Heading into the class debate last Thursday, I was fairly convinced that the effect of social media on socio-political change was one that is quite profound. As a member of the ‘for’ side of Manuel Castells’ resolution, which asserts that social media enables socio-political change, my stance on the issue mostly aligned with what I was arguing for. During the rebuttals, one of the main arguments that Nick and I brought forward was that, despite how not all the ideals and changes intended by a social movement are reflected in its outcome, many of the changes that are made can still be attributed to the role of social media. In fact, after hearing the opposition’s opening argument, it was clear that using social media to fuel a social movement can have a range of impacts. While the mobilization of activists, the distribution of evidence of state violence, and the consolidation of power were some definite outcomes during the Egyptian Revolution, other outcomes, such as the actual change in government, appeared to be weaker. Taking these arguments into consideration, Nick and I refuted the opposition’s statements on the basis that social media’s role isn’t necessarily to create lasting change; rather, it is to provide a medium for change.
On the other hand, I thought the debate regarding Dean’s resolution had equally valid arguments, especially those that stated how social media can inhibit socio-political change. Prior to the debate, I had read parts of Dean’s article, and I’d written my second blog post on the negative consequences of social media campaigns. However, I was still able to acknowledge how arguments on both sides can be quite reasonable. For example, Dean’s point about the circulation of content and the lack of impact generated from small online contributions presents a dynamic that is even more prevalent today, especially with simple functions such as ‘sharing’ or ‘retweeting’ a post. I found this argument from the ‘for’ side of Dean’s resolution to be quite convincing, as I’ve seen these flurries of post-sharing through my interactions with social media.
However, what I found lacking in Dean’s article that is addressed by Castells’ article is that the purpose of social media isn’t simply to spread awareness of issues or to spark online discussions. Castells had also illustrated, through his examples with the Egyptian Revolution, how social media itself can act as a symbol of grassroots power, and therefore give activists a common ground to fight for. When looking at it from this perspective, it’s clear to me how the debate on whether social media enables or inhibits social change can be partly dependent on how we perceive its uses, and how we interpret what change is.