Throughout the readings and discussions we have had these past months I have started to think more and more how these terms we use have an impact on the political discourse. I have to say that when it comes to international relations this is a problem because as we know international relations are not fixed, not the politics, its relations or even the actors.
When we look at soft power as is explained by Joseph Nye “The soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority)”. This related back to the previous power play in the world when there main international players were the nation states and their ability to build lasting and strong relationships were crucial for their hard power relations. With other words historically soft power at times was crucial for nation-states to keep its position and be able to have a say in anything regarding the international agenda.
As we have moved forward in time and more players has got a place on the international arena and also since hard power is not as critical as before since wars between nation-states has diminished during the last decade.
So what can we talk from all this and maybe more so who is doing the public diplomacy in the 21st century? Is it really the advocates chosen by the nation-state or should we even consider the deeds of the civil society to have a role producing soft power for the nation-state and if so how does that change the role for those people that actually hold a position within the field of public diplomacy.
What I wanted to do with this post is not only to raise the question who is producing the soft power from the nation-state and also how we should consider these “fixed” terms like – soft-power. Maybe international scholars need to be more on top on the fact that these terms might be regarded more like a process then a fixed term in by doing so also be able to see the change.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Public Diplomacy
I think this week's blog is going to be pretty short, considering I spent most of the past few days immersed in my case study. What I'm going to do instead of an in-depth analysis is just discuss the concept of public diplomacy.
Until relatively recently I didn't know there was an actual name for public diplomacy - I deemed the concept "how to make friends and influence people abroad." How effective is it really, in this day and age where people can glean information from so many sources? I think back to the documentary last week on media in the Middle East, and how few people watch the American news outlet in Lebanon. The days of Cold War-style propaganda are gone - I think.
Since I'm not subject to it, I don't really have a good perspective on the US's public diplomacy efforts at this time. But spreading international goodwill and promoting the US as the heart of freedom in the world will do nothing without solid actions to back such claims up, and while still acting in a manner contrary to the image that is being sold.
My other thought is whether or not I'm subject to public diplomacy by other states. If I am, as an American, it's certainly not overt. But I'm curious...I think that's something I'll have to keep an eye out for.
Call it public diplomacy, propaganda, promoting influence/soft power...but no matter the moniker, it's a necessary tool in today's increasingly globalized society. It's up to the producers of such information to target the intended audience in a way that works with a multitude of information sources, so it can't just be turned off and discarded - but also in a manner that complements the audience's existing attitudes and beliefs, not launching a campaign in direct opposition.
Anyways, I'm going to keep this short because it's been a long weak, and I'm ready for Thanksgiving.
Until relatively recently I didn't know there was an actual name for public diplomacy - I deemed the concept "how to make friends and influence people abroad." How effective is it really, in this day and age where people can glean information from so many sources? I think back to the documentary last week on media in the Middle East, and how few people watch the American news outlet in Lebanon. The days of Cold War-style propaganda are gone - I think.
Since I'm not subject to it, I don't really have a good perspective on the US's public diplomacy efforts at this time. But spreading international goodwill and promoting the US as the heart of freedom in the world will do nothing without solid actions to back such claims up, and while still acting in a manner contrary to the image that is being sold.
My other thought is whether or not I'm subject to public diplomacy by other states. If I am, as an American, it's certainly not overt. But I'm curious...I think that's something I'll have to keep an eye out for.
Call it public diplomacy, propaganda, promoting influence/soft power...but no matter the moniker, it's a necessary tool in today's increasingly globalized society. It's up to the producers of such information to target the intended audience in a way that works with a multitude of information sources, so it can't just be turned off and discarded - but also in a manner that complements the audience's existing attitudes and beliefs, not launching a campaign in direct opposition.
Anyways, I'm going to keep this short because it's been a long weak, and I'm ready for Thanksgiving.
