Will the Revolution Be Tweeted - Assignment Example

of the of the Concerned 7 December Will the Revolution be tweeted? The political unrest and revolutions in the Middle East in the recent times have given way to much debate regarding the relevance of social media in political upheaval and activism. A number of experts and bodies of opinion are busy building theories around the role played by social media in Arab Spring Revolutions. The sad thing is that the audiences to which such discourses are targeted many a time fail to identify the stereotypical assumptions, agendas and biases underlying such debates. This is because most of the experts who are supportive of or are humble about the role of social media in revolutions, by default assume the persona of liberal and inclusive thinkers. In that context the question as to whether the revolutions of the future be tweeted seems narrow and prejudiced, if one interprets it from the perspective of the Western media, political thinkers and strategy makers. To make the discussion take a more pragmatic course, it will be very realistic to say that no, the revolutions of the future will never be tweeted. Social media may qualify to be a potent tool in the hands of the revolution, but it is certainly not a very important determinant so far as the success of any political unrest or upheaval is concerned. It is a fact that the contemporary Middle East witnessed serious mass protests and political upheaval, much of which was recorded, disseminated and supported by the local social media users. However, much of the discourse regarding the analysis and theorizing of the role of social media in the Middle East upheavals is originating in the West. At least it seems to be so, considering the power of the conventional Western media. Moreover, most of the experts theorizing on the political and revolutionary relevance of social media are actually defining the meaning and goals of the political concept of ‘revolution’ in a highly Western centric way. For instance in his article, Clay Shirky begins the debate on social media, by framing it in the context of the US policy of promoting “internet freedom (Shirky 30).” Further, Shirky goes on to attempt a critique and analysis of the evident US policy, without taking a minute to question the sincerity of the US ideal of “internet freedom (Shirky 30)”. Nowhere does he make a mention of the extensive US espionage and monitoring of the traditional and new media in the post 9/11 scenario. For that matter, he totally forgot the WikiLeaks scandal and the consequent hounding of Julian Assange. The Shirky article got published in 2011, or a mention of Edward Snowden will have also been relevant. In that sense Gladwell does come out as a more honest analyst, as he does analyze the power of social media in forwarding political change by drawing insights from the local historical landmarks like the Civil Rights movement (Gladwell 1). However, his discourse totally fails to consider the role of social media in aiding the contemporary Western political activism pertaining to race, ethnicity and gender. In a way Gladwell assumes the contemporary West to be the Mecca of political freedom and justice. The thing is that such omissions may not be a matter of chance. Perhaps, they have a hidden agenda. Any argument favoring the dictators like Assad, Saleh, and Qaddafi will indeed be inhumane and evil. However, when the Western opinion makers analyze the role of social media in aiding revolutions and political repression, they mean particular kind of revolutions. The non-democratic ideologies covered by them mostly lie in foreign lands. The political unrest they cover is again in foreign and exotic lands. The “internet freedom” they support is again to be practiced by political setups in the foreign, unfriendly and mostly non-Western nations. To them the less dramatic and non-violent local revolutions or their political outcomes like the immigration reforms initiated by the Obama administration touching 11 million invisible US immigrants, mostly non-white, or the unofficial referendum in Catalonia participated in by 88 percent Catalans are neither revolutions, nor the type of political upheavals, whose social media angle needs to be talked about or theorized. A majority of the people, scholars, and opinion makers in the Middle East that have witnessed the Arab Spring Revolutions do strongly believe that the local autocratic regimes need to be done away with and replaced by alternative political setups. However, the domination of the social media debate with regards to the Middle East revolutions by the West in a way intends to dominate the form and configuration of these ‘alternative political setups’. In his paper, Shirky criticizes the “instrumental view” regarding the US policy of favoring internet freedom, which overestimates the broadcasts emanating from the West (Shirky 31). However, if one takes into consideration both the Arab Spring videos, they adhere to a strategy that is even