Online Activism
An Inevitable Tool For Future Movements
The internet has been a crucial tool used for the exchange of new ideas, technologies, and information for over the past ten years. From tweeting @yourfollowers on Twitter to liking their pictures on Instagram, the web has evolved into a place rooted from instantaneous sharing. Alongside fast paced ideas simultaneously comes real life social change, which begins online. With the internet, the 21st century has also created socially conscious individuals capable of seeking globalized changes in the world. The vast majority of their ideas however, seemingly begin on their newsfeed.
Slowly, the community based internet has become the most effective tool in making physical changes, most of which, begin through online connections. This is true because such modern tools require less commitment than physically involved sit-ins, protests, or standoffs. Today, matter of factly, revolutions begin by retweeting a trending idea and liking interesting pages on Facebook. From there, a concept can go viral and eventually makes its way into the physical world.
Traditional activism is representative of the latter concept, however social media based movements begin with ideas from many people, rather than a single leader. This enables larger audiences to be grasped at a faster pace. Along with quick exchanges of new ideas also come rising figures of interest, such as Malcolm Gladwell, a respected writer for The New Yorker and The Washington Post. Gladwell is known for expressing creative thoughts like those in an essay titled “Small Change”. In this piece, he stresses the importance of big change traditional activism and highlights various downfalls to creating movements that begin online. His acknowledgements do however, imply praise toward traditional forms of activism without actively acknowledging the potential of social media.
Corresponding closely with these characteristics of social media , Dan Savage and his husband Terry are contributors of interest who fully acknowledge the power of the internet. They introduced their It Gets Better campaign with one YouTube video; founding many ideas from the philosophy of giving hope to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transexual) teenagers experiencing grief and bullying in high school.
In Emerging, an anthology of new-age reads, Urvashi Vaid also establishes a viewpoint on the importance of activism today. However, her thoughts remain fairly reserved about the dichotomy between online and traditional activism. Her piece titled “Action Makes it Better” focuses on humans becoming more involved no matter the activism medium. All of the authors previously mentioned may still endorse the effectiveness of the internet, whereas I wholeheartedly appreciate it’s capabilites in starting revolutions well into the future.
Each account represents various aspects of social media with traditional changes but never fully grasps the reality and potential of activism today. Sure, social media activism may be slightly limited in it’s ability to produce physical changes, but in progression of the 21st century, social media will prove crucial to the success of globalized movements. Emphasizing the importance of social media will enable weak tied networks of people to gain awareness of an idea without a need for professional organization of leaders or brutal force. And soon enough social media will ignite individuals to make small, meaningful change beyond their computer screens.
Contrary to the characteristics of traditional activism, it is difficult to create a revolution on the internet because no one is physically leading the cause through the exchange of ideas. This may not be necessary for the success of activism in the future though. For example, Malcolm Gladwell admitedly agrees that networks created online are limited in their ability to create strong-tied organization necessary for social change. Despite his negative critiques, Gladwell honors the importance of networking with weak tied connections in “Small Change” by stating:
There is a strength in weak ties . . . Our acquaintances—not our friends—are our greatest source of new ideas and information . . . It’s terrific at the diffusion of innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, seamlessly matching up buyers and sellers, and the logistical functions of the dating world. But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism.
Gladwell adequately sums up the successes of online activism. His final phrase: “seldomly leading to high-risk activism”, is most certainly accurate and can even be seen in Dan Savage’s interpretation of the It Gets Better campaign. After submitting a second video on YouTube, Dan and Terry received hundreds of responses within the first week. This, to them, was concrete evidence that their campaign would progress despite the absence of any authorital figure. What becomes even more apparent, is that the connections made online represent a major tool in pushing people along to exchange ideas in years to come. It is evident that Dan and Terry owe gratitude to social networking for the promotion of their first video. Even Savage himself acknowledges that the It Gets Better campaign was built on the weak ties mentioned prior.
The reality of the internet though, will continue to prove successful in only the ways that we understand necessary. Although Savage appreciates the internet and all it’s capabilities, he also acknowledges it’s many downfalls by stating:
“It can’t do the impossible. It won’t solve the problem of anti-gay bullying, everywhere all at once, forever, overnight. The point of the project is to give despairing LGBT kids hope”.