The Public Diplomacy Dilemma – Clashing Perspectives to Message Transfer
There are many occasions in this class where we spoke about the false search of many to find a message to serve as a magic bullet to convince the masses. We first heard about this idea in Weaver’s speech in Japan about the history of cross-cultural communication. He said that initially theorists and governments held similar beliefs – that there is a simple transfer of a message from the sender to the receiver, and that if the message is received in full by the receiver, then they will believe what they hear. Many other authors debated over whether or not people are simple minded in this way and are “cultural dupes.” Weaver showed that presently, cross-cultural communication has evolved to share many different factors that affect message success. Many authors have overcome this misconception that people are cultural dupes as well.
This week in Corman, Trethewey, and Goodall’s reading, we rehashed this discussion in a new light. Corman et al discussed the flood of information in a competitive present day world wherein constant fights for message-transfer success exist. They discussed how, unfortunately, the United States bases its public diplomacy strategy on an outdated Message Influence Model that uses the telephone as a framework. This model is littered with problems, some of which include the lack of acknowledgement that just simplifying a message and spreading it amongst a population as deeply as possible will prove to be successful. They fail to realize that there are flaws not just with their ignoring basic cultural differences and the role of the individual in message reception, but also that message consistency and coordination is another problem that needs to be tended to.
Corman et al propose a new model, the Pragmatic Complexity Model, which emphasizes a double contingency and mutual interdependence. They encourage the US government to break out of traditional narratives and to focus on the long term impact of a message over short term struggles.
The Pragmatic Complexity Model, to Corman et al and to myself, is a much more realistic model and one that should be applied. I don’t agree with, say, the CNAS's suggestion to consider abandoning public diplomacy all together, but on the contrary, I think that the US should have a public diplomacy reality check. I think that the overall answer can be pulled from the video we watched in class on Al Jazeera English. In it, two US soldiers made a statement about how people in the West need to understand that there are other world views and that there is not one correct way to govern and live. If, in this situation, the government would be more willing to understand that they need to do a lot more homework in understanding a local foreign population, that they need to avoid judgment and a superiority complex, and that PD should be a dialogue, then public diplomacy will be much more successful overall. The Pragmatic Complexity Model would be a great start.
This week in Corman, Trethewey, and Goodall’s reading, we rehashed this discussion in a new light. Corman et al discussed the flood of information in a competitive present day world wherein constant fights for message-transfer success exist. They discussed how, unfortunately, the United States bases its public diplomacy strategy on an outdated Message Influence Model that uses the telephone as a framework. This model is littered with problems, some of which include the lack of acknowledgement that just simplifying a message and spreading it amongst a population as deeply as possible will prove to be successful. They fail to realize that there are flaws not just with their ignoring basic cultural differences and the role of the individual in message reception, but also that message consistency and coordination is another problem that needs to be tended to.
Corman et al propose a new model, the Pragmatic Complexity Model, which emphasizes a double contingency and mutual interdependence. They encourage the US government to break out of traditional narratives and to focus on the long term impact of a message over short term struggles.
The Pragmatic Complexity Model, to Corman et al and to myself, is a much more realistic model and one that should be applied. I don’t agree with, say, the CNAS's suggestion to consider abandoning public diplomacy all together, but on the contrary, I think that the US should have a public diplomacy reality check. I think that the overall answer can be pulled from the video we watched in class on Al Jazeera English. In it, two US soldiers made a statement about how people in the West need to understand that there are other world views and that there is not one correct way to govern and live. If, in this situation, the government would be more willing to understand that they need to do a lot more homework in understanding a local foreign population, that they need to avoid judgment and a superiority complex, and that PD should be a dialogue, then public diplomacy will be much more successful overall. The Pragmatic Complexity Model would be a great start.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Biased Audiences
I knew I was forgetting to do something, I just thought it was something along the lines of not paying my cable bill or forgetting to feed my fish. I don't have a fish anymore, but that's beside the point.
