For the debate, I was a part of the “against” side for Dean’s resolution, “be it resolved that social media inhibits sociopolitical change.” Prior to the debate, upon hearing the resolution, I disagreed immensely because I strongly believed that social media enables sociopolitical change, because I have seen first-hand the discourse online when there is a political crisis, or when certain groups are trying to make a change. Social media certainly, in my view, does not inhibit sociopolitical change. Whether it enables it is, as Dean suggested, merely up to the environment and time period.
When, however, my team began to do research for the debate, I was able to understand how the opposing side may have a valid argument. Dean explains in their article that social media has a very high volume of content always circulating, and because of this voices do not always get heard. I still stand by my position, which is that social media does not inhibit sociopolitical change, but I was more willing, after doing some research, to understand how it is all dependant on the setting. For example, an online movement in the USA, where the majority of the population have mobile devices and social media accounts, may cause a larger impact than somewhere where the general population does not have access to such resources.
Castell’s argument, as I understood it, was mainly about how the media enables sociopolitical change by creating a new way of communication that does not rely on spoken language. This definitely changed my perspective of the topic, because I had only looked into that effect of social media (the use of images and videos) very slightly for my own debate. Castell comparing this phenomena to animal communication helped me understand it even more. Castell’s and Dean’s major difference was just the way they thought about social media; Dean looked at it as some giant pool of content that we have to sift through to find meaning, whereas Castell, from what I gathered, sees social media as an extension of our own senses, a new way to communicate and gather information.
Overall, my general position on the resolutions has not changed, but instead my understanding has grown deeper. The other side of the debates have valid points, but their argument only helped me understand my own more clearly.