This quote from Savage suggests that online activism is more difficult than traditional forms when it comes to projecting changes into the real world. The point of social media activism though is simply not to make grand changes. It is to focus on small changes, like give the LGBT teens of today the hope they are searching for online by viewing genuinely submitted videos. The most important claim present is the acknowledgement that social media is difficult in executing change into the physical world. But surely, we will test the limits of this as time moves forward.
We can agree that it is difficult to gain physically involved followers of a movement. Social media in the future will provide a backbone for organizing such events. It is also true that no organizational leader will be necessary. Contrary to this notion though, Malcolm Gladwell remains insistent that social change is reliant on hierarchal organizations, a characteristic often present in traditional activism. The philosophy of hierarchies is simply not a characteristic of social media activism. Yet, Gladwell tends to critique hierarchies alongside the internet as if they are synonymous. He does however, acknowledge the advantage of having a unified system for change by stating, “Unlike hierarchies, with their rules and procedures, networks aren’t controlled by a single central authority . . . this structure makes networks enormously resilient and adaptable in low-risk situations”. Gladwell makes a proper judgement of social networking capabilities but only acknowledges the internet as being a simple tool for small changes. Dependent on your definition of small changes though, the internet continues to prove a useful tool for social movements involving the masses.
Dan Savage further promotes the idea that hierarchies aren’t necessary for the success of internet activism. In Emerging, Savage speaks of the It Gets Better campaign by examining a second video release:
Three days later we hit one hundred videos. Before the end of the first week, we hit one thousand videos. Terry and I were relieved to learn that we weren’t the only people out there who wanted to reach out to LGBT kids in crisis.
Savage explains the phenomenon that change online doesn’t necessarily require organized leadership because people online essentially maintain the same playing field. Each user on YouTube for example, is at the same level of organization and only needs the ideas of another user to further expand any online presence. Therefore, despite any accusations against the internet’s success, hierarchal systems work for traditional change, but they are seemingly unnecessary for the success of online activism.
As mentioned previously, Urvashi Vaid is completely in favor of responsible involvement with activism. No matter the outlet, Vaid implies from the title of her essay that “Action Makes It Better”. Vaid shows that in order for a movement to be successful it must exhibit a large group of people with a common goal. She demonstrates this by stating:
Black people did not have the full voting rights in this country until 1965 (forty-six years ago!) . . . Or think about India: The LGBT movement just got a court overturn the laws criminalizing same-sex/same-gender behavior in 2009 (two years ago!). All of these changes—for women, for African Americans, for LGBT folk—took a massive social movement to make happen.
This quote hints at the characteristics previously mentioned for successful online activism. Each of the events involving India or the LGBT community could be made successful through online engagement. Despite the connotations of Vaid remaining neutral towards social change, it is clear that in order to recruit large numbers of people on a single idea, the source lies online where ideas are constantly exchanged.
Gladwell speaks of this advantage in his analysis of social media as a tool:
Twitter is a way of following (or being followed by) people you may never have met. Facebook is a tool for efficiently managing your acquaintances, for keeping up with the people you would not otherwise be able to stay in touch with.
Each characteristic is further reason in favor of the internet as a modern essential to successful activism. In “Small Change”, Gladwell speaks of the internet being capable of exchanging interesting ideas and involving large numbers of people who could potentially become interested in a topic, but he doesn’t acknowledge the importance of social media being a successful tool for change made online and changes that will project onto the ground.
Progressive thinkers alike, including the authors mentioned in this analysis each have something in common: a desire to see change in the world. The change they yearn today could be grand or just miniscule, but each of their writings prove them to be progressive innovators. Malcolm Gladwell’s initial claims for the success of social media activism are on the verge of reality and realization of social media as a continual tool for social change. In fact, the internet continues to be the largest community organization where ideas, friends, and movements (such as the LGBT community) will inevitably be tossed around. The massive number of people online follow Vaid’s ideas involving grandeur of social change as a complex concept. All of which provide further support of the internet becoming increasingly necessary in the years to come. In order for change through traditional movements to happen, ideas will commence on our web browsers. The continual success of physical movements will owe gratitude heavily towards the internet: a seemingly necessary tool in decades to come.