But the idea I've had stewing in my mind since Thursday has to do with the Powers and el-Nawawy article - how they note that audiences who turn to Al-Jazeera English for their news tend to be less dogmatic in their political views and analyses. What this assumes is a Western audience, particularly one that is American-based. My question is, for an audience in, say, the Middle East, does watching the BBC or CNN in addition or in place of Al-Jazeera make their views less dogmatic? That is, if dogmatism comes from paying attention to media organizations that reinforce one's worldview. While Al-Jazeera is an excellent news organization, like all others one cannot say that no bias nor slant exists.
Getting people to change their viewing patterns is hard, to change opinions even harder. I wouldn't watch Fox News without being compensated a tidy sum, and even if I did I know it would not cause a shift in my opinion. But I may be the atypical news consumer, as the average audience likely doesn't analyze the source of their news and what the organization's aims and biases may be. In my opinion, anyone who buys that Fox News is indeed "fair and balanced" likely doesn't do too much thinking about what they're learning on the news and accepts most things at face value. I realize how arrogant I'm about to sound, but I'm fully aware that NBC, which is my primary news source, has a liberal bias. Which, fulfilling one of Powers and el-Nawawy's theories, goes hand in hand with my liberalism. I follow a news outlet that reinforces my world view, I admit it. But NBC and its affiliates aren't my only sources - I also get my news and analysis from the BBC, the Guardian, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe, the Economist, and Al-Jazeera English. Before Rupert Murdoch got greedy and decide to put up a paywall on The Times of London, I read it too. Obviously, I don't have time to comb all these sources every day. If I did, I'd never get anything else done. But I diversify where I get my information, and I like to think that I'm not dogmatic in my views. But I acknowledge my biases, and filter my information. I don't take something at face value just because it comes from a source in line with my political views. It's not an easy thing to do, but necessary.
Another thing on my mind is the unavailability of Al-Jazeera English in the United States. I find it absurd that they have a bureau here in DC, but I can't access it with my basic Comcast setup (hmm, maybe I do need to pay the cable bill...). Yet I can get all the Fox News I want. Unfortunately I think if I called Comcast and asked for them to remove Fox News from my available channels and replace it with AJE I'd get laughed off the phone. I'm with what the military analysts making the rounds to news outlets in the Middle East said - there's nothing wrong with exposing people to ideas. Ideas themselves are not dangerous, alternate views are not dangerous. Just because a news organization doesn't constantly laud the United States and its actions seems to be enough for cable and satellite providers to band together to keep it off the air in North America. Censorship, it seems, is alive and well.
Now for that cable bill...
But the idea I've had stewing in my mind since Thursday has to do with the Powers and el-Nawawy article - how they note that audiences who turn to Al-Jazeera English for their news tend to be less dogmatic in their political views and analyses. What this assumes is a Western audience, particularly one that is American-based. My question is, for an audience in, say, the Middle East, does watching the BBC or CNN in addition or in place of Al-Jazeera make their views less dogmatic? That is, if dogmatism comes from paying attention to media organizations that reinforce one's worldview. While Al-Jazeera is an excellent news organization, like all others one cannot say that no bias nor slant exists.
Getting people to change their viewing patterns is hard, to change opinions even harder. I wouldn't watch Fox News without being compensated a tidy sum, and even if I did I know it would not cause a shift in my opinion. But I may be the atypical news consumer, as the average audience likely doesn't analyze the source of their news and what the organization's aims and biases may be. In my opinion, anyone who buys that Fox News is indeed "fair and balanced" likely doesn't do too much thinking about what they're learning on the news and accepts most things at face value. I realize how arrogant I'm about to sound, but I'm fully aware that NBC, which is my primary news source, has a liberal bias. Which, fulfilling one of Powers and el-Nawawy's theories, goes hand in hand with my liberalism. I follow a news outlet that reinforces my world view, I admit it. But NBC and its affiliates aren't my only sources - I also get my news and analysis from the BBC, the Guardian, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe, the Economist, and Al-Jazeera English. Before Rupert Murdoch got greedy and decide to put up a paywall on The Times of London, I read it too. Obviously, I don't have time to comb all these sources every day. If I did, I'd never get anything else done. But I diversify where I get my information, and I like to think that I'm not dogmatic in my views. But I acknowledge my biases, and filter my information. I don't take something at face value just because it comes from a source in line with my political views. It's not an easy thing to do, but necessary.
