Twitter, a social networking application based on the concept of microblogging, has grown rapidly since its 2006 inception, and now claims over 100 million users. In direct opposition to bloated social networking applications that overwhelm their users with functionality, Twitter users log on for a single reason: to post an update (often called a tweet) and to read other’s updates. Furthermore, a strict 140-character restriction imposes brevity of updates and can serve as a vehicle for creativity. When faced with such a low limit, users are forced to concisely state whatever information they would like to get across. This, in turn, makes it easier for users to read others’ tweets without losing attention. This streamlined functionality has been lauded by critics who appreciate the ability to use the application as much or as little as possible.
One of the most interesting features of Twitter is its implementation of “Trending Topics,” which is a real-time Top Ten list the site posts organizing the phrases most often contained in user tweets. The user can customize the list to be specific to a certain geographic region or allow the topics to be ranked worldwide. In this way, he or she has access to what are-in theory-the most interesting conversational topics in the world. The usage of trending topics to unite people from drastically different geographic regions by shared interest perfectly validates the idea of cultural citizenship.
Jean Burgess and Joshua Green discuss the idea of cultural citizenship in their piece, “YouTube’s Cultural Politics.” The authors claim that contemporary citizenship is no longer “a matter of an individual’s codified rights and obligations in relations to the state, but also concerns the ways individuals participate in practices and collectivities that form around matters of shared interest, identity, or concern.” In short, they believe that modern citizenship transcends traditional political boundaries and is instead defined by one’s unique interests. The impetus for this drastic shift in identity stems from widespread use of the Internet, which serves to unite people around the world by shared interests. These interests, the authors seem to assert, continue to form a stronger bond than national citizenship. In effect, we are citizens of whatever we want and are interested in—cultural citizens.
Indeed, many recent social and political movements have taken advantage of Twitter’s brevity, popularity, and ability to sort relevant information in order to effect real-world change. Much of the international attention during the 2009 protests in Iran, for example, was fostered through use of the site. During this time Iranian protesters and international readers signed on to Twitter to become informed and offer their own opinion of the crisis. Widespread use of trending topics allowed users of the web site to quickly locate information relevant to the protests. The U.S. State Department, in fact, viewed Twitter as such a valuable resource at the time that it requested the company refrain from its scheduled maintenance in order to ensure that the site remained accessible. Despite compelling evidence in support of activism through social media, opponents argue that these actions tend towards “slacktivism,” which, according to Urban Dictionary, is characterized by “[coming] to society’s rescue without having to actually get one’s hands dirty or open one’s wallet.”
Malcolm Gladwell’s recent piece in the New Yorker, “Small Change,” has raised the ire of many digital media supporters, who accuse him of downplaying the influence Twitter can have on effecting social change. Gladwell claims that activism through social networking favors “weak-tie” usage, which he defines as reliance on a higher quantity of users to carry out a lower-risk activity, ostensibly, slacktivism. Furthermore, he argues that the lack of hierarchy inherent in social networks yields disorganization and confusion, which provide a serious roadblock to effective activism. In essence, he believes that only superficial change can be wrought through social networking, and that high-stakes protests require a more dedicated group of activists.
Gladwell seems to underestimate the power of convergence culture as described by Henry Jenkins, who believes that the world is undergoing a major cultural shift due to innovative new mashups of new and old medium. Gladwell’s examples of high-stakes political protests, used to undermine the power of Twitter, indicate a complete lack of understanding concerning the use of social networking for activism and its resulting effectiveness.
Much of the excitement surrounding convergence culture concerns the idea that it is inherently not high stakes. Users of all stripes can choose to access and implement the technology in whatever fashion they see fit—some of these users have a very low level of interaction, while others employ the technology in a much more enthusiastic fashion. Jenkins addressed this range of use in his description of the emerging participatory culture: “We now see [media producers and consumers] as participants who interact with each other according to a new set of rules that none of us fully understands. Not all participants are created equal…” This statement describes a key characteristic of the democratization of media and succinctly addresses what Gladwell failed to comprehend. In this day and age, it is not necessary to expect a small, tight-knit group to effect massive political or social change. Rather, the new model for activism, based on convergence and participatory cultures, operates on a much larger scale—albeit often with a wider range of participant enthusiasm—to bring about massive cultural movements.
Jenkins’ next argument further invalidates Gladwell’s writing, stating, “Convergence does not occur through media appliances, however sophisticated they may become. Convergence occurs in the brains of individual consumers and through their social interactions with others.” This, in short, is the biggest flaw in Gladwell’s argument that Twitter is not a practical engine for social change; in fact, the idea that Twitter as an entity can effect social or political change is a misappropriation of utility. Jenkins’ belief is that the users of Twitter, who log on to exchange unique mashups of information and media, can and do bring about the change whose existence Gladwell so ardently denies.
Ethan Zuckerman’s writing on his own “Cute Cat Theory” includes a handful of examples of successful uses of social media for activism. During the 1990s, he noticed that the web-hosting company for which he worked had an inordinate amount of traffic from Malaysia. After further research, he realized that Malaysian opposition parties were using their web space to organize a political movement. Zuckerman contends that use of digital media was pivotal in this particular movement: “Malaysian media was largely closed to opposition voices, but investment in internet infrastructure meant that the opposition was able to access the internet and publish material that couldn’t be disseminated any other way.” This example is antithetical to the theory outlined by Gladwell in “Small Change,” who believes that very little tangible political action can stem from online interaction.
Zuckerman also addresses some key weaknesses associated with Twitter: “[it’s] far from the perfect tool – it’s centralized and easily blocked… Lots of the tools that have become most useful to activists have characteristics that un-recommend them for activist uses.” This statement provides the perfect balance between Gladwell’s backwards-thinking ideology and overeager support of social media as an engine for change: as useful as networking applications such as Twitter have proven to be, a perfect online system does not yet exist. For now, Twitter could very well be the most innovative engine for social and political change we have. As Zuckerman writes, “you don’t get to choose the tools – activists use what’s at hand.” So far, it seems they have done just that.
disappointing degradation of quality :( essay can be found below..
ReplyDelete