When we change the way we communicate, we change society. The tools that a society uses to create and maintain itself are as central to human life as a hive is to bee life. (Clay Shirky)It’s a typical Monday afternoon in New York City and a bevy of suit-clad businessmen and women saunter into a conference room. Most of them are on their Blackberrys checking for any emails that may have come in since they left their desk forty-five seconds ago, some are making small talk, and others just staring into space. There’s a tech-savvy individual in the front of the room setting up a projector and hooking up a laptop, and suddenly a live image of the room goes on the screen. The sound of a Skype-phone ring is heard and in mere seconds the screen is now split with the image of a conference room of their west coast office, filled with similar, more-tan business types. They all exchange proper “hello’s” and “how are you’s” and the bicoastal meeting commences. Thanks to cloud-based server technology, they can share files between each other, in an instant, without having to even email them. The Senior Vice President in the New York offices prompts for the IT person to play a new TV commercial their agency just produced and both offices watch simultaneously. One person in the room tweets, “Another Monday, Another Meeting” and shortly after her friend tweets back, “Tacos for lunch?” They choose not to text because Twitter is more exclusive to their social circle, more networked, and simply more fun than a text message. The meeting continues rather productively and because they can all see each other, a sense of community develops among them even though they’ve never actually met. They can see the clothes the west coast team are wearing, their facial expressions, and nods of approval. The meeting concludes and everyone returns to their desks to continue their day checking emails, writing spreadsheets, preparing PowerPoint presentations, and perhaps using social media to document their (almost) every move.
Ten years ago this scenario might have seemed possible, but out of reach, and the meeting would have been conducted with a speakerphone in the middle of the conference room. Twenty-five years ago this idea would have provoked a laugh from whom ever proposed it and the meeting still would have been done via telephone. Today, new media technologies facilitate the ability to communicate in extraordinary ways. However, not everyone accepts and embraces new media technologies as easily and welcoming as others. Sometimes it’s a generational gap, other times political, and other times just fear. But there is no denying that when new media technologies are introduced into existing social contexts, they are received with repeating patterns of social response. In that same New York City conference room, there were also a few individuals who were less than impressed with the videoconferencing and would have preferred they travel cross-country for the big meeting. Some miss “the old days” when the ability to have bicoastal offices wasn’t possible due to restrictions in communication. Some people were excited for the new technology usage and felt that their company was progressive for utilizing such. One woman felt offended that the company was using Skype, the same video chat program one of her daughter’s friends was approached by a pedophile on. The social response to new media reflects people just as much as technologies and we see a cycle develop in our society.
Perhaps one of the reasons that we see these repeating patterns of social response is due to the basic principles of human nature. An example of such is control; our lives are all about control. We set an alarm to sound when we want to wake up, we check the train times for the exact time we need to be at work, we program our Digital Video Recorders (DVR) to record our favorite television programs, and we tell our friends when we’ll meet them out for drinks on a Friday night. Governments are especially all about control. They keep top-secret files and photos under wraps, attend annual G8 summits, collect a set percentage of taxes, utilize an approval process of checks and balances that has been instated for decades, and some, if not most governments, censor the free-flow of information. The “control” we seek in our lives is the constant in the equation of life and the only things to worry about are the unforeseen variables. Before the introduction of new media technologies of the past decade or so, variables in our lives might have consisted of a telephone ring, a car crash, a rogue government official, or an unsuspected change in weather patterns – just to name a few. These variables trouble us and we try hard to accommodate for these variables by planning for them. We leave a little bit earlier just in case the train is late, we proofread emails to make sure they’re error-free, and we set a second alarm as a backup in the morning. As humans, we are programmed to fear change and fear the unknown. Although new media technologies provide us with exciting new possibilities and opportunities, they also provide a unique fear that is present in every single rational human being: the fear of losing control.
Initially, social media were introduced and embraced by a niche of young, progressive individuals less than 25 years of age. Today, social media and new communication technologies are integrated into our every day lives, including news media, commerce and marketing, and even in the government (both in the United States and internationally). In November, 2010 Julian Assange, the man behind the news leak and whistle-blowing website, Wikileaks, released Iraq and Afghan war documents that contained classified information pertaining to the American involvement in these wars. Wikileaks is an interesting case; on one level it provides a free-flow of information and promotes democracy, while on another there are American policymakers who promote censoring and restricting Wikileaks, going against our nation’s first amendment constitutional rights. Before internet and the possibility for a Wiki-leak to occur in the first place, the government could control the “free-flow” of information and shut down any party attempting to spread classified documents and information more closely. New media technologies decrease the amount of control the government has on these types of leaks, and that loss of control instills a fear in our government. We see a reaction to these fears in the punishment of Julian Assange, the attempt to shutdown the Wikileaks site altogether, and American policymakers hypocritically “disparaging China and Iran for similar impulses” (Morozov, 241).
