Gabriella Coleman – Toward a positive critique of the social web |
In an expansive critique of the social web, argues Gabriella Coleman, one must also include those instances and examples whereby social web technologies fulfil important political work and transformations. If we limit ourselves only to a negative critique—whereby we point to the wholesale problems of social media —we risk providing a counter narrative that is as problematic as the Web 2.0 hype that we wish to interrogate.
The core of Sunstein’s critique can be summarized rather succinctly as the following: while many new interactive software technologies are seen to offer an arena for critical (and liberal) democratic dialogue—a virtual meeting ground to test and rethink one’s core political beliefs and commitments—they in fact work to reinforce people’s political positions and views, a phenomenon of balkanization he calls “the Daily We.” Geert Lovink makes a similar though more trenchant critique, exploring what he portrays as a nihilist, self-inflating, and cynical culture produced by bloggers and blogging.
However important and perceptive these arguments are, they overlook some important points. In the case of Sunstein, his characterization of politics is of a world divided in stark and binary terms—right vs. left, liberal vs. conservative. While these sorts of simplifications are often necessary to formulate an argument and are ingrained in the American political imaginary, it is important to recognize that the political field, even in the United States, is far more diverse than he suggests. For example, liberal democrats and progressives often don’t see eye-to-eye and activists part of a global social justice movements are formulating more radical positions than so called progressives. Conservatives, of course, also come in various overlapping but at times incompatible sizes and packages. The political sphere in Europe is even more diverse than in the U.S. and even recognized as such by their mainstream media outlets. If we recognize this diversity then we can start researching whether there are forms of political dialogue that might be occurring among a group people generally lumped together, for example as “liberals” who upon closer inspection actually hold a variety of different positions, even if they tend towards one side of the political spectrum. We can ask in our research and critiques whether there really is such an extreme balkanization or whether the landscape is actually more fluid. And if it is, we can ask whether social media technologies, such as blogs, provide platforms not for radical political conversion but for a more subtle and modest transformation of political views and dialogue than envisioned either by Lovink or Sunstein.
Now let’s assume that as they postulate, the cross-pollination of the sort I described is rare; that indeed, social media technologies produce “communities of like minded people” whereby “debates happen within homogeneous Weblog clouds” (p. 21). Even if this were the case, omitted from their analysis is the important element that certain social media technologies would nonetheless serve a valuable political function for their ability to fuel and revitalize political convictions and commitments. As Jeff Juris, an anthropologist who works with counter-globalization activists has shown, activist videos of protests and protest abuse are important not because they necessarily alter the opinions among the general public (and in fact he demonstrates how they often don’t), but because of their ability to renew political commitments among the very activists who produce them.[1] He demonstrates, in other words, that preaching to the choir is not as bad as either Lovink or Sunstein make it out to be in so far as it guarantees continued participation. Political passions are never a given but must be produced and constantly reinvigorated throughout time. Given the extreme political apathy and cynicism in our midst, one of the critical functions of social media technologies just might lie in their ability to facilitate the continued participation in the political arena and this will include fomenting political positions across the political spectrum.
To end my reflection on the importance of these technologies for activist publics, I turn to two brief examples of how activists of the counter-globalization movement used social media technologies in the past and are using them in the present. These examples will serve to challenge the historical periodization of Web 2.0-like technologies, and affirm their importance, although in ways that highlight the need to address questions of control and ownership in our critique of social media.
The word Web 2.0 was coined by publishing giant Tim O’Reilly to differentiate technologies of the present (wikis, IM, blogs, emdedeed videos) from their immediate predecessors such as email and static web pages. These second generation technologies, he claimed, allowed for more interactivity, flexibility, and participation than the earlier ones. While it is certainly the case that the software he discusses only came into mass proliferation and circulation recently and brought with it more user-friendly interfaces than their predecessors, activist organizations, such as Indymedia collectives, were in fact building and deploying technologies that fit squarely into the Web 2.0 paradigm, and years earlier. For example, they built content management systems that allowed for user generated content, including rich media sharing such as video and audio, mass participation, as well as interactive participation and commenting. Arguably these technologies were at the basis of Indymedia’s initial growth at the start of the 21st century.
My understanding was that people have been doing this already for some time.
But lets take a step back here… what *is* 2.0? We aren’t talking about
version 2 of the software here, as Indymedia has gone through multiple
versions and multiple different instantiations of software using
multiple different programming languages. What is being referred to as
2.0 is the mythical Web 2.0 that is tossed around like a light salad. So
this question becomes “Dream up Indymedia so it catches up with what
the Web 2.0 bubble is doing” because what they are doing is SO exciting
and we are SO behind.Web 2.0 is: user-contributed content, citizen journalism, semantic web,
blogging, enabling individuals to create their own content (video,
audio, text stories, etc.) — wait a minute, this sounds an awful like
that drum beat that Indymedia has been sounding from 1999 onwards.
While social movements have grown more adept at using the web to communicate publicly, we are still mostly using inadequate tools to communicate amongst ourselves. Most groups rely heavily on email, lists, and wikis—but these tools are not suited for the complexity of relationships that activist organizations face in the real world. There are many existing social networking websites out there. However, these offerings are geared toward the needs of advertisers or informal social groups. They are not suitable for organizing work. There are also many existing web services for group collaboration. These sites are typically designed for small businesses and do not match the needs of movement organizations.
[1] Jeffrey Juris, ‘YouTube, the Border, and the Cultural Politics of Seeing’, paper Presented at the Digital Subjectivities Panel Annual Meetings of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C., November 28 to December 2, 2007.
Special issue: social web
Tags:
gabriella coleman, geert lovink, indymedia, movements, software, web2.0
March 4th, 2008 at 19:05
The medium is the meswsage?Coleman’s article offers a balanced view on the issue of the political potential of Web2.0 technologies.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:43
Interested in deed. It’s good to share ideas. Obviously the next step of forming new groups to act under the same ideologic formation built in the web2 environment, raises the subject of leadership. It’s crucial to deside the kind of ideal leadership that meets the needs of self-expression and self-discipline within a group of activists. Web2-techs seem friendly and easy-communicative. Meet the need for speed in everything. On the other hand trust and selfishness, the eternal contradicting forces in any common effort, need time to settle,among the group and deeply in the individual’s mentality as well. There is much to be done.
March 18th, 2008 at 17:22
Exactly what is this article trying to say? Or, is it mainly an initial descriptive analysis? Then what are the objectives and desired outcomes (of this presentation and the author)?
E.g., where is the positive critique of the social web to lead?
Web 3.0 is already on the way. Do we want to have a say and what sort of say? Then, what kinds of actions based on what knowledge are required?
Yes, leaders are needed and they must pull things together. They cannot be traditional political leaders.