Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Slacktivism vs. Activism


Social media and advanced technology has indeed created an environment where individuals and networks can connect across geographical boundaries. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have assisted in bringing international attention to global atrocities and horrendous acts of violence. However, in our praise of the Internet, we must be sure not to dismiss the painful years of blood, sweat, and tears that made the Social Media Revolution so powerful during the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring did not happen because social media amplified the voice of bloggers and journalists. Instead, the Arab Spring gained international exposure because bloggers and journalist in the Arab world had been preparing for that moment and social media just served as a tool to leverage their voice.  The uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia were the result of activism and not slacktivism. Slacktivism is when social media is used alone with hopes of effectuation change. Activism consists of on- the ground action that has been in the works for a significant period of time.

Social media in the service of PD offers a wide array of benefits. However, before assigning a social media solution to every situation, context must be considered. The use of social media can be beneficial depending on the particular country. The reason why social media worked in Tunisia is because citizens spent over a decade building online networks and relationships. Social media outreach did not fair too well in Syria because internet penetration is not as high and anti- opposition is strong. Internet freedom plays a huge role in measuring how well social media is compatible to the work of PD.  In order to strengthen the work of PD, it would be beneficial to work diligently toward the goal of making sure that citizens have the right to express themselves freely through digital networks.  Journalist, bloggers and social activists already have the tools to effectuate change. Social media would only provide a mechanism to give them a voice where they have traditionally been silenced.

2 comments:

  1. I know I am not supposed to just respond that I like this post. But, I do. You are saying exactly what I was trying to say in my post, though vastly more articulate than myself. Social media is only one tool, and in public diplomacy it is sometimes not the appropriate tool to use. As you say, context must be a consideration. So I am going to ask you a question instead of just praising you for agreeing with me. Do you think that, if journalist and traditional media sources were free to report on the atrocities committed by the various regimes, that new social media networks would still be a concern today? The impact, as I see it, of social media in the Arab Spring was that internationally communities had constant updates of what was going on at the ground level. So, if their press were able to reach outside, where would social media stand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Dominique;

      Thanks for the feeback and discussion. I agree that if journalists and traditional media sources had the freedom to report atrocities commited, the role of social media would change drastically. In fact, I think social media would be used to a greater extent and leveraged even more effectively. These traditional media outlets would then have the opportunity to amplify their voice to the international audience without certain restrictions. However, this freedom will produce consequences and certain regimes may change their policy to completely restrict traditional media from gaining access to sources and important docuements. Overall, social media would only amplify the voice of traditional media instead of replacing the medium.

      Delete