I’ve Been Doubley Delusional
April 6, 2011 at 11:49 am (Class Post, Clicktivism, EMAC 6361, Facebook, Government, Internet, Social Media)
Excuse me a moment, I have to do something.
I’ll admit, I’m feeling mighty foolish at the moment, especially after the reading we did for this week. A few weeks ago I talked about how I was delusional to the fact that I could use my network of friends (and others could do the same) to influence them and other networks to overcome clicktivism and be more service-oriented. In fact, I am (was?) basing my entire project on that main point.
But, after having discussed The Exploit: A Theory of Networks by Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker on Monday and after reading The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom by Evgeny Morozov I clearly was doubley delusional in that I jumped on the band wagon of Connected far too quickly.
Morozov’s Point
Apparently, according to Morozov, I was being too “cyber-utopian” and idealizing the internet and networks far more than I should have been. He says that:
The idea that the Internet favors the oppressed rather than the oppressor is marred by what I call cyber-utopianism: a naive belief in the emancipatory nature of online communication that rests on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its downside (p. xiii).
I wouldn’t say that I have refused to acknowledge the dark side of the Internet because if you’ll recall, I myself mused on the fact that the government in Egypt could have used the Internet to trick protesters instead of turning it off completely.
However, Morozov makes a good point. We need to be aware that just like coins, duck tape, and The Force, the Internet has two sides, and when we blatantly ignore one to the praise of the other, we cause more problems than if we had weighed both sides. BUT, I think it goes both ways. While being cyber-utopian and believing that the Internet can solve all evils (“internet-centrism”) and is inherently democratic is one sided, so is going the opposite direction and saying that the Internet actually doesn’t fix anything and we are deluding ourselves by thinking that it does. While I do think that Morozov tries to find a balance between the two in his argument, I get the feeling he’s trying really hard to reject all cyber-utopian ideals more than finding the good in them (probably because he too (like I) had jumped on the bandwagon too quickly.
He admits that in the backlash of realizing that he had been cyber-utopian himself, he was “tempt[ed] to throw [his] hands up in despair and give up on the Internet altogether” (p. xv). But, he then realizes that that too would be wrong:
Rather, the lesson to be drawn is that the Internet is here to stay, it will continue growing in importance, and those concerned with democracy promotion need not only grapple with it but also come up with mechanisms and procedures to ensure that another tragic blunder on the scale of Abu Ghraib will never happen in cyberspace (p. xv).
In this point, he is right. As much as some like to ignore it or think it’s insignificant, the Internet is here and we have to deal with it and its impact to us socially, economically, and politically. Now that we have it and it is continuing to evolve and change how things work, we need to start recognizing how we too might need to change and evolve how we do things as well. And in order to decide, we need to look at it with both perspectives in mind.
Morozov’s Slacktivism
I LOVED that Morozov had an entire chapter on slacktivism in his book. Because not only does it have to do with the topic and project I’m pursuing, but he made some rather valid arguments that either backed up my original thoughts or made me reevaluate others. He discusses an experiment by Colding-Jorgensen in which someone created a Facebook group to protest the destruction of a fountain that was never actually going to get destroyed, and it soon gained over 20,000 members in protest to save the historical fountain. Morozov remarks that there are two ways to look at this experiment. The first being that:
His online friends were likely to share his concern for the preservation of Denmark’s cultural heritage, and since joining the group did not require anything other than clicking a few buttons, [his friends] eagerly lent their names to Colding-Jorgensen’s online campaign. If that request had come from some unknown entity with few historically conscious contacts, or if joining in required performing a number of challenging chores, chances are the success of that crusade would have been far less spectacular (p. 180).
This option would then imply that there would be no reason to pay attention to it because more than likely, nothing will result from having members in a Facebook group because it’s so easy to join said group. But, the other option is:
Another, more optimistic way to assess the growth of activism on social networks is to celebrate the ease and speed with which Facebook groups can grow and go viral. From this perspective, Colding-Jorgensen’s experiment has shown that when communication costs are low, groups can easily spring into action…. Proponent s of this view argue that Facebook is to group formation what Red Bull is to productivity (p. 180).
This one would then imply that because of activism on social networks, it makes it easier and faster to create awareness for causes etc. and that would be a valuable resource that one should not ignore. But, with both options, Morozov points out that they are missing the real point. For it’s not important to determine whether or not we should ignore Facebook groups or embrace them as the new form of activism; rather, it’s more important to look at those that make up the group than that the group has high numbers of members. In analyzing both views on the experiment, Morozov remarks that
Neither offers a good account of what membership in such networked causes does to the members themselves…. Nor do these two competing interpretations indicate what kind of effect such online campaigns may have on the effectiveness and popularity of other offline and individual activist efforts…. Before policymakers embrace digital activism as an effective way of pushing against authoritarian governments, they are well-advised to fully investigate its impact both on its practitioners and on the overall tempo of democratization (p. 183).
I think this is the important thing to remember, when it comes to networks and the assumptions about digital activism, and therefore slacktivism. While it is easy to join Facebook groups and donate money to charities, the people that join have their reasons in doing so, and most of them mean well but aren’t sure what else they can do. But, as he points out later, we shouldn’t misjudge quantity for quality, and that’s where we run into the problem of slacktivism and in trying to use Facebook groups and various other sites to create activists.
My Concluding Thoughts
I realize that in order to really understand and analyze ways in which to prevent or at least minimize slacktivism, I have to keep in mind that being connected to others and influencing my network is not the only way or even the right way to help the world become a better place. The Internet cannot solve everything, and the people involved in real life are just as important as the group and their online participation.
I’ll be honest, it’s still in my nature to look on the bright side of Internet freedom (and I’m not sure I can ever change that or would want to), but I recognize that with the light must come dark or else I would not see it as such. Yes it’s true, Twitter wasn’t the only thing that allowed the Iranian or Egyptian revolution to happen, but it sure helped spread the message that it was going on, right? (Which I think is still pretty important to remember.)
Thank goodness the Tom Hanks look-alike, Clay Shirky can back me up on this.
missnesbitpro
