ignorance" and violence
on the right eventually defeats the right -- as we have often seen in the
past.
The MSM are dependent upon a TV screen -- a la "1984" -- and ONE-WAY
communication -- i.e., corporate-press speaks and those who pay for cable
services listen.
Even the simplest use of the internet means a disconnect from MSM and, thus,
organized right wing propaganda. TEXT is always easier and faster than
the moving screen -- which is why the networks still try to offer their news
on the internet via videos. YES, videos are important on occassion -- to
actually see Jon Stewart's reactions. To see the breathtaking inanity of
aluminum planes cutting thru steel buildings like butter -- and to see the
demolition of the WTC towers. And presumably for Americans to see those pics
1,000X per person. I'm for it, maybe eventually they'll wake up to what they're
actually seeing!
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
if it worked, it would be working...
nothing is working, because we rule out the things that might...
we need to take back the land from those holding title, and begin managing our affairs locally...physically...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...
we are animals, after all...let us regain the inherent dignity of incarnation...
all roads lead to Rome
no symptoms of effectiveness can be detected at present but the law of evolution can not be switched off
(anyone remember the first neurotic chats?)
bloggers at one point will associate in cohesively working portals featuring methods of pragmatic decision making
publicdom.net
The first six words of this article provide a link to Gladwell's actual article. It's helpful to read Gladwell's article before making comments about what he says.
Information CAN lead to changed minds. Changed minds CAN lead to changed behaviour. The info I get from CD and my other internet haunts informs my activism. It doesn't detract from it or substitute it.
But do you act upon it? Or do you just sit in front of a computer complaining in the virtual world without doing anything about it in the real one? That is the question.
First... there was no complaint in my post, just a friendly contribution to the discussion.
Second... as I said, it informs my activism... it doesn't detract from it or substitute it. One could infer from this (if you're kind and not out looking for a reason to knock someone down) that I am probably doing something in the real world too.
This debate (and negative comments questioning a poster's "real life" activist cred) seems to have been popping up a lot over the last few months around here. I think, at its core, is a view that one is either acting online or acting in real life. Either I am posting rants on CD and clicking online petitions or working in my community.
In my experience it is not either/or, but both/and. I surf the net and get my FB/email updates on my phone when I am out and about. I usually check the net while I am taking a break from some other type of work or while I am waiting in line at the grocery store - posting this from my phone on a break right now. This isn't my activism, it's something I do for fun and information when I have a bit of free time. Hell, sometimes I even pull up CD articles or YouTube videos in the middle of doing community work to shed some light on a topic I am discussing or point somebody to a resource they might be interested in.
I also use the net to connect with friends and share information related to the real life stuff that we are doing. FaceBook is a great tool for following up with people that I meet on the street campaigning or for inviting folks out to events that are going on in our community. Why spam a boring "call to action" email to a mailing list when I can post a quick status update on FB and ensure that people will see it. I get way more feedback/replies from a FB post than I ever got from a bulk email... plus I only have to answer a question once since everyone can follow the conversation in the comments.
Anyway... the net is just a tool and, despite silly articles like this, most people recognize this. I think we'd all be hard-pressed to find any serious activists/organizers who would suggest that we should use the net at the expense of real life organizing. I have never met one and am willing to bet that you haven't either. More importantly, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that most folks on here are doing something in their communities. Folks on this site aren't dumb and I know that they are capable of figuring out that if 100 000 people marching on Washington barely gets noticed then an online petition is doomed to failure before it even gets off the ground.
I have found that the people attacked for "sitting" are usually the more radical people, or when the discussion is taking a radical turn. Then we hear "stop sitting around talking an d get out there and do something!!" Stop talking is the message there, not do something, because the things being discussed are making some people extremely comfortable.
Also, in my experience the people most actively communicating in any medium tend to be the ones moist active in every medium, including face to face.
Communicating online is the most efficient and effective method available to us. But one would have to be extensively using all media, and have done so intensely for years in order to know that.
The internet is as beneficial to activism as television is to education.
Exactly!
Television is a ONE-WAY street .... it talks to you -- you don't talk back!
And customers PAY to let news readers speak to them --
They can't select the "news" they want to hear about, generally --
And the "readers" deliver their corporate bosses' views of what is important
for Americans to know on that given day --
Given 24/7 news days, it is amazing how little real "news" reaches the public!
And the public understands that as they prowl the internet searching out news
and stories behind the news -- history old and new.
America has never really been political, sad to say -- but the internet is
changing that. Are liberal/progressive organizations taking sufficient
advantage of that reality? That's more the question!
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
He's wrong. Opinion are made and changed online more than anywhere else now. For the people who do show up to the activist events, they heard about them and formulated their opinions about them online, and they will tweet/blog/post about them the second they get back to their computers.
Agree -- America in its certainty of its identity post-WWII forgot everything
it knew pre-WWII -- and has yet to fully wake up from our "soldiers giving
Chocolate to French children" syndrome!
Americans have never really been political -- the internet is changing that!
