Through the debate, my perspective on Dean’s overall view hasn’t so much changed as it has evolved somewhat as a result of the debate. My stance has remained largely unchanged- Dean’s view that social media has inhibited change was never something I totally agreed with. That being said, my personal view is now that social media creates change, but that the change may not necessarily be positive. This position was reinforced by the discussion that was created through the debate.
In my role as a member of the rebuttal team within my group, I was responsible for defending the position of my group- that the impact of social media is one that inhibits change. Though my groups positions were quite thoroughly taken apart, through the process of building our overall stance, my views were tempered by concrete examples. My views changed in that they were initially surrounding the idea that social media in general is a negative thing. Though I had no specific gripe with social media itself, my belief was and still is that large groups of people in general will struggle to accomplish meaningful or positive change.
This view was made more concrete through research- by understanding that failed revolutions such as the Egyptian Revolution or the greater Arab Spring were made possible by social media, I am now able to view social media in more concrete terms as it pertains to my belief going into the debate. I believe that my role in rebutting the other group’s point was key in this evolution of my view on the issue. By largely losing that argument, I was exposed to views that I still disagree with, but also recognize as at least partly valid.
Listening to the other debate impacted me at least partly, but it didn’t have the effect that actually participating in my debate did. This is partly due to parameters of the debate being somewhat unclear at the time- the other groups, as it was pointed out during the debate, were stuck in the unenviable position of going first and thus weren’t allowed the advantage of further clarification on the debate itself.
As a result, I wasn’t able to draw a totally clear picture of Castell’s view from the debates themselves as a result of this. From what I was able to gather, however, it appears that Dean’s view is more focused on the human element of change, while Castell’s view was centered on how institutions used platforms. This is what I gathered from the debate, as the against group’s argument was largely centered on a government or a corporation was able to use previous modes of communication to subjugate the populace and prevent change.
My view leaving the debate is now as follows: that social media is not necessarily instrumental in creating change, but that its use can act as an engine for change. However, as masses are involved, that change may not be positive, as movements can be hijacked by either institutions or other groups, as we saw with the Muslim Brotherhood during the Egyptian Revolution.