Dr. Pell
Texts in Conversation
Tweeting the way to Revolution?
Your Tweet can change the world in 140 characters. Dictators can be overthrown by
forwarding a text message. In the digital age, social media has created a new form of social activism
by connecting people online and making it easier for groups to protest human rights abuses and
mobilize to create social change. However, there is disagreement amongst scholars as to whether
social media leads to increased true, meaningful social activism, whether it creates or reduces the
potential for social change and democratization, or indeed if social media is getting more credit than
it deserves. Three perspectives have emerged from this debate: the optimists, the pessimists, and the
realists. The optimists are enthusiastic about the power of social media networks to expand social
activism to more people, while the pessimists, or techno-skeptics, see the shallow way social media
connects us as diminishing the integrity and efficacy of social activism. Conversely, the realists see
social media as more of a tool than a transformative agent in social activism. On a whole, the
different perspectives of the role of social media in social activism derive from the scholars’
contradicting assumptions about the relationship between humans and technology.
The optimists believe that social media technology has “revolutionized” the way people
communicate and connect with one another in a way that will strengthen civil society and provide
the means for greater social activism. To scholars in this perspective, social networking sites are not
just for entertainment and socialization, but rather can be used to create and empower a community
of people to engage in collective action promoting social good. For example, Jennifer Aaker and
Andy Smith, authors of The Dragonfly Effect, propose that “the same technologies that enable us to
“poke” our friends or “retweet” an interesting article are the ones that can connect and mobilize us
to bring about change” (Aaker 2). Overall, social media optimists argue that the power of social
media to inspire mass social activism derives from the unique way it connects us.
Specifically, the optimists theorize that social media connects people by providing a shared
set of information and creating a sense of group identity across a network of people who may have
never met. For instance, Clay Shirky postulates that in a “networked society” common membership
to a facebook group or following someone on twitter is enough to satisfy the minimal conditions
that can foster a sense of group identity amongst complete strangers; this social phenomenon is
known as the Minimal Group Paradigm (Shirky, 44). Neil Postman expands this idea of collective
identity amongst social network users to argue that the internet has created a “global village”
(Postman, 2). In Postman’s concept of the “global village”, social media inevitably leads to
globalization by providing people across the world access to the same information, and thus
creating a common globalized culture as well as habitual ways of thinking.
Moreover, Lance Strate applies Postman’s ideas about globalization to explain how online
social media is moving society toward a new form of “collective consciousness” (Strate, 80). In
particular, he illustrates how the new ways people connect and communicate online leads society as
a whole to “become less distanced and objective, and more emotionally involved with our world
and our fellow human beings” (Strate, 79). These optimistic claims by Postman and Strate stem
from the belief that technology has the power to transform society for the better. This basic
assumption is best illustrated through Postman’s assertion that “technology is a medium within
which a culture grows…it gives form to a culture’s politics, social organization, and habitual ways
of thinking”. Indeed, from the perspective of social media optimists, or perhaps more aptly named
‘techno-enthusiasts’, technology is the key agent of change and progress in society.
Building off this common assumption, Aaker and Smith imagine that social media can use
the collective identities it creates to “inspire all these networked people and empower them to
participate in global movements for change” (Aaker, ix). This is made possible by what Aaker and
Smith term “the ripple effect” and “emotional contagion”. The ripple effect results when a small
action, such as creating a facebook page to bring awareness to a human rights issue, has a
significant positive impact on others. This acts as a form of positive “emotional contagion” that
inspires others within the networked community to help (Aaker, 10). Indeed, this parallels Shirky’s
theory of the “epidemiology” of group action and social activism across social media networks
(Shirky, 159). In this way, by spreading emotions and creating connections between people, technoenthusiasts claim that social networks are effective at increasing motivation to do social good.