And Americans are having to be reintroduced to the actual history of imperialism
of the US government -- and its continuing imperialism.
.
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Generational differences--and changes in technology that come about from era to era--play a role in how people can become engaged with the world. Those protesting Vietnam or racial segregation in the past were to benefit most from changes in policy and practice. When you're fighting for your own justice, your own rights, your own neighborhood, and your own future, you're more likely to take an active stake in a movement.
It would not have mattered--that is, in terms of communication vehicle--exactly how such a movement could bud and grow. The weight of necessity for so many would have made these movements happen under any circumstances. Would "more people" have participated in a boycott or protest march because they saw a message via Twitter? It would matter most if the issue truly affected their lives, not if they got the message. (This point is also drawn out by Gladwell.) Especially when we all suffer from such information overload, even the most important email you got last year could have easily been discarded as spam. That is not likely to happen is a "less connected" culture--but let's face it: Connectivity is driving many of us apart, cocooned in our nests.
It would be nice to think that people today (and especially the young) are interested in important causes and try to actively improve the world somewhere. But smothering commercialism, a sense of entitled convenience, and obsession with technical gadgetry, especially in western or other modernized countries, relegate most good intentions (much less good actions) to the dustbin of almost-been-there-done-that-but-well-you-know-whatever-ism. The more I see someone clicking incessantly on their "smart" phone or walking around with ears stuffed with earplugs oblivious to all around, the less (not more) do I think they're engaged with the world.
How would your views change if I told you that the young guy with the smart phone is currently reading your post on CD and the headphones are playing a Chomsky lecture about the history of American destruction in SE Asia. Oh, and he's on his way to head up a Green Party meeting so he doesn't have time to comment further....
Which is a stronger engagement of your community and environment, wearing headphones while dancing down the street, or quietly an unobtrusively walking along to the next retail location?
Too often the use of our airwaves is to benefit capitalism, its
exploitations, even of human beings -- too often to belittle and
demean females, for instance -- pushing botox and plastic surgery!
Have we ever seen a male in a TV ad cleaning a toilet bowl?
And too often these demeaning and intentionally distracting programs
are aimed at youth!
Granted we should all be helping to change that reality, but I also
have confidence that every brain needs the world to make some kind of
sense and needs meaningful information -- and ultimately moves the
individual to reach out for it!
."According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
What is the purpose of protests -- if not to wkae people up and give them information?
The disadvantage of the internet is that not everyone is on it, and it's easier to ignore what you don't wnat to see; the advantage is that for those who are interested in the information it is far more effective than than reading a sign on a march -- and it can also be the source of whatever information is on those signs.
Speaking truth to power is silly -- they already know the truth. It's the people who need to know. Unless you are boycotting something then it's all about transmitting information, but even boycotts can be organized on the net. Another possible point of power is occupying offices, but most people won't do that, internet or not -- and yet, if that's to be effective and not just get a few people arrested then many people need to know it happened, and it's not likely to be learned about, at least not accurately, on the corporate media.
This is the information age, and we ignore the power of information and the internet at our peril -- the fascists sure don't!
To quote myself from 2008: "The unexamined e-life is not worth e-living".
Yes. Of course.
Whether or not a communication medium is effective for social change has nothing to do with the medium, and everything to do with those doing the communicating.
The problem is with the ideas people are communicating, not with the medium they are using to communicate those ideas. Obviously.
Usually when people tell us we are using the wrong medium, or the wrong approach, or the wrong language to effect change they mean the exact opposite. They fear that the rabble is getting out of control and will start communicating ideas that will lead to change.
Of course it all makes a difference. Just like the Founding Fathers and their pamphlets; the ideas get out, and that's what's important.
Flash mobs are kind of old, but they work. Raising money for all groups has certanily become easier, not that they're getting a lot of money, but probably multiple donations over time.
The TV news is all canned and scripted, so there's no information there. Places like CD are good for new ideas, and less covered news areas. I've learned a lot from this website.
Probably a lot of people don't show up to big events because they don't have the money the gas, or even for public transportaion. What were the gas prices in the 60s as compared to now? Besides, more of that was about anti-war gatherings, and now there is no real draft.
Tweeting does work, and we saw that in Iran, altthough it does seem that what goes viral here is mostly a lot of celebrity gossip. Almost every product and politician has a facebook page, so who cares about that.
I think that the revolution will succeed because of tweeting. That was a cute opening phrase by the Malcom person, but I don't think it will be true, especially if there's no Net Neutrality!
Why do you think the youth uprising in Iran failed?
By using Facebook and other "social" media as their tool, they broadcast their personal info for the whole world to see. The Revolutionary Guard has everything they need to know about every anti-Mullah Iranian.
That was the spin and I wonder if Twitter and Facebook paid Rachel Maddow of Ariana Huffington for each name drop. Forget the oppressed people standing up for their rights, we gots to
Come to think of it, the only major figure I heard say that the whole thing was overplayed was John Kerry. Hmmm.
I have heard Gladwell go on this rant before, and I have to say I think he is going as much overboard as is everyone who is enamored with social media (and technology).
