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.

When considering social media and its impact, one fundamental question must be considered, does social media enable sociopolitical change? People like Castells, in his article “The Egyptian Revolution”, would argue yes. Since he focuses on a real life example, the Egyptian Revolution, it is hard to disagree with him. He makes it clear, in regards to the origins of the movement, “that the original spaces of resistance were formed on the Internet” (Castells 57). I myself agreed with most of his points, and the general conclusion it led towards.

When I was assigned the position of opposition, specifically co-leading the rebuttal, towards the resolution “Be it resolved that social media enables sociopolitical change” I had to reconsider the whole article contrary to my original standpoint. This time my reading was sceptical of everything that was said. My scepticism questioned if the singular example of the Egyptian Revolution was enough evidence to back this resolution, as revolutions happened before the internet. Our approach to the article changed completely, it became a ‘playbook’ for all the arguments we knew our opponents would use. Taking everything in the article with a grain of salt, we compiled a list of smaller counterarguments, from a number of outside sources, that I could make in the rebuttal if they mentioned any of the article’s main arguments that we were expecting. We also made sure to note any contradictory statements Castells made that went against the resolution, such as his mention of the revolution continuing without the presence of the Internet (64).

Despite my approach of skepticism, my own opinion on the resolution hardly changed. It was clear that there is grounds to skepticism when regarding social media’s impact on larger movements such as the Egyptian Revolution, but this is just one example. However, in listening to the arguments made by the groups debating the Dean article, specifically the for side, it was clear that all social impacts have grounds for skepticism regarding the role social media plays in them. They specifically showed this with the forgotten intent of the Ice Bucket Challenge, and making reference to the Egyptian Revolution never having led to a total positive change. Through their debate, it was clear that the question should be to what degree does social media play a role in sociopolitics, and furthermore if the impact has a net positive or negative outcome.

While Dean focused on a variety of examples when considering social media’s impact, allowing for more open discussion, Castells focused narrowly on the Egyptian Revolution which directed arguments away from sociopolitical change in general and towards revolutions. However they both provide important insights, showing that both perspective should be considered before making up one’s own position.

Since I was in the group that argued for the premise ‘Be it resolved that social media enables sociopolitical change,’ the readings were in line with my beliefs and simply heightened my conviction that social media is a powerful tool in times where people’s voices are suppressed. Though I have always been a proponent of social media’s ability to create social change, Castell’s article and the points raised by my peers during the debate opened me up to alternate perspectives.

Castell’s article brought to light specific events that took place during The Egyptian Revolution which had high emotional appeal and evidence that clearly supported our stance. It was particularly gripping because it showed how social media united the world for one single cause despite several differences, and it helped me understand how ‘powerless’ individuals can come together and form a counterpower against ‘powerful’ institutions like the government body in Egypt. Moreover, I found that the opposing group raised interesting points by citing historical events where social media was not accessible and thus, a revolution took place physically. These were events I was unaware about and it definitely increased my appreciation for the traditional forms of protest used in previous ages. This, however, did not deter my group’s opinion that traditional forms of protest are valuable but social media in this new age is necessary for cultivating actionable change since it appeals to newer generations. Of all these points, the most notable argument for me was from the other debate with the premise ‘Be it resolved that social media inhibits sociopolitical change,’ wherein the against group rebutted the other group’s point of how social media has negative impacts on sociopolitical situations by identifying that negative change is also counted as ‘change’. I feel as though that was a convincing argument because it takes into account the resolution directly and addresses that social media enables change, positively and negatively. This point struck out to me because, in my debate, I feel as though we were biased because Castell’s article mainly points out positive sociopolitical change so we were not able to recognize the true meaning of the premise.

All in all, my belief that social media enables social change and can complement traditional methods of protest and rebellion changed only in the sense that I, now, more strongly believe that social media is a tool that new generations must use to unite more social groups because it truly can create an insurmountable impact.

