Twitter Revolution: The Misappropriation of Cause and Effect

‘Twitter Revolution’[1], ‘Facebook Revolution’[2], ‘Revolution 2.0’[3] – mainstream Western media headlines have been saturated by such bold expressions. The purpose of these headlines is to paint strong, cyber-utopian imagery of social movements and revolutions perceived to be orchestrated solely through the use of blogs, Twitter, Facebook, SMS and the like. And while the imagery is strong, the message it sends is misguided and misleading. Can a single technology really be responsible for mass movements? Does the presence of Facebook mean an inevitable revolution is on the horizon? The simplest answer is no. And while there is general agreement that social media technologies have played an important role in shaping the ways in which its users’ participate in social affairs, what terms like ‘Twitter Revolution’ and ‘Facebook Revolution’ ignore is that political and social movements belong to the people not to the technology. Twitter, Facebook and the like are technological tools used by groups of people who are motivated to create change. If the headlines have shown us anything as of late, it’s that we need a more holistic understanding of these digital tools, because they are what people make of them. 
In order to fully understand why terms such as ‘Facebook Revolution’ are a misnomer, we must begin with acknowledging what new media technologies contribute to the current state of global affairs. A globally networked society has emerged, heavily influenced by a new technological paradigm centered on microelectronics, information/communication tools and engineering. In this globally networked society, the state is made from a multifaceted web of power sharing and negotiated decision-making involving multinational, international, national, regional, local and at times, non-governmental political institutions.[4] Also characteristic of the globally networked society is the simultaneous and arguably systematic transformation of the relationships of production and consumption, as well as power and experience – ultimately leading to the transformation of culture.[5]  Within this heavily networked society, the Internet, social media and mobile phone technology have become instruments for participation, transparency, and engagement in socio-economic, cultural and political development. Networking technologies such as Twitter, have enabled globally engaged citizens in all corners of the world to disseminate their views, communicate with others, and access immense amounts of information. Perhaps most importantly, these tools have increased the ability of users to participate in the shaping and creation of public discourse.

Many have rushed to champion the benefits of social media technology, heralding its ability to transcend borders, rapidly transmit information, and the speed through which it allows groups of people to connect with one another regardless of space and time. And yes, these are the incredibly positive attributes of new media technologies. However, this list offers us a very limited understanding of what the tool has helped create. These tools have gone beyond just communication and have been adapted by the actors in social movements to transform learning, cognition and facilitation.

Social media technology, as some users are currently adapting it, is developing a new generational behaviour and consciousness. These technologies are being used as tools for symmetrical participation[6] characterized by the active role users are taking in the simultaneous production, consumption, interaction and dissemination of content. Social media is user generated content, filtering, organization and distribution held in the hands of a highly motivated generation. This is where the tool’s real strength lies; it’s in the hands of those who wish to bring about meaningful social change. It’s imperative to remember that social media on it’s own lacks agency, and by itself creates nothing. We must remember that the tool is being used as a vehicle through which to transform individual pursuits into collective action and is not the collective action on it’s own.

Social media, while not having agency, also lacks autonomy. The absence of autonomy means that these tools lack independence from the interference and will of those who control the infrastructure through which it operates. Tools of resistance can easily be used as tools of oppression; and just as the Internet is made available, it can also be monitored, manipulated, censored and in some cases shut off completely – think Joe Lieberman’s notion of the ‘kill switch.’[7]  The power of the Internet is subject to its availability and the flow of unadulterated information. Take for example, January 27, 2011 when the Egyptian government essentially shut off the Internet rendering social media and networking technologies useless.[8]  And while this did not succeed in shutting down the movement on the streets – as organizers and protestors adopted the use of Short Message Systems (SMS), dial-up connections routed through other countries, and the use of short-wave radio for the transmission of information – it did show the vulnerability of the web-based social media tools that many people were relying on. As the example illustrates, we must consider at all times that while social media technologies have in many ways become tools for the world’s political movements, most of the worlds political structures have attempted to limit access to it. To think that it’s possible to build a movement based only on social media strategies ignores the reality of the limitations inherent in the technology and infrastructure necessary for its use.

It is also important to acknowledge that while social media technology has many positive attributes, it is nothing without users who are politically savvy, bold in their stance, creative with their strategies, self regulating and above all ethical. Without this backing the tool is simply a digital devise to produce noise. Long-term effective change does not happen just because we ‘Tweet’ about it, it happens when the information is able to motivate, persuade and inspire a targeted audience.[9]  As was the case in Belarus in 2006 [10] and Thailand in 2010 [11], simply having the technology does not guarantee effective social change. The tool is not in and of itself the agent of change – no matter how much terms like ‘Facebook Revolution’ give it credit for.