more sophisticated than the “instrumental” interventions. In both the videos, compiled, edited and interpreted by the Western media sources, one could identify a support for a kind of democracy that is defined by the West, a need to militarily help the repressed populations that is highly choosy (Farmar 1). The whole idea is to compile a montage of the atrocities committed by the dictatorial regimes in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia and to make the viewers see it through the eyes of the social media activists, who are Westernized, probably exiled, and thousands of miles away from the way of harm (Farmer 1). This approach extends to these videos much credibility, as almost all the interviewees in it are local. The sad thing is that both these Arab Spring videos portray thousands of common people adhering to the most traditional means of conducting a revolution, which are raw courage, a willingness to sacrifice one’s life and the willingness to face massive blood baths that have always been the raw material for most of the revolutions (Framer 1). It indeed feels so depressing to see a handful of social media activists, who did a brave thing by recording these sacrifices and blood baths, trivialize the sacrifices made by many common people, many of whom did not afford any internet connectivity. Many of these activists interviewed in these videos claim to have coordinated or organized these acts of defiance. Yet, surprisingly, they are alive, and appear to be leading a relatively privileged life. Both the videos do say that the regimes in Libya and Egypt did jam digital connectivity, yet it failed to contain the revolution (Farmer 1). Yet, this visible insignificance of social media in these revolutions is interpreted in a way that happens to support the role of social media. It would indeed be true to say that the premise extended by Gladwell that effective political unrest requires a disciplined and well managed hierarchy, which cannot be provided by social media networks (Gladwell 1). However, the strong Western insistence on overestimating the role of loose and scattered social media networks in the revolutions in Egypt and Libya has a purpose. Almost all the important Western powers do favor a democratic way of governance in the Arab nations destabilized by revolutions. However, they are not willing to recognize some of the key local players who extended the hierarchical and organized leadership required to lead these revolutions to a meaningful end. This is because these local players talked a language, favored an ideology, which is not acceptable to the West. This is irrespective of the fact that these local players favored democratic elections. Both the Arab spring videos highlight the unorganized, loose, undirected and safe role played by the social media players in these revolutions. They do make mention of the fact that it was the Islamists who initiated the revolutions in Benghazi and Egypt (Farmer 1). But, that is all. However, the limited recognition extended by the West to the democratically elected Morsi government, or absence of Western opposition to the overthrowing of his government does say much. Certainly, the Muslim Brotherhood may not be the best supporters of liberal thought and political pluralism. Still, the important question is whether it is the West who will solely decide as to which players may have a role in the democratic setup it tends to support in the Middle East? The Kony 2012 videos do prove as to the powerful role that social media can play in aiding political activism that is managed by an organized, planned, committed and hierarchical organization (Invisible Children 1). However, experts like Shirky may downplay it, because in most of the nations impacted by the Arab Spring, such hierarchical and organized leadership can be extended by either the Islamist political parties or the pro-west army. Hence, no, the revolutions of the future will not be tweeted. At least not in the nations governed by non-Western, non-democratic, autocratic and repressive regimes. Still many Western opinion makers may not like to accept it. This is because going by the fact that it is the West that dominates the interpretation and theorizing of the political relevance of social media. This privilege may allow the West to impose its own meaning and agenda on the political revolutions in the Middle East and many other parts of the world. Works Cited Farmer, Sam. “How Facebook Changed the World- The Story of the Arab Spring. Episode 1”. Vimeo 2010. Web. 7 December 2014. Farmer, Sam. “How Facebook Changed the World- The Story of the Arab Spring. Episode 2”. Vimeo 2010. Web. 7 December 2014. Gladwell, Malcolm. “Small Change: Why the Revolution will not be tweeted’. The New Yorker 4 October 2010. Web. 7 December 2014. ‘Kony 2012”. Invisible Children. YouTube 5 March 2012. Web. 7 December 2014. Shirky, Clay. “The Political Power of Social Media”. Foreign Affairs January/February 2011. Web. 7 December 2014. Read More