Another thing on my mind is the unavailability of Al-Jazeera English in the United States. I find it absurd that they have a bureau here in DC, but I can't access it with my basic Comcast setup (hmm, maybe I do need to pay the cable bill...). Yet I can get all the Fox News I want. Unfortunately I think if I called Comcast and asked for them to remove Fox News from my available channels and replace it with AJE I'd get laughed off the phone. I'm with what the military analysts making the rounds to news outlets in the Middle East said - there's nothing wrong with exposing people to ideas. Ideas themselves are not dangerous, alternate views are not dangerous. Just because a news organization doesn't constantly laud the United States and its actions seems to be enough for cable and satellite providers to band together to keep it off the air in North America. Censorship, it seems, is alive and well.
Now for that cable bill...
Friday, November 12, 2010
Media and the Individual
In class this week we discussed the news. We talked about their choices in story selection and reporting, about the conflict that is presented and whether the news itself can lead to conflict and policy change, among other topics.
What I’m curious about is how people tend to view programming that is aligned with their own worldview. Powers and el-Nawawy discussed in their study of Al Jazeera English, CNN, and BBC viewership, that viewers want reaffirmation of their opinions from their media. They said that people don’t want to be “informed” of what their opinions should be.
I think that people want to be right. It makes sense to me why people would not want to see the other side of a situation. News is already stressful because of the controversy in the stories that are shown. By adding on alternative viewpoints, people might become more agitated – the opposite of what I personally would want at the end of a long day at work. In addition, people look to social cues to develop their values, ideas, beliefs, and cultures. It makes perfect sense that people would want consistent approval and, sometimes guidance, to continue feeling secure in their existence and choices. People like to have a path and to be part of a community.
I think though, that there are other factors influencing these choices. I think there is more to consider than just the viewpoint being presented in a program. There is also the factor of why these controversial stories are chosen in the first place.
There are many authors that we read who discuss the decline of good journalism. Hafez presents many features of the structure of foreign reporting and the way in which irrelevant news is emphasized along with a “failure to examine significant developments and problems.” Cottle discusses types of staging of global and how we live in a very “negatively globalized planet.”
I think that the fact that 24 hour news coverage is extremely difficult to keep up with plays a large role. With so many sources for news in the present day, I could see how people would tend to tune out happy stories about, say, a cat being saved from a tree. This is not controversial, and will apply to many worldviews (there are very few cultures, I would assume, that would not want to see a cat saved), but this story would not captivate people for long; they would not want to watch the news channel for extended periods of time. By showing stories with drama and conflict, regardless how superficial they are, people will get more entangled in the story and be more likely to watch longer or to tune in multiple times. This ups viewership and, therefore, the survival of the channel. We also discussed the decline of foreign correspondents as a result of money issues. This definitely adds to the challenge of keeping interesting stories and viewership.
I am curious how, with the sentiment by many consumers that the media is not as credible as it used to be and with the rampant frustrations of viewers with the media, people will move forward in their search for news and, ultimately, the reaffirmation of their values through information consumption. I think that major media stations are in for a difficult road ahead.
What I’m curious about is how people tend to view programming that is aligned with their own worldview. Powers and el-Nawawy discussed in their study of Al Jazeera English, CNN, and BBC viewership, that viewers want reaffirmation of their opinions from their media. They said that people don’t want to be “informed” of what their opinions should be.
