photo by sharif
Recent events surrounding the election in Iran have brought up a swirl of questions that have been lurking in my mind for quite some time, as I’m researching and developing strategies for using social media for social change. So here goes, a post on current events tied into many of the themes you’re used to seeing around here — innovation, tools, questioning, and all that good stuff. Anyway, this post is only ostensibly political, as I’m not expressing support for a political group or candidate — though I am sincerely hoping for transparency, nonviolence, and constructive discussion in Iran.
There’s a lot of talk these days around the internet about the protests in Iran being some sort of “Twitter revolution.” And true, it has been fascinating to watch a movement unfold with real-time updates, vibrant multimedia coverage, and exciting new channels of communication. Twitter has indeed been an excellent tool for unclogging the information pipes and spreading news updates from the ground, despite government blocking of many networks. And yes, Twitter has also been used for some aspects of protest organization in Tehran. Twitter got a big chunk of the international community talking (or tweeting?) about the current events in Iran, watching YouTube videos of protests, and sharing photos of rallies and violence on Flickr. So we can agree that Twitter and other social media have been very useful for:
- providing updates and multimedia coverage that most mainstream news sources did not keep up with
- allowing Iranians to bypass censorship to a certain degree — when many communication platforms were closed by the government, people still found ways to post messages on Twitter
- sparking widespread discussion on a current event
- providing Iranians with another means of organizing demonstrations
- giving some Iranian protesters a global (virtual) platform for advocating their cause
But just because Twitter and blogs have been our principal connection to these important events, must we draw the conclusion that Twitter is the revolutionary force in Iran’s social unrest? The people out in the streets of Tehran were not moved to protest by Twitter. They were not empowered by social media to defy the powers that be. No, their impetus for action came from a much deeper place. I think if we all took a step back from the computer screen, we would realize the importance of recognizing the line between being a movement and supporting a movement.
Social media is a tool. It is a potentially powerful tool that has added a vibrant facet to media coverage and activism, but it should not be treated as the silver bullet of social change. People would be out in the streets with or without Twitter. It’s easy to watch YouTube videos and see #IranElection hashtags fly by and believe that we, the digerati, are in the throes of a violent revolution. It’s also easy to start thinking that all of Iran is out in those streets. But take a breath. Recognize that although the coverage we are seeing may make it seem like “the golden truth” is breaking the chains of oppression and censorship, this coverage has limits too. And recognize that we are sitting in computer chairs, not facing secret police on motorcycles in the streets of Tehran.
Hence, the use of social media around these protests also warrants a few reminders:
- The population of internet-savvy and Twitter-connected Iranians is limited. And it’s a population that’s part of a very specific demographic (young, urban, affluent) that tends to support a specific type of candidate (in this case, Moussavi).
- While it is extremely valuable to view firsthand reports of events on the ground, it is also worth recognizing when these are from someone who is completely invested in one side of the conflict. It’s worth remembering that these may be representative of only certain groups of people.
- A large number of people reading, commenting on, and re-tweeting this information are doing so without any context. This highlights the danger of social media oversimplifying political issues that are incredibly complex. It is misleading, for example, to imply any similarities between the Obama and Moussavi candidacies. Look at Moussavi’s history in Iranian government, and ask yourself if you know details of his political intentions.
- The real-time nature of Twitter allows important information to go viral, but it also allows some questionable ideas to go viral. Think about and digest what you read; don’t swallow before chewing.
- Social media latches onto fads, but it can drop them just as quickly. How many will follow Iranian politics once the #IranElection tweets stop flying?
I hope this post doesn’t sound like I’m trying to put a huge damper on the power of social media for social change. I am simply responding to the flurry and the hype with a cautious reminder to be conscious and to respond with questions and challenges. But I want to end this on a positive note. I think that social media truly is a powerful means of giving local struggles a globally connected platform. Social media can be an effective tool for advocacy and communication, allowing the driving forces of a movement to garner the support and exposure that can be so vital. I am currently working on strategies for nonprofits and activists to use social media, so I clearly believe that these tools introduce important potential.