Moreover, Aaker and Smith point out that social media is unique because it provides the
tools to promote such social good to the masses for the first time. In fact, they suggest that “you
don’t need money or power to cause seismic social change” (Aaker, xi). This idea is personified in
what the authors call the ‘Dragonfly Effect’, defined as the “efficacy of people who, through the
passionate pursuit of their goals, discover they can make a positive impact disproportionate to their
resources” (Aaker, 2). In this optimistic perspective, social media has revolutionized the concept of
social activism by making it accessible to all. Anyone, regardless of political clout or net-worth, can
feel like a social activist by simply joining a facebook group, signing an online petition, or
forwarding a tweet that has something to do with human rights.
Shirky takes Aaker and Smith’s idea a step further by arguing that “social tools have
changed the balance of power” in society by shifting it from governments and formal organizations
to the masses (Shirky, 164). Particularly, he claims that social media has removed barriers that
prevented large, loose groups of ordinary people from coordinating mass social action. Shirky uses
the military concept of “shared awareness” to describe the type of coordination that empowers
social media users. Shared awareness is defined as “the ability of each member of a group to not
only understand the situation at hand but also understand that everyone else does, too” (Shirky, 40).
By propagating messages through social networks, social media increases shared awareness and
allows people to come together in collective social action. In this sense, Shirky implies that the very
fact that social networks do not have a hierarchical organization makes them successful tools for
encouraging mass social activism. Indeed, he bases this argument on the fact that many of the
‘twitter revolutions’ during the Arab Spring did not have a clear leader, but were simply average
citizens united behind the common goal of democracy. In these cases, techno-enthusiasts like
Shirky exult how social media has expanded social activism because it no longer needs a powerful
leader to be effective.
Furthermore, Shirky believes that this aspect of social media can actually bring a “net
improvement to democracy” (Shirky, 5). He thinks of social media as tools that can strengthen civil
society and inspire political activism in the long term by better informing and coordinating the
masses. Here, Shirky’s claims rest on the basic assumption that communicative freedom leads to
more political freedom. The view that new communication technologies, like social media, enable
progress toward a better, more global and free society is the underlying assumption of the technoenthusiast worldview.
Indeed, the optimistic predictions of social media’s role in social activism made by scholars
in this perspective stem from their shared assumptions about how technology shapes human society.
More specifically, the techno-enthusiasts subscribe to a linear view of history and progress, in
which each new technology brings society closer to a more democratic and globalized utopia. These
assumptions lead scholars to conclude that by connecting people across society, social media
empowers and expands social activism. However, these basic assumptions are what separate the
social media optimists from the pessimists, or techno-skeptics. Significantly, in opposition to the
optimists, the techno-skeptics believe that progress for progress sake is not necessarily good, and
often times technologies actually degrade rather than advance society. Consequently, scholars in
this perspective are particularly pessimistic about social media, claiming that it corrupts the
integrity of social activism by reducing the risk and effort required to be a social activist. They also
see the chaotic, disorganized nature of social media as impeding effective social activism and real
change in society, and point to how it can be exploited by authoritarian government to actually harm
democracy.
First of all, the assumptions of techno-skeptics lead them to a very different view of how
social media connects people compared to techno-enthusiasts. For example, techno-skeptics in the
media, like Malcolm Gladwell, point out that the way social media connects us is too shallow and
superficial to create collective identities or inspire group action that Aaker and Shirky describe
(Gladwell,43). This view is based on the sociologist Doug McAdam’s theory that high risk social
activism is dependent on “strong ties” within groups. In his study of the Freedom Summer during
the Civil Rights movement, McAdam found that the primary determinant of who took part in
activism was not the individual’s ideological fervor, but rather the number of “critical friends” the
individual had who were also involved in the movement (McAdam, 30). However, online social
activism is nothing like this because social media is built on weak ties individuals that might have
never met. For this reason, McAdams would argue that such bonds are not strong enough to inspire
an individual to take a risk in order to promote social change, or be a true social activist.