We’d be remiss if we didn’t seek an understanding of the potential impact this may have on the field of Conflict Analysis and Resolution. It should be clear to the field that revolutions do not happen spontaneously. A social movement or a revolution requires the accumulation of meaningful events long before the social environment is ready for action. Momentum needs to build, and the lesson we can learn from social media use in social action is embedded in the change of scale, pace and pattern that it has introduced into human affairs.[12]  Social media technology has fundamentally changed the way in which groups interact with each other and with the wider global community. It has also introduced a new speed with which individuals come together to define a central cause and resist opponents in the name of cultural values. It cannot be denied that social media technology has and will continue to have an immense impact on the way in which human affairs across the globe are realized and experienced.

As a field, CAR professionals should be looking towards these changes with the expressed goal of gaining insight into the nature of the networks being created by the use of social media technologies for social change. Social media use has encouraged nontraditional actors to strategically mobilize information in ways that may be used to persuade, pressure and gain leverage over more powerful traditionally organized governments and agencies. As a community, the CAR field would greatly benefit from understanding that the networks being created by social media use are in and of themselves political spaces where differently situated actors negotiate the “social, cultural, and political meaning of their joint enterprise.”[13]  It is within these political spaces that the CAR field can have the greatest impact on the greatest number of people.

The field must also recognize that the rupture of events in the world, as of late, are centered on a level of digital literacy brought about with the coming of age of Generation 2.0. This, in many ways, is a sign that we are on the cusp of a complex generational change that is facilitated (not inevitably driven by) the availability of new communication tools. The field will best be served if efforts are made to acknowledge that there is a need to move away from a pre-digital political cognition and institutional understanding, to one that involves the discussion of new media technology.

It’s safe to conclude that there is no such thing as a Twitter or Facebook Revolution; these are revolutions of people who are actively engaged in using specific social networking and digital tools. Once we being to think of these tools not as an agent of change but as a tool to access and engage in conversation, we begin to move towards a more grounded understanding of the evolution of digital media and social change. It’s possible that the most promising way we might want to start thinking about social media is that it is a tool, that when combined with the motivations of its users has the potential to strengthen civil society and the public sphere.

Notes:

[1] Evgeny Morozov, “Moldova’s Twitter Revolution,” Magazine, Foreign Policy, April 7, 2009,http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/07/moldovas_twitter_revolution.

[2] Fred Vogelstein, “The Facebook Revolution,” Newspaper, LA Times, October 7, 2007,http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-vogelstein7oct07,0,6385994.story.

[3] Mark Sedra, “Revolution 2.0: democracy promotion in the age of social media,” Newspaper, The Globe and Mail, February 2, 2011, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/revolution-20-democracy-promotion-in-the-age-of-social-media/article1891015/.

[4] Manuel Castells, “Materials for an Exploratory Theory of the Network Society,” British Journal of Sociology 51, no. 1 (March 2000): 5-24.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (New York: Penguin Press, 2008).

[7]  David Zax, “Could Egypt Happen Here? Obama’s Internet ‘Kill Switch’,” Magazine, Fast Company, January 28, 2011, http://www.fastcompany.com/1721753/egypt-internet-kill-switch.

[8] Nancy Gohring and Robert McMillan, “Without Internet, Egyptians find new ways to get online”, January 29, 2011,http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207058/Without_Internet_Egyptians_find_new_ways_to_get_online?taxonomyId=16&pageNumber=1.

[9] Srdja Popovic et al., CANVAS Core Curriculum: A Guide to Effective Nonviolent Struggle (Serbia: Center for Applied Nonviolent Acton and Strategies, 2007).

[10]  In an attempt to prevent mass mobilization, the government blocked all major social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, LiveJournal) as well as major opposition media outlets. Reporters Without Borders, “Internet Enemies 2011: Countries Under Surveillance – Belarus,” Government, UNHCR The UN Refugee Agency, March 11, 2011, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,BLR,,4d82268a5,0.html.

[11] The government declared a state of emergency (SoE) and made use of emergency laws allowing the Ministry of Information and Communication Technologies to by pass the legal system and begin censoring ‘unsuitable’ websites and social media. As a result of the SoE, and censored communication technologies, the government took to the streets to disperse protestors killing dozens. “Thailand’s PM declares emergency,” BBC, April 7, 2010, sec. Asia-Pacific, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8607267.stm.

[12] Marshall McLuhan, Essential McLuhan, 1st ed. (New York, NY: BasicBooks, 1995).

[13] Margaret E Keck, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1998), 3.