I think that people want to be right. It makes sense to me why people would not want to see the other side of a situation. News is already stressful because of the controversy in the stories that are shown. By adding on alternative viewpoints, people might become more agitated – the opposite of what I personally would want at the end of a long day at work. In addition, people look to social cues to develop their values, ideas, beliefs, and cultures. It makes perfect sense that people would want consistent approval and, sometimes guidance, to continue feeling secure in their existence and choices. People like to have a path and to be part of a community.
I think though, that there are other factors influencing these choices. I think there is more to consider than just the viewpoint being presented in a program. There is also the factor of why these controversial stories are chosen in the first place.
There are many authors that we read who discuss the decline of good journalism. Hafez presents many features of the structure of foreign reporting and the way in which irrelevant news is emphasized along with a “failure to examine significant developments and problems.” Cottle discusses types of staging of global and how we live in a very “negatively globalized planet.”
I think that the fact that 24 hour news coverage is extremely difficult to keep up with plays a large role. With so many sources for news in the present day, I could see how people would tend to tune out happy stories about, say, a cat being saved from a tree. This is not controversial, and will apply to many worldviews (there are very few cultures, I would assume, that would not want to see a cat saved), but this story would not captivate people for long; they would not want to watch the news channel for extended periods of time. By showing stories with drama and conflict, regardless how superficial they are, people will get more entangled in the story and be more likely to watch longer or to tune in multiple times. This ups viewership and, therefore, the survival of the channel. We also discussed the decline of foreign correspondents as a result of money issues. This definitely adds to the challenge of keeping interesting stories and viewership.
I am curious how, with the sentiment by many consumers that the media is not as credible as it used to be and with the rampant frustrations of viewers with the media, people will move forward in their search for news and, ultimately, the reaffirmation of their values through information consumption. I think that major media stations are in for a difficult road ahead.
How to Make Global News Global in the 21st Century
What has come to my attention after the reading this week is, what is global news and can we really call the global reporting we have today global? There are a few things that we have to consider when talking about global news. First of all the news presented today are always presented through the lens of our own culture (or someone else’s), second of all we tend to view news that reflect our general world view – something that could be seen as leading to a division of the world instead of a inclusion of the global public sphere, the third concern would be the index hypothesis – which means that the news presented often come from official spokes people, one example would be the Iraqi war where the reporting was dominantly built on public reports, last we have something called contextual objectivity – which means that although the reporting is objective it is still in tune with the audience expectations.
If we look a little bit closer at these concerns raised above we will be able to see the opportunity for change.
As mentioned all media presented, even though it is objective it is presented from a specific cultural lens. We highlight, frame and use symbols so that our audience will take the news seriously – although that can affect the content and the actual meaning can get lost on the way.
As we have learned in previous readings the framing of the news is crucial for how people identify themselves with the news, is it ordinary news, extraordinary news or is it emergency news? Are we seeing something that is happening far away that is just the “others” or does it feel like we are witnessing the crimes in our living room? Many scholars tend to think that global news only fuel the division of the world instead of bringing it together – due to the framing of the news.
Another problem that could be tied to international relations is that of the index hypothesis, if the nation-state is the main source of information the news will definitely be presented in a way that will strengthen the view of the national interests.
To meet the audience expectations also somewhat reflect our international relations today where multinational corporations can set the agenda for its consumers and its audience, the views get what they want. Many times people do not question what they see and in what extent it is objective.
The opportunity as I see it when I read between the lines is to create a global organization/institution that will have reporters from around the world that will be presenting the news from their cultural lens when it is something concerning that country. One of the problems is that global news often focuses on issues that do not go against the sovereignty of that country. What we see today is reporting about wars and natural disasters, very seldom do we see local obstacles that people are facing within their nation-state. Since this is something that does not affect “us” on the other side of the world we do not care about it. If media has such a big effect as suggested in many readings and if it is able to push for certain decisions there is a need to consider a new form of reporting. To have an independent institution for reporting free from state-control and corporation interest maybe global news could actually be called global news.