Evgeny Morozov takes an interesting stand on the internet and free-flow of information:
If it turns out that the internet does help to stifle dissent, amplify existing inequalities in terms of access to the media, undermine representative democracy, promote mob mentality, erode privacy, and make us less informed, it is not at all obvious how exactly the promotion of so called internet freedom is also supposed to assist in the promotion of democracy. (Morozov, 241)
For those who are against the government’s attempt to censor Wikileaks and stop this type of free flow of information from Julian Assange, Morozov provides the notion that perhaps centering this argument from a position of pro-democracy is not exactly valid. I would argue that the government’s instinct to censor Wikileaks and other whistle-blowing websites is fueled by fear of the loss of control and ultimately, change in the way sensitive, classified information and dissent is controlled. Democracy is the free-flow of information, but is the free-flow of information technically promoting Democracy?
Government control is only a small portion of the notion of repeating patterns of the social response to new media technologies and fear of losing control. John Durham Peters, author of “Speaking Into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication,” outlines the true meaning and history of communication and adds to the argument as to why new media communication is received by similar patterns of social discourse, criticism, and acceptance. One branch of meaning, as Peters describes, “involves the transfer or transmission…the sense of physical transfer, such as the communication of heat, light, magnetism, or gifts, that is the root of the notion of communication as the transfer of physical entities such as ideas, thoughts, or meanings” (Peters, 8). However, it is important to note that communication in this sense is not necessarily two-way, nor does it require reciprocation. For example a facebook status update, a published newspaper article, or a Public Service Announcement are all forms of a one-way transfer, but still considered to be communication “even if no response is possible or desired” (Peters, 8). Additionally, a handshake or hug is another type of physical transfer and also a way of communication, insofar as a facebook wall-post or tweet is also. Society accepts these new ideas of communication because we see resemblance to the former methods. Picking up a phone and having a conversation can now be achieved in a different fashion via social media and new technology but still follows Peters’ basic notion of communication.
A second branch of meaning according to Peters is “communication as exchange, that is, as transfer times two” (Peters, 8). Peters describes this notion as an exchange with some type of “reciprocity” and can be as simple as the exchange of telegrams or as complex as the delivery of an email. “Here communication does not mean simply talk; it refers to a special kind of talk distinguished by intimacy and disclosure” (Peters, 8). This two-way level of communication is what fosters relationships and emotionally wrought discourse. The idea of two-way communication is archaic and has always been the cornerstone of all types of communication. Contrasted with the former notion of communication, the one-way transfer, reciprocity is universally recognized – you smile at someone and they smile back. Peters also posits the idea of communion and forms a definition of communication as “contact between interiorities” (Peters, 8-9). To take this a step further, words such as “communication,” “community,” “common,” and “connection” all describe a sense of interchange and the transfer of thoughts and ideas in some fashion and can be seen in repeating patterns throughout the history of communication technologies. Most recently, we’ve seen this idea of community and networks truly take form within the realm of new media technologies.
Actions speak louder than words and actions and words heard from a group speak louder than those from an individual. There is nothing inherently new about group action or a community; these ideas have been around since the beginning of humanity and communication. However, with the introduction of new media technologies, the way of doing such has changed dramatically (on the surface) and the social response to such has been argued from both positive and negative standpoints. Peters discussed one-way and two-way communication, but additionally, group formation is a type of multi-communication. Traditionally, groups form by way of a commonality; those who share similar interests, desires, or causes will group together to share ideas and discourse with each other and find strength in numbers. In the recent protests and revolutions in the Middle East, specifically Egypt, social media took center stage as the catalyst for the formation of these large groups. Although some argue that facebook and social media technologies are the sole reason for successful revolution, that idea is inherently technologically determinist and puts the emphasis on technology and the medium and away from human power. However, scholars like Clay Shirky would argue from a social determinist position that social media accelerates these revolutions, but social media is by no means the only reason for their success.
Throughout history we’ve seen new props thrown into an old story. (Jackaway). The “stage” for the revolutions in Egypt and the Middle East were always set – a revolution was bound to happen regardless of the tools used to facilitate it. The props for the revolution included facebook, twitter, and mobile devices and we know this for sure because the Egpytian government actually turned off the internet in what is known as a “Kill Switch.” Why did the Egyptian government take this course of action? Because they knew how people were forming, they knew how powerful social media is in forming groups and communities, and they knew that the power of a large, passionate group of individuals is unbeatable. The Egyptian government also had a fear of loosing control, just like any person or government does, and the nature of new media technologies and social media is not to contain and censor, but rather to share and promote the free-flow of information. But was this the first time in history the world has ever seen a revolution? Was the uprising in