Being on the for side in Dean’s reading, I was thrust headfirst into total cynicism for social media causes, though I never had much stock in such movements to begin with. After participating in the debate, I have subjectively determined my position on the matter. At the risk of sounding like a contrarian, it was a total wash. To put it simply, social media can create sociopolitical change, but I still have never seen an instance where it creates a direct, positive change. Dean’s reading tended to favour both sides, as the against side displayed. I felt no strong way about the reading overall: yes, Dean’s readings were prophetic, but due to my cherry picking for points, I feel like my experience has been maligned by the bias of my argument. The opposing side made very salient points, but the subjectivity of the arguments made me question some of them. For instance: The Square was successful in its goals in the short-term, but as of this year, another dictator is squatting in Mubarak’s place. Is that change? This lies in the eye of the beholder, everyone’s answer will be different. This argument was one of the many expressed during the debate, and in truth, there is no easy answer.
The against side presented arguments that I didn’t see coming, in the sense that their arguments were well presented, authentic, and held considerable weight. Presenting rebuttals was troublesome, and the short length of the debate led me to regret my chosen points. As stated earlier, there’s no easy way to debate this topic: many scholars have pointed out the strengths and shortcomings of social media in the modern world, and the topic is heavily divided. While I still stand under the centrist banner of “It’s a wash”, I can easily see people buying into the power of social media for movements, political or otherwise.
Castells’ reading focuses on the Egyptian revolution, giving a frame of reference for the points on social media and its place in sociopolitical change. The focus is razor sharp, and encompasses the Arab Spring in a thorough manner. Dean’s is much more free form, taking examples in a liberal manner with variety. There’s no rigidity in structure. I believe using Dean’s points contributed to a much more ‘open’ discussion. That being said, the debate’s length went by quite quickly, from opening statement to closing. Overall, it was a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.