Works Cited:

Castells, Manuel. “The Egyptian Revolution.” Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age(2015): 54-94.

In the debate on the topic ‘Be it resolved that social media inhibit the sociopolitical change,’ my speaking position was the first speaker who provided the opening statement for the opposition team. To discuss against the proposition, we predicted what issues that another team might use to claim their standpoint, at this same time, I tried to point out issues that our team can take benefits from and state them in the opening statement to lead the discourse to our advantageous track. We drew the point that social media has been used as a tool for coordination and contributions of voices of the population without political intervention. Regardless of Dean’s perspective that highlights the individuality of voices, we argued by referring to the volume of content people have made online which we believe the high column conveys large impacts and raises social awareness.
In response to Dean’s article, my understanding of the context hasn’t changed much at the end. Dean’s provides both instances to the subject but his dominant viewpoints benefit the ‘for’ team rather than the opposing view. Therefore, I biassedly disagree with his opinion in some contexts. However, after I have listened to other team’s arguments on this topic, I tend to agree that in some situations, such as in Ice Bucket Challenge phenomenon, people did not pay attention to the actual results and that is when social media became merely a platform for message circulation. Plus, the subjectivity of the topic raised an objection to the quality of the impact as mentioned to the Egyptian revolution.

In Castells’s debate, the proposition side emphasized the function of online platforms that allow people to access and transmit political information and views. In this manner, the internet users contribute the awareness which leads to sociopolitical changes as Castells exemplifies in the Egyptian Revolution. This case, in particular, that fact that the revolution had still proceeded nonetheless, even though the government permitted the use of the internet, brought me an idea that changes take place in different forms and in dissimilar conditions. Yet, social media remains part of it.
The distinctive difference between Dean’s and Castells’s is that Dean makes his strong standpoint and gives many examples to support his views while Castells mainly disposes of the relationship from the Egyptian Revolution. Besides, their positions to the social media and sociopolitical change contrast. Therefore, these two articles contribute to different perceptions which are not comparable.

Throughout the debate, I still believe that social media plays an important role in sociopolitical changes, but the volume of impact may depend on each different setting, situation and political purpose. However, I also found that the active change in the current sociopolitical environment is challenging to create, and requires more than an online stream but political power and influence.

Works cited
Dean, Jodi. “Ch.1.Technology: The Promises of Communicative Capitalism.” Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duck University Press, 2009. 19-48.

Castells reveals the role that social media played in the Egyptian revolution, which leads to the question—does social media enables sociopolitical change? After reading his piece, I believed that social media played a vital role in the Egyptian revolution because his powerful examples showed that social media indeed had a catalytic effect on sociopolitical change. Castells mainly focused on social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. and reveals the impact of these social media platforms had on sociopolitical change was spreading information. In other words, it increased people’s awareness of the event. However, I was in the AGAINST side and I was doing the CLOSING STATEMENT. What I supposed to do is listen carefully to what my group stated and what my opposing group’s opinion and make a conclusion. Thus, what I had to do was to read his article again from a different perspective. Finally, we found the pieces of evidence that Castells claims that the revolution was never incommunicable after the government shut down the Internet (64). Consequently, our group focused on the truth that there were still sociopolitical changes without social media in the early stage by giving the example of Tiananmen Square revolution in China which happened in an era without social media. However, the key to the debate is listening to what our opposing group’s argument and it turned out that the examples we used weren’t persuasive enough. Thus, the debate truly changed my point of view after listening to others’ opinions.

By listening to other group debate, we know that Dean stands on an opposite point of view and gives rise to another controversial question that “does social media inhibits sociopolitical change?”. Thus, the main difference between Castells and Dean is obvious that their viewpoints on social media are opposite that Dean focuses on the invalidity of the voices people made online. From my perspective, the relationship between social media and sociopolitical change depends on various standpoints and the two articles from Castells and Dean are the best evidence to prove it.

