"Protests
like this one, fueled by social media and erupting into spectacular
mass events, look like powerful statements of opposition against a
regime. And whether these take place in Turkey,
Egypt or Ukraine, pundits often speculate that the days of a ruling
party or government, or at least its unpopular policies, must be
numbered. Yet often these huge mobilizations of citizens inexplicably
wither away without the impact on policy you might expect from their
scale.
This
muted effect is not because social media isn’t good at what it does,
but, in a way, because it’s very good at what it does. Digital tools
make it much easier to build up movements quickly, and they greatly
lower coordination costs. This seems like a good thing at first, but it
often results in an unanticipated weakness: Before the Internet, the
tedious work of organizing that was required to circumvent censorship or
to organize a protest also helped build infrastructure for decision
making and strategies for sustaining momentum. Now movements can rush
past that step, often to their own detriment."
The basic point here is a good one. The Internet makes gathering large protests much easier, so they happen more frequently. BUT, we can't lose sight of the fact that protests are a tool, not an end. There must be some structure and some thought as to what the ultimate goal is for a movement to succeed. So while we can be amazed at the size of the muscle (protests), we have to also look for the bone, or the structure behind it. I think this is a good way to look back at the Occupy movement. There was a great job getting people on the street, but not enough built up behind it. I think a lot of Occupy people are now working on that structure, having caught the bug on the street.
No comments:
Post a Comment