Social Media Use for Activism: Two Views
In today's digital age, social media has become a powerful tool for engaging citizens in various forms of activism. While it offers numerous advantages, it also comes with its share of drawbacks. In today's post, I'll explore what I think of as this optimistic view and the pessimistic view of this debate.
Optimistic View
According to Thapliyal (2017, p. 49), "Virtual connectivity and information availability on an unprecedented scale has been conflated with the arrival of direct, egalitarian democracy and the removal of all barriers to citizen empowerment, engagement, and social transformation...Tweets, blogs, online petitions, voting apps, and sundry other digital technologies have apparently ‘fixed’ the traditional challenges of mobilising, organising, and funding mass political action."
According to Ozga (2019, p. 23), "Social media are said to reach a broader set of actors, often those excluded from traditional politics, and to enable more open and representative public consultations. Proponents of social media point to its capacity to educate young people about the world in direct and appealing ways, and to develop their capacities for navigating in that world."
Basically, in the optimist's view, the advent of social media heralds a new era of egalitarianism and participatory democracy.
Pessimistic View
Thapliyal (2017) points to several flaws in the optimistic view. First is the question of access. Who has access to Web 2.0 technologies? And, if you have access to it, do you have the knowledge and skills to use it? Thapliyal (2017) also questions whether social media and Web 2.0 technologies really bring us together when it is widely acknowledged that social media tends to be an echo chamber rather than a melting pot of viewpoints. Put succinctly, the pessimistic view according to Thapliyal (2017, p. ) states, "We have known for some time that more voices and more knowledge do not easily translate into more or deeper democracy." Ozga (2019) points to the risk of positioning citizens as spectators instead of active participants through promotion of performative politics and activism using Web 2.0 technologies.
Conclusion
Social media is a double-edged sword in the realm of activism. While it offers unparalleled opportunities for outreach, engagement, and community building, it also presents significant challenges and risks. By understanding and addressing these pros and cons, activists can better leverage social media to drive meaningful and impactful change.
References
Ozga, J. (2020). The politics of accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 21, 19-35.Thapliyal, N. (2018). Eduresistance: a critical analysis of the role of
digital media in collective struggles for public education in the USA. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 16(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2017.1356701
I personally hold a more pessimistic view of activism on social media. I often witness the echo chamber, and see people push out any views that are not their own. So much of the political discussions on social media have become so decisive, and I'm not sure how we as a society can move away from that. I end up not posting anything on social media that may cause arguments, as it is not something that I personally want to deal with.
ReplyDeleteHi, Jen! Personally, I do too. It's becoming more and more rare for people to agree to disagree. Too often, disagreement is accompanied by name-calling and insults.
Delete