If we look a little bit closer at these concerns raised above we will be able to see the opportunity for change.
As mentioned all media presented, even though it is objective it is presented from a specific cultural lens. We highlight, frame and use symbols so that our audience will take the news seriously – although that can affect the content and the actual meaning can get lost on the way.
As we have learned in previous readings the framing of the news is crucial for how people identify themselves with the news, is it ordinary news, extraordinary news or is it emergency news? Are we seeing something that is happening far away that is just the “others” or does it feel like we are witnessing the crimes in our living room? Many scholars tend to think that global news only fuel the division of the world instead of bringing it together – due to the framing of the news.
Another problem that could be tied to international relations is that of the index hypothesis, if the nation-state is the main source of information the news will definitely be presented in a way that will strengthen the view of the national interests.
To meet the audience expectations also somewhat reflect our international relations today where multinational corporations can set the agenda for its consumers and its audience, the views get what they want. Many times people do not question what they see and in what extent it is objective.
The opportunity as I see it when I read between the lines is to create a global organization/institution that will have reporters from around the world that will be presenting the news from their cultural lens when it is something concerning that country. One of the problems is that global news often focuses on issues that do not go against the sovereignty of that country. What we see today is reporting about wars and natural disasters, very seldom do we see local obstacles that people are facing within their nation-state. Since this is something that does not affect “us” on the other side of the world we do not care about it. If media has such a big effect as suggested in many readings and if it is able to push for certain decisions there is a need to consider a new form of reporting. To have an independent institution for reporting free from state-control and corporation interest maybe global news could actually be called global news.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
The Dictator's Dilemma
I did a lot of thinking about my group's case study on Iran and its (failed) "Twitter Revolution" this week, as it was extremely relevant to both the readings and class discussion. But it was Elizabeth Hanson's discussion of the "dictator's dilemma" that has me contemplating Internet usage in authoritarian states, and state vs. citizen power.
China has a massive censorship system, blocking access to websites with dissenting views or anything that could reveal negative opinions of the government - particularly many western-based news and social networking sites. At the same time, China is one of the world's largest Internet users as a country, and yet it falls under such severe restrictions. Granted, much of the censorshiop is done via self-policing, and Internet users wishing to access blocked sites have found ways to get around the system, such as proxy sites.
The dictator's dilemma is about how much governments should control the Internet in authoritarian states, regarding citizen access, but at the same time the Internet can be a valuable tool for governments to disseminate their messages/propaganda. If Internet is restricted completely, then the government lacks that easy propaganda outlet. The dilemma is...have restricted Internet access, with the goal of keeping away opposition views but also be able to spread government-sanctioned information...or no Internet at all?
People will always find a way to get the information they want, censorship be damned. The question is whether or not the government should make it easier or more difficult, and whether authoritarian governments should use the Internet to their own advantage...and to what degree?
China has a massive censorship system, blocking access to websites with dissenting views or anything that could reveal negative opinions of the government - particularly many western-based news and social networking sites. At the same time, China is one of the world's largest Internet users as a country, and yet it falls under such severe restrictions. Granted, much of the censorshiop is done via self-policing, and Internet users wishing to access blocked sites have found ways to get around the system, such as proxy sites.
The dictator's dilemma is about how much governments should control the Internet in authoritarian states, regarding citizen access, but at the same time the Internet can be a valuable tool for governments to disseminate their messages/propaganda. If Internet is restricted completely, then the government lacks that easy propaganda outlet. The dilemma is...have restricted Internet access, with the goal of keeping away opposition views but also be able to spread government-sanctioned information...or no Internet at all?
People will always find a way to get the information they want, censorship be damned. The question is whether or not the government should make it easier or more difficult, and whether authoritarian governments should use the Internet to their own advantage...and to what degree?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Global Activism in the 21st Century
This week’s readings got me thinking about the different results you get from pressuring different actors. In the readings we have seen various examples of successes and also failures to organize and make change. The 21st centuries way of activism differs a lot from the traditional way of activism and one of the reasons is because of the tools we use to spread information and organize around certain issues.