Overall, the debate gave everyone in the class a chance to speak out. Compared with other activities we had in class like group discussion, almost everyone participated in the debate. Last but not least, the debate was a reflection of teamwork that it offered us opportunities to learn how to cooperate with others.

works cited

Castells, Manuel. “The Egyptian Revolution.” Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age(2015): 54-94.

After taking part in the heated discussion in ASTU class earlier last week, I feel like I gained more insight on the topic from both sides considering I was put into the assessing group. Before the debate started, I gathered information on the subject and tried to put myself in the shoes of the ‘for’ group first. I thought about which points they might argue and how they would support those ideas. As ‘for’ the ‘against’ side, I mostly focused on how they would perhaps respond to the claims of the ‘for’ side and how they would go about refuting those claims.

To my surprise, some things discussed were things that I had thought of beforehand, such as the case of reliability and social media. After partaking in the debate, I can safely say that most of my views on the Castell’s reading remained the same even after both groups displayed their own views on it. I felt like the ‘for’ group mostly addressed how the news of the revolution spread with the help of social media and that social media had most certainly allowed this sort opportunity ‘for’ the revolution to gain more followers. The ‘against’ side had some interesting things to say about this exact topic, they argued how social media was in fact incredibly alterable and vulnerable to manipulation by the government and other anti-revolutionary parties in order to help achieve their goals. Overall, I definitely think my assigned role made me see, and judge the reading through a somewhat more objective lens while trying to assess the strength and possible weaknesses of the reading.

Listening to the Dean groups argument, more than anything, helped me get a better understanding between the terms ‘inhibit’ and ‘enable’. In my opinion, the Dean debate featured more definitive claims and points when compared to Castells. The way they talked about social media and the way that it tends to miss the point and drift off the initial point struck me, given the ALS ice bucket challenge example. But considering all things, I do not believe that my view on social media and sociopolitical change a whole lot because the things that were mentioned and supported were already somewhat in my radar and therefore inspired no actual difference to the way I think on these matters.

Before the debate, as a member of the assessing team, I read the Dean’s article to find evidence for both FOR and AGAINST perspectives. I actually used to believe that social media is a kind of platform that enforces sociopolitical change, but when I was reading the Dean’s article, I found out it was easier to provide evidence for the FOR side, for the reason that Dean actually, in her whole article, emphasizes on how social media inhibits sociopolitical change. For example, as for the technology fetishism, people believe that they are contributing a lot online—making their opinion known by others, while they actually do not have the ability to change legislation or start a revolution (Dean 31-32). As for the AGAINST side, Dean actually focuses on American politics, but we, as assessors, argue that whether it is true when applied to the international environment.

During the Dean’s debate, it is undeniable that both teams give abundant examples and strong arguments. As for the FOR side, they provide recent examples such as Ice Bucket Challenge. And the AGAINST side, they mention the Me Too, which is a perfect example to support that social media actually does make a huge change, but in my opinion, they go off the topic a little bit for the reason that they have put too much emphasis on the argument that social media has raised social awareness rather than made any substantial changes.

As for the Castell’s debate, I realize that Castell actually supports social media for the reason that social media help to inform the world about the Egyptian Revolution. But Castell seems to only focus on a small area in the world—Egypt. I think the main difference between Dean’s article and Castell’s article is that Dean puts her emphasis on the US politics while Castell puts his emphasis on the Egyptian Revolution. Different emphasizes and different examples used in these two articles help to support the completely different opinions of Dean and Castell.

After the debate, I believe that social media actually have an important role in the socio-political change, no matter positive or negative. Social media function as a perfect platform for people to know and share their opinions about the sociopolitical events. But it is still obvious that social media only raise our awareness, and it is difficult to change the sociopolitical environment dramatically just by commenting or following others online.

Reference
Dean, Jodi. “Ch.1.Technology: The Promises of Communicative Capitalism.” Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Duck University Press, 2009. 19-48.

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.

