So we discussed how social media, mobile networks, and the Internet contributed directly to regime change while also examining case studies where such networks didn’t really inspire much change (i.e. the protests during the Republic National Convention in New York). What stood out for me was the lingering questions and problems I have with Occupy Wall Street.
In the case studies where such networks contributed to change, there was a measurable degree of passion, anger, and emotion that propelled the quest for justice. In the case studies where such networks did not achieve the desired change there may have been strong opinion, but there was a lack of coherence. The lack of structure to the protesters’ arguments (in both OWS and the New York City) while ambiguous enough to welcome those with a range of opinions ultimately requires a concentrated argument to achieve actual political or social change as illustrated in the other case studies.
It really boils to doing more than putting talk into action. A rational idea of what needs to be changed and potentially suggestion for achieving such change are required. You can’t achieve a goal without knowing what that goal is. In the case of People Power II, the Filipinos argued for the ousting of their corrupt leader. Their conviction propelled their action and their shared sense of action and change yielded a structured argument that ultimately successfully resulted in achievement of their goal…removal of their leader from power.
The socio-economic status of the protestors also stood out. Clearly, the Internet and mobile networks require technology that is not affordable to lower classes. The unequal access to technology and the role that such technologies play in these movements emphasizes the lack of congruence of mobile networks to stimulate political change. Money is power and without having the money to purchase technologies that grant access to mobile networks, one is excluded from participating in movements that inspire change. In many cases those who need change the most are those who cannot afford access to these networks.
I wish I could find a video of this moment (I guess my media skills are apparently not up to par just yet) but the lack of coherence you and others have mentioned in the OWS protests always brings up this scene in my head: Season 4 of 30 Rock (yeah, I know) when Kenneth and the NBC pages go on strike to protest the payment of executive bonuses in a time of cutbacks (at the time of airing, a reflection upon AIG). Then other unions join in - the department-store Santas, subway bucket drummers... and there's a great scene with a picket line where everyone's shouting their very different demands at the same time.
ReplyDeleteNow, I realize that OWS is purposely keeping from making specific demands, but either the media is spinning it as complete chaos or there's a method to their madness...
Initially, I was definitely on the same page as you Jeff. However, I think that one of the problems of the OWS network putting words into action is that they have not really made a structured argument of who that they need to target to be put out of power. Although the power of the network has been successfully exercised in the example you provided, ultimately, for the OWS network to make any impact they first need to definitively state their goal. I do not agree that they do not have access to technology because I see constant Tweets and status updates all the time from people on the ground of the protests. The problem is that their messages are not coordinated and structured, so they can not use their power to achieve an ultimate goal. Whatever that ultimate goal may be....
ReplyDelete