There's been some debate recently about the importance of social media tools in recent political events, such as the recent unrest in Egypt or last year's Iranian election. Viewed through the lens of today's social media technologies, the Egyptian experience was all about Twitter and Facebook (not to mention the distribution platforms of Internet search, blogs, et al). They, like us genereally, have been touched, inspired, and motivated to act in heretofore unknown, unique ways, just as technology has enabled the world to both witness and participate as never before in these spontaneous acts of popular will. Iran's recent election crisis, colloquially called the Twitter Revolution because we learned about it in real time and got the chance to turn our Facebook profile pics green, was but a hint of what's to come. It's all new.
No it isn't. I want to come down firmly in the middle of debate, though. Social tools aren't unimportant, they're just not most important.
Human beings have been in the revolution business pretty much since time began. The evolution of Western religious institutions has been punctuated, not just gradual, as evidenced by the Protestant Reformation, the earlier spark of nascent Christendom, or Moses' original appearance at the foot of Mount Sinai with the tablets that outlined rules for a new community of worship. Technology innovation has been characterized by revolutions, both in name and in their effects (whether experienced abruptly or over time); it probably started with fire or the wheel, and certainly included steam power, penicillin, and the ready availability of Teflon.
Social Change Has Been All About Revolutions
Assassinating Julius Caesar in 44 BCE could be considered an act of revolution, just as his assumption of power had been five years prior. Chinese dynasties had been slaughtering and replacing one another for centuries before that, and governments across the globe would continue to rise and fall due to violent, sudden change. England's King James II would fall in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688--the first upheaval so labelled--to be followed by the American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution and, well, you get the idea.
Social behaviors, assisted by the tools of the day, powered them all.
Our unique social technologies fit into a rich and complex context of experience that spans a few thousand years of history. There's nothing "new" about them, per se, in that social tools have always been drivers of revolutions; the most effective of them are as useful today as they were in the 1600s. Twitter, Facebook, and the Internet didn't prompt the events in Iran or Egypt as much as help qualify them, and there's a case to be made that they lessened the efficacy of the movements (by amplifying the reality of experience into easy entertainment content). I prefer to see them as very much in keeping with the ways revolutions have occurred, perhaps accentuating some while duplicating or improving on others.
Here's a quick armchair analysis of history's top ten social tools for starting revolutions:
Seeing Social Technology Through A Different Lens
If you start with the premise that core behaviors have driven revolutions across the ages, then it's an interesting thought experiment to apply our latest technologies against those tools and see how they intersect. Social media definitely extend many of them, though they also make some -- like length of communication and immediacy of experiential need (i.e. hunger)--somewhat more difficult, or obviate them altogether.
That the unrest in Egypt would have occurred without Twitter or Facebook is without question, however, and arguments for or against that POV that come from monolithic perspectives are sort of pointless. Social technologies influenced events, for certain, just as they always have. But the primary tools for revolution aren't limited to technology; they encompass context, circumstance, time, biology, and a host of other qualities that make our lives meaningful.
Attaching our social media tools to these qualities, and not the other way around, would be an interesting way to better understand their perils and promise.
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on LinkedIn