The Castells article focuses on the positive ways that social media enables sociopolitical change with the Egyptian Revolution being the key example. He goes through what happened in the revolution and explains the ways that social media was used to the benefit of those participating and fighting for the cause. While reading the piece, it was difficult not to see from Castells’ perspective when he is persuasively writing to make his point, especially because I agreed with some of his points before I read them because I had watched The Square. However, I had to look at what both sides could potentially say because I was on the assessing side and in doing so, I found a few flaws in the article’s argument. I was able to see counter-arguments such as the drowning of voices on big platforms, how easy the internet could be accessible for those who want to sabotage such change, and how the so-called “change” on social media could just talk without action. My perspective didn’t exactly change after the debate but I could see some points for the side against.

My relationship with social media and sociopolitical change has remained, for the most part, the same. I found the documentary The Square to be the most impactful and Castells’ article simply reinforced what I already believed and understood. Listening to the Dean debate did take me out of the Egyptian Revolution to see that maybe the situation that happened in Egypt was a rare case where people’s voices actually did have an impact, compared to Dean’s thoughts that social media creates a space where there are so many voices that no one is taken seriously. It did get me thinking and take the idea of sociopolitical change to my own hands. I find that so many people have important things that need to be seen or spread on social media that never see the light of publicity but when people can come together to talk about the same thing, often the individual voice doesn’t matter. What matters is that there are people that are gathering together to speak out about the same thing and that must count for something.

Manuel Castells’ chapter, ‘The Egyptian Revolution’ focuses on how social media was able to bring about a sociopolitical change in the state of Egypt at a time of political instability and uncertainty.  I was assigned this reading and i was rebutting arguments in favor of the resolution. Since i always knew that i’d be presenting arguments in favor of the resolution, i read the chapter having THAT mindset. In my honest opinion, my perspective on the chapter didn’t really change much because i already agreed to everything Castells mentioned about the importance of social media the chapter.

Castells focuses on the crucial role of technology and social media platforms in what he deems the “internet age”(Castells,67). As his thesis, Castells proposes to suggest some hypotheses, grounded on observation, on the nature and perspectives of networked social movements, with the hope of identifying the new paths of social change in our time.He explores the roles that Facebook, Twitter and the internet play in disseminating information, organizing rallies, planning the occupation of public spaces, and forming collective agendas with which to address the respective movements’ goals.The occupation of public spaces organized through the use of internet and wireless technology over social media networks ultimately changed the traditional protest or demonstration into what Castells and many others call the new social movement. The hybrid nature of these movements is what made them different and arguably stronger than their traditional counterparts.

While listening to the opposing group didn’t completely change my opinion on the importance of social media to bring about sociopolitical change, it certainly did lead me to think about how in earlier times, traditional movements actually DID take place without the use of social media. There were some real life examples used by the opposition which did prove to be compelling arguments for eg. how the Chinese revolution was a massive success even though it was set in a time where social media wasn’t prevalent and how social media did prove to be a slight hindrance in the 2016 US presidential elections.

One major difference between Castells and Dean’s perspective on social media was how they viewed it. Castells believed that social networking platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were used to document the spontaneous demonstrations that erupted across the country to help spread the message for change, and to connect with fellow protesters. Using these mediums, they successfully organized the occupation of symbolic public spaces like the Tahrir Square.The combination of internet activism and thorough, non-stop coverage from Al Jazeera which worked with protesters in trading information together helped strengthen and magnify the movement. Dean on the other hand viewed social media as something that was extremely frivolous and believed that content on such sites were not taken seriously. While many social movements were touted as “raising awareness”, in reality, such movements help nothing but the egos of those running them. At best, they were hollow facades that advance nothing, and actively harm the movements they “support” at worst. By examining the flaws of the most popular social movements, it will be clear that social media was unable to effectively contribute to sociopolitical change.

In conclusion, this debate was an interesting activity that helped bring to life various contrasting views on social media and also helped expand one’s thinking horizon.