Consequently, techno-skeptics denounce the techno-enthusiast construct that social media
creates a networked society that can unite to engage in activism. Instead, the pessimists hold that
online social activism is predominantly driven not by Aaker’s concept of “emotional contagion”,
but rather by peer pressure and the desire to impress friends. This trend is explained by Jenny
Twenge, who claims that the structure of social networking sites actually “rewards the skills of the
narcissist, such as self-promotion, selecting flattering photographs of oneself, and having the most
friends” (Twenge, 20). For this reason, the online campaigns individuals join may be more likely to
represent what kind of person they want to be seen as rather than their actual commitments to social
causes. In this pessimistic view, social media may not be inspiring more social activists but rather
making it easier for people to present themselves as social activists to their friends.
Malcolm Gladwell combines Twenge and Mcadams’ analyses of the sociology of social
networks to refute Aaker and Smith’s theory that social media increases motivation to do social
good. Instead, he asserts that social media increases participation “by lessening the level of
motivation that participation requires” (Gladwell, 43). In fact, Gladwell argues that social media
does not enable greater social activism but rather leads to the phenomena of “slacktivism”
(Gladwell, 46). Slacktivism is when individuals feel good about themselves by participating in an
effortless mode of activism as opposed to exerting actual effort to create change. For instance,
facebook campaigns to protest authoritarianism or promote human rights get thousands of users to
join by asking the minimal required of them, such as taking 30 seconds to sign a petition or donate a
few dollars. This gives users the illusion that they are making a difference, but does little to effect
real change. Gladwell claims that these ‘slacktivists’ are not true activists because the very things
that encourage them to act, such as the little effort it takes to join a campaign and low financial or
physical risk to participate, diminishes the integrity of their social activism.
Moreover, Diana Allan proposes that the structure of social networks actually undermines
the ability of social activists to create meaningful change. She points out that “it is very easy to
overestimate the “leveling” effect of social media” and assume, as Shirky does, that social media
shifts the balance of power to the masses (Allan, 69). Instead, Allan depicts how social media can
be used by authoritarian governments to broadcast propaganda. She explains that social media does
not change the balance of power because governments still have larger clout and audience on sites
like twitter and youtube compared to a disperse group of individual activists, especially when the
activists have no central leader. Here, Allan disproves Shirky and the techno-enthusiasts’ claim that
the lack of hierarchy in social networks enables social activism. For true, effective social activism,
pessimists believe a hierarchy of leadership is necessary to coordinate action and draw an audience.
Eric Trager strengthens this argument by illustrating the power vacuums that leaderless
social media revolutions create, which actually undermine the goal of democracy. He points to the
example of Egypt, where social media allowed young, liberal protesters to oust a dictator but did
not provide a clear leader to the movement. Now, Trager describes how “the Muslim
Brotherhood…is seizing the political momentum” because it is more cohesive and organized than
the original protestors, even though it has less-than-democratic plans for Egypt (Trager, 114). In
this, Trager contradicts Shirky’s argument that social media can bring a ‘net improvement to
democracy’ through the way it mobilizes the masses. Overall, Trager and fellow techno-skeptics see
social media as the antitheses to effective social activism because it does not provide the leadership,
hierarchy, or social bonds that successful social movements require.
However, despite their opposing views of how social media enables or restricts social
activism, both the optimists and pessimists operate under the assumption that technology shapes
humans and society rather than vice versa. They see social media as having a political agenda, in
that it has either a mobilizing or corrupting effect on social activism. However, proponents of a
third perspective, the ‘realists’, disagree with this fundamental assumption. In particular, Evgeny
Morozov charges the above scholars with adhering to “internet-centrism”, or the flawed perception
of social media changing a society rather than being adapted to a society (Morozov, 9). Morozov
adds that “what is most dangerous about succumbing to technological determinism is that it hinders
our awareness of the social and the political, presenting it as the technological instead” (Morozov,
293). Thus, realists like Morozov understand that people are not passive victims of technology, but
are rather active appropriators (Morozov, 292). In this perspective, there is no such thing as a
‘twitter revolution’ because social media does not inherently change the nature of social activism.