Social media is not a goal unto itself – it is a tool. It is a mutli-purpose tool – it has allowed me for the first time to connect on an ongoing basis with old friends who I otherwise would not be as connected with. This has facilitated us getting together, planing parties and such. It is a great tool there. As well, it has allowed me to pontificate online, share media stories, funny videos. etc. My kids now spend more time in front of youtube looking up funny videos and music mashups than they do on TV. Social media beats TV handsdown for its interactivity factor.
As someone who has been an activist and works for NGOS, has it made me a better activist? Maybe a better informed one, but I don’t sign on to more causes, nor do i come together with other activists because of social media. In fact, as far as I can tell, everyone ends up in their own little niche of friends, yelling and screaming at one another about those other people.
So, for us in the developed world who have ubiquitous band width, it becomes an all purpose work/play/family tool. Does it make our lives better? Different, but not better. Does it mean that i become a better activist? Again, different but not better.
Yet one thing that I find is that twitter and facebook can ease the isolation of those who have been silenced and marginalized. So, in all the cases that are sighted, it was the story of people whose struggle would have gone unheard, due to the focus of the main stream media, governments, etc. They were heard … that is a huge step forward .. and in some cases this changed the outcome. It doesn’t take the place of on the on-the-ground network, organizing, friends, etc, but the actual act of being “on the map” can’t be underestimated.
The connecting is especially the case for people in the developing world, where in Africa for example, the uptake in mobile technologies is faster than anywhere else in the world. As someone who has worked with marginalized communities both in Canada and in the developing world for the past 25 years I have found these mediums to been key in challenging isolation. When I was in East Africa 10 year sago working in the slums , it was impossible to get a phone line out; now, i get FBed, twittered, and SMSed constantly by the youth I work with. I have written a lot on the impact that technology is having on the developing world – http://www.delicious.com/tag/pradical. This has changed for the better myself and the lives of the youth that I work with – it has helped break down the rich/poor, developed/developing relationship that is always present – i see pictures of their kids, no when tragedy strikes, share our joys. They are my friends in a way they never would have been without social media.
So, I agree with Gladwell that we have to be careful in attributing the wrong outcomes to social media; yet, I would encourage him to look beyond his own social milieu, and take into the account those who have been historically silenced, and what these mediums mean to them.
Like the early days of the telephone, used computers are making their
way in many cases to impoverished Americans -- and they may also be
getting some reduction in internet rates?
Trust others here may have more info on that --
but children in schools also have access to computers at any early age.
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Interesting comments -- I find all the comments on the article much more
interesting than the article itself!
But, just one question .... do you see any change in yourself or your
family in discussing politics? Are Americans becoming more politically
aware -- more inclined to discuss a political situation over dinner at
a restaurant with family or friends than, let's say, sports?
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
On the Counterpoint page Russell Mokhiber gives a local example to back up Gladwell's point.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber09302010.html
At the same time, Russell gives a good example of Tea Party influence.
So far "social" media has gotten Conan O'Brien his job back and Betty White to host SNL. If this is the Second Renaissance, I say lets turn this place over to the cockroaches.
Real, effective activism occurs when motivated people either can AFFORD to engage in it or when people are motivated because they CAN'T AFFORD NOT TO. Right now too few of us are part of the first group and too many fail to recognize their position in the second group.
Like too many of us I fall somewhere in between- Father of one small child (soon to be two), struggling to pay the mortgage, health insurance, college loans, energy/communication bills. We have almost nothing to spare, nothing in the budget for entertainment or consumer goods- hell, my pregnant wife and son qualify for Medicaid.
While I fully recognize that the stakes are so high I can't afford to do nothing, I'm still largely trapped. High-stakes activism isn't even an option. Spare-time community building and networking with local activist groups is all I can afford at the moment.
Having read Gladwell's article in the New Yorker, I agree with his central thesis, it matches the observed reality. I just don't see anything fundamentally changing as a result of the current forms of activism. Until more working Americans are no longer working, they won't be able to either afford to get active or be forced by necessity to do so. That day is coming. In the meantime, I will continue as best I can to build community locally and I encourage everyone to do AT LEAST that much.
I've been on the regular internet for about 8 years and email lists for a few before that. What have I learned on these?
About:
the sanctions on Iraq
the invasion of Iraq
the invasion of Afghanistan
the 9/11 coverup
what Bush and crew were doing that was not reported in the
corporate media -- and also with Obama, and the rest of politicians
who was funding which candidates and politicians
violations of laws and constitution, and the laws themselves
the long-standing American empire and it's atrocities
history -- Zinn, Chomsky, Parenti
economics
dissident organizations
language and propaganda
the list goes on and on -- this is primarily where I was educated, and certainly about those things not covered by the hegemonic media and 'information' sources.
This is how I became truly politically aware -- how I moved beyond vague dissatisfaction and skepticism to understanding how, specifically, the empire deceived and acted. It's also how I engage in gathering and moving information to others to help them understand, and break through the 'matrix'. The internet is the 'red pill'.