Both Bennett and Juris highlights that the new for of activism and especially global activism has come as a result of the economic globalization and as a response to the neo-liberal capitalist market where the multinational and transnational corporations has got much more influence today.
One of the successes mentioned is the protest against corporate globalization at the World Trade Organization in Seattle where 50,000 people attended on November 30th 1999. The diverse coalition of environmental, labor and economic justice activists came together and succeeded to shut down the meetings. This was the start of the new form of global activism and quickly after the “battle of Seattle” people started to create decentralized all-channel forums. These mechanisms was to generate physical and virtual communication and communication in real time among diverse movements, groups and collectives. If we move a little bit ahead we will see where we stand today when it comes to global activism especially in regards to the internet and what makes it so unique. First of all the organization is decentralized which means that anyone can join and that the information exchange is relatively open.
In contrast to the success in the case mentioned there has been a social movement in Iran called the “Green revolution” where the public sphere got together and used twitter to form actions and spread knowledge and information on what happened during and after the election in 2009. People in Iran used twitter to try to organize the civil society for different protests and actions. What happened here was that the totalitarian government reacted to this movement in different ways, they put up fake websites with misinformation and the also monitored the planned protests and in that way scared people to take action. In other words, they let the people vent what they want and then they crack them down. But what happened was that the United States picked up on all of these tweets and the external attention made the “twitter-movement” become much bigger than it actually was. There were news coverage and the civil society in the US lobbied Twitter to keep it open so that the people in Iran were not troubled in any way. So in conclusion there was a movement that was closely monitored by the government and therefore it did not get the same effects as the “battle of Seattle” and another problem was that the connection/flow between the different nodes was not transmitting the same information.
What we can take from this is that global activism even though it works in the same way even though the matter is different it depends a lot on who you are direction it to and also the information flow between the different nodes.
Both Bennett and Juris highlights that the new for of activism and especially global activism has come as a result of the economic globalization and as a response to the neo-liberal capitalist market where the multinational and transnational corporations has got much more influence today.
One of the successes mentioned is the protest against corporate globalization at the World Trade Organization in Seattle where 50,000 people attended on November 30th 1999. The diverse coalition of environmental, labor and economic justice activists came together and succeeded to shut down the meetings. This was the start of the new form of global activism and quickly after the “battle of Seattle” people started to create decentralized all-channel forums. These mechanisms was to generate physical and virtual communication and communication in real time among diverse movements, groups and collectives. If we move a little bit ahead we will see where we stand today when it comes to global activism especially in regards to the internet and what makes it so unique. First of all the organization is decentralized which means that anyone can join and that the information exchange is relatively open.
In contrast to the success in the case mentioned there has been a social movement in Iran called the “Green revolution” where the public sphere got together and used twitter to form actions and spread knowledge and information on what happened during and after the election in 2009. People in Iran used twitter to try to organize the civil society for different protests and actions. What happened here was that the totalitarian government reacted to this movement in different ways, they put up fake websites with misinformation and the also monitored the planned protests and in that way scared people to take action. In other words, they let the people vent what they want and then they crack them down. But what happened was that the United States picked up on all of these tweets and the external attention made the “twitter-movement” become much bigger than it actually was. There were news coverage and the civil society in the US lobbied Twitter to keep it open so that the people in Iran were not troubled in any way. So in conclusion there was a movement that was closely monitored by the government and therefore it did not get the same effects as the “battle of Seattle” and another problem was that the connection/flow between the different nodes was not transmitting the same information.
What we can take from this is that global activism even though it works in the same way even though the matter is different it depends a lot on who you are direction it to and also the information flow between the different nodes.
What Influences the Tools that Influence You?