In fact, Morozov shows that the West historically tends to over-exaggerate its role in
promoting revolutions and that this worldview leads them to give social media more credit than it
deserves. He traces this trend back to the Cold War, where the West credited itself for bringing
down communist nations through supporting free speech and the spread of democratic ideas
(Morozov, 179). Applied to the modern day, Morozov describes how this view led commentators
during the Arab Spring to conveniently credit American social networking technology with bringing
down authoritarian regimes. Fellow realist, Jonathon M. Acuff employs this idea to explain that
“although it is intrinsically appealing to believe that the US is such a beacon of hope and democracy
that we inspire freedom-loving people everywhere to throw off their chains…we should be more
skeptical concerning the claims of those who interpret every mass protest as ‘freedom on the
march’” (Acuff, 225). Therefore, realists illustrate that the western idea that social media is
responsible for mass protest everywhere is a conceited oversimplification.
Moreover, Morozov dismisses the techno-enthusiasts perspective as part of a pattern
throughout recent history to predict that a newly introduced technology has the ability to
democratize and globalize the world. He depicts how “From the railways…to television, that
greatest liberator of the masses, there has hardly appeared a technology that wasn’t praised for its
ability to raise the level of public debate, introduce more transparency into politics, reduce
nationalism, and transport us to the mythical global village” yet none were able to follow through
on initial promises (Morozov, 275). Anais Saint-Jude builds off this argument to point out that
social media is neither new nor revolutionary, but rather represents another period of “information
overload” that previously occurred in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries (Saint-Jude in
Haven, 2). Here, the realist’s analysis of social media stems from different views of history and
progress from the optimists and pessimists. Namely, realists believe that history does not progress
linearly but rather repeats itself; human society does not improve or degrade over time with the
advent of new technologies, but rather people view and use technologies the same way they always
have.
Therefore, the divergent claims made by optimists, pessimists and realists about the role of
social media in social activism stems from their different views of the relationship between humans
and technology. However, they fail to examine how the different politics and culture of a society
changes the role of such technologies in social activism. The realists point out that technology
adapts to a society rather than changing a society, but they fail to explain how different societies
uniquely view and alter technology to suit their needs. For instance, the media has reduced the Arab
Spring revolutions as well as Occupy Wall Street into the simple formula that social media has
enabled social activism on a large scale. But in reality, these societies and the stakes involved in the
protests are so disparate that to say they are the same type of protest would be a gross
oversimplification. In particular, social activism involves greater personal risk in nations under
authoritarian regimes in places like the Middle East and China than in more liberal states like the
U.S. Consequently, social media technology is adapted to suit the unique politics and culture of a
nation and in turn produces inherently different forms of social activism.
Works Cited:
Aaker, Jennifer Lynn, Andy Smith, and Carlye Adler. The Dragonfly Effect : Quick, Effective,
and Powerful Ways to Use Social Media to Drive Social Change. San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2010.
Allan, Diana, and Curtis Brown. “The Mavi Marmara At the Frontlines of Web 2.0.” Journal of
Palestine Studies 40.1 (2010): 63-77. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.
Gladwell, Malcom. “SMALL CHANGE.” New Yorker 86.30 (2010): 42-49. Academic Search
Premier. EBSCO. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.
Haven, Cynthia. "New Social Media? Same Old, Same Old, Say Stanford Experts." Stanford
News. Stanford University. Web. 13 Nov. 2011.
<http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/november/old-social-media-110211.html>.
McAdam, Doug. Freedom Summer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Morozov, Evgeny. The Net Delusion : the Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York: Public
Affairs, 2011.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death : Public Discourse In the Age of Show
Business. 20th anniversary ed. New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Penguin Books, 2006.
Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody : the Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New
York: Penguin Press, 2008.
Strate, Lance. “The Future of Consciousness.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics 66.1
(2009): 63-83. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Trager, Eric. “The Unbreakable Muslim Brotherhood.” Foreign Affairs 90.5 (2011):114-126.
Academic Search Premier. Web.
Twenge, Jenny and Bushman, Brad J. “Further Evidence of an Increase in Narcissism Among
College Students.” Journal of Personaly 76.4 (2008): 919-928. Academic Search Premier.
EBSCO.