My group and I were assigned the task of arguing against Dean and the resolution that social media inhibits socio-political change. While I am an avid social media user and a believer in technology’s advantages, I have always been interested in hearing what the naysayers think. While reading Dean’s article, I found observations that I, for the most part, found to be valid. For example, the idea that developments in technology have heralded in the strange combo of democracy and capitalism, in turn creating a new ideological formation in the online political sphere, (Dean, 23) seems reasonable to me. I find that while it is true that social media has allowed a platform for many to speak their mind and gain a following, it allows the same for politicians and corporations (especially in recent years) giving capitalistic ideals a back entrance into the normal civilian’s lifestyle. A millionaire president tweeting at his followers about his plans is arguably a more direct approach than announcing so on television. However, when reading more of Dean’s article, I found that many of her statements would not hold up in today’s social media platforms. I went into the debate with the intention to debunk Dean by bringing up how her statements wouldn’t necessarily ring true in 2018. As my role in the group was to bring one of two rebuttals, I focused on bringing down the idea that one’s political statement was “a drop in the ocean of cultural and political stuff engulfing us” (Dean 26) as I find that with newfangled algorithms, tagging systems, and independent advertising becoming commonplace among nearly all social media platforms, if one used the right tags, posted at the right time, and bought an inexpensive ad or two, they could be seen on every user’s dashboard within an hour. While the side we debated against had reasonable arguments to support Dean and were overall quite persuasive in their presentation, I found that my position on the matter stayed the same. No matter how correct Dean’s resolution was, it was only correct in 2008 which, by the rapid nature of technology, may have become outdated by the following year. Funnily enough, when speaking with some members of the opposing side after the debate, they shared with us that they personally disagreed with Dean’s resolution as well.
After listening to the other groups’ debate, I found myself assured of my position even more. Social media played an important role in the Egyptian Revolution, not only through informing people and allowing them a platform to speak from, but also by bringing them to the square and other demonstrations where they could continue their revolt. Why would the government aim to halt public access to social media, if it wasn’t a powerful and influential tool for the people? Castell and the group debating for them made a solid impression that without the presence of social media, the Egyptian Revolution may not have been as widespread and effective as it was in making socio-political change. I also became aware through their debate that Castell and Dean would definitely not see eye-to-eye. Castell is likely against Dean’s notion that an individual cannot make a difference in the sea of online political opinions, because individuals sharing their opinions on social media is exactly what made the Egyptian Revolution so powerful. Social media platforms on their own, are simply lines of code, the users are what make its large influence on society. When ambitious people make use of social media as a tool, socio-political change can happen.
Dean, Jodi. “Ch. 1. Technology: The Promises of Communicative Capitalism.” Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics, Duke University Press, 2009, pp. 19–48.