Does viral marketing work on YOU? Does any marketing work on you, for that matter? The idea of the “Third Person Effect” is so amusing to me, yet it is so true. The effect states that if someone asks an individual, “does this type of marketing work on you?,” then that individual is likely to answer that, “oh no that definitely doesn’t work on me… but it could certainly work on other people.” Ironically, I think that most people would deny reacting in this way, but there is no doubt that we all do.
In class we discussed this topic as a leeway into the Padovani article. Padovani was a local citizen, participant, and observer in the L’Aquila social movements. After a devastating earthquake struck the city, the government decided to choose that location for the G8 summit to highlight the town’s solidarity. Critics argued that the location was chosen to showcase their reconstruction efforts to the global media while simultaneously keeping closer surveillance on the G8 protesters. Nevertheless, the town, despite its history of political control (versus the Italian North’s history of democracy and citizen participation), rose up together in a movement that incorporated not just ICT tools, but, as Padovani highlights, individual and peer-to-peer connection and mobilization techniques. There were various types of tactics that were chosen, all nonviolent (although conflict arose between militant and non-militant protesters), which included a silent march, signage, various other social forums, etc.. One main focus was on the MediaLab.
One of Padovani’s main points is in the need for interpersonal connections and ideas behind the use of media itself. Media is just a tool, and as in the Third Person Effect implies, media and ICTs are used to influence people and are not effective by themselves. Padovani argues that the traumatic event mobilized the citizens and promoted democratization from below through their use of public spaces and various communication tactics.
I think that other examples exist in our readings too as various authors discussed the topics of social movements and the need for the motivation behind a movement and technology use. Those who argue that technology is the answer for a grand utopia and change in the way in which citizens mobilize and express themselves are generalizing and are overlooking the fact that these are just new and modern tools.
We covered a range of topics this week… but I personally keep coming back to this idea of how people can influence others with the assistance of tools, and how people may not necessarily realize that they are being influenced. Whether through interpersonal connection and the MediaLab in the case of L’Aquila, or through the momentum of a social movement and the ideas that drive it, people really are affected by the messages they receive, and I would argue that it is the people and the ideas that are behind them, regardless of the technology that they are presented through.
In class we discussed this topic as a leeway into the Padovani article. Padovani was a local citizen, participant, and observer in the L’Aquila social movements. After a devastating earthquake struck the city, the government decided to choose that location for the G8 summit to highlight the town’s solidarity. Critics argued that the location was chosen to showcase their reconstruction efforts to the global media while simultaneously keeping closer surveillance on the G8 protesters. Nevertheless, the town, despite its history of political control (versus the Italian North’s history of democracy and citizen participation), rose up together in a movement that incorporated not just ICT tools, but, as Padovani highlights, individual and peer-to-peer connection and mobilization techniques. There were various types of tactics that were chosen, all nonviolent (although conflict arose between militant and non-militant protesters), which included a silent march, signage, various other social forums, etc.. One main focus was on the MediaLab.
One of Padovani’s main points is in the need for interpersonal connections and ideas behind the use of media itself. Media is just a tool, and as in the Third Person Effect implies, media and ICTs are used to influence people and are not effective by themselves. Padovani argues that the traumatic event mobilized the citizens and promoted democratization from below through their use of public spaces and various communication tactics.
I think that other examples exist in our readings too as various authors discussed the topics of social movements and the need for the motivation behind a movement and technology use. Those who argue that technology is the answer for a grand utopia and change in the way in which citizens mobilize and express themselves are generalizing and are overlooking the fact that these are just new and modern tools.
We covered a range of topics this week… but I personally keep coming back to this idea of how people can influence others with the assistance of tools, and how people may not necessarily realize that they are being influenced. Whether through interpersonal connection and the MediaLab in the case of L’Aquila, or through the momentum of a social movement and the ideas that drive it, people really are affected by the messages they receive, and I would argue that it is the people and the ideas that are behind them, regardless of the technology that they are presented through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)