Before the debate, I found the article accurately outlines the problems of American politics and the media surrounding it. I found Dean’s argument pretty compelling, but my experience as an international person outside of American politics meant I already had a different perspective, especially considering social media played a huge role in the 2018 Malaysian General Elections and it’s because of social media that we were able to vote out the incumbent government and vote in the opposition for the very first time since the formation of Malaysia. So already I viewed Dean’s argument as reflective of the state of affairs in the US, but it is not necessarily applicable internationally, especially since we have widely different political situations and priorities. Whilst preparing for the debate as an assessor, I read the article with the intention of analyzing both sides of the resolution. It’s a continuation of my prior perspective on the article in my initial reading.
Before working on this debate, I had a fairly simplified understanding of the relationship between social media and sociopolitical change. After seeing the debates, I had a slightly more nuanced understanding of this relationship. Listening to Castells’ debate seemed to confirm some of my own perspectives on the relationship, especially in regards to my personal experience witnessing the recent Malaysian General Elections. A lot of the connections and unity in Castells’ article I did witness on a milder scale back in Malaysia, especially with a lot of the voting efforts being coordinated over social media. We were updated in real time what was happening at the polls around the country, and people coordinating as well to keep elections fair. Particularly Dean’s perspective introduced a different side to social media, as it was really helpful in detailing the fragmentation and stalemate in American politics on social media, the concept of “technological fetishism” was fairly illuminating in how social media could be used to pacify the political energy of the public. A significant difference of both articles is the immense unity in Castells’ perspective contrasted with the fragmentation and dispersion in Dean’s perspective.