So let’s remember that these tools are new, and we are only just learning their limits and powers as they are tested. Tools can open new doors, as long as we are intentional about how we wield them. As we discussed in this post last week, there’s a fine balance between the tool and how you use it. So let’s make the most of those progressive and powerful uses with the awareness and sincerity that they merit.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Thought provoking, as always, Zoë. I am reminded of a conversation I had with one of my elders in Germany. He said that when Hitler took over, a lot of people thought it was just a passing fad and that he’d get booted out as soon as people saw through his rhetoric. The trouble was, those few who did speak out were silenced. Thus, by the time a critical mass of people actually sensed the dangers, they were too frightened to speak out because they heard no one else rebelling. Very few of us have the courage to be the lone voice in the wilderness. This, I think, in an extreme scenario, is where social media can play an enormous role to empower those who may otherwise think that they are all alone in their concerns. As you so rightly point out, however, that can cut both ways. People with fringe ideas of racism, hatred, etc. can feel empowered when their blogs are viewed by thousands of people.
I have always tried to instill in my students and in my children the value of using your own good judgement and criteria. NEVER believe everything you hear or read; weigh it, find an opposing view to see if it can stand up to criticism, chew on it before you swallow. The problem with having so much information out there is that there is rarely time to weigh it all judiciously.
An excellent post, as always. It has been fascinating watching a global movement take place over the elections in one very repressive regime. Moussavi is indeed not Obama, not by a very long margin.
The issue I’ve had with social media as a means of spreading news is that it’s so easy to spread rumour as news without couching it as rumour. It comes across as truth without being verified.
Since I write fiction that is focused around the way that totalist regimes use and control information and access to it (not to mention the spread of it), to manage their people, it’s fascinating to see this change in the world. If people can organise easily and quickly with these kinds of technologies, and the clever can get around any blocks, control becomes much more difficult for repressive regimes. It’d be fascinating to see how Twitter might affect future activism elsewhere – China, for example. The only limitation for these people is having access to electricity and a computer or a mobile. It’s fascinating.
.-= Joely Black´s last blog ..Feeling the pressure, just a little bit =-.
Very accurate assessment. In my sense the Twitter folks have gone overboard marketing the tool as some sort of answer when it is but a means for communication. I think they dread the cycle of platforms disappearing before they have even attained their full growth. In the end, while we all enjoy the new cell phones as they come out, none of us get all that excited by the wall phones in our homes. And essentially, Twitter will fall back into the back ground of import, like the pencil. It’s the potential in what any single person decides to do when they pick up the pencil that is exciting.
.-= Richard Reeve´s last blog ..The Fruits =-.
@ Joely – Yes, I think there is exciting potential in new technologies … I’ve been fascinated recently while reading about truly innovative programs launched with simple mobile phones that can help rural farmers in an African country, for example. I think there will always be this fine balance we need to speak when implementing technology for change — it can be just the tool to bring out the best of us, but only if we consciously negotiate that balance. I think it’s so intriguing that you’re exploring these themes in Amnar.
@ Laura – I think that’s the heart of the issue that you’ve hit upon — the need to engage our own critical minds in the face of ever-increasing information. It really does require active efforts. Your story about Germany certainly is an extreme example, but it’s very real. I’ve read some studies on Hitler’s rise to power, and it’s truly incredible to try to comprehend… human behavior can be mind-boggling, but there are deep patterns.
But you’re right — one of the superpowers of the internet is connecting people who otherwise, for various reasons, would not connect. For good or for bad. But I guess most tools can be used for good or bad, so we have to figure out how to let the positive uses evolve.
@ Richard – Keen insight — that cycle is such an integral part of these technologies. It really highlights how our strategies and mindsets are more important than the tools at hand. As you imply, I think it’s important to maintain an “outside” perspective — i.e., not become so swallowed by the technology that you can only see through that lens.
Zoë I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. Kia ora!
What if the government blocking of many networks had not been so efficient? What if Twitter hadn’t been around at that time?
What if both these situations had existed at the election time? And this could well have been the situation. Then what?
What if the government initiatives had been such that they stopped all the holes in networking including Twitter? What then? This was probably a chance occurrence, but like any matters of chance, it depends on the passage of time and the opportunity.
The possibilities for human action are always there. It’s not the technology. It’s the way people are – innovative, creative, inventive, opportunistic, all of these.
Catchya later
@ Ken – Spot on — the timing and circumstances highlighted social media usage in our view, but it’s not the technology that provokes human action. If Twitter had been blocked somehow, the protests wouldn’t have stopped…
What we can do more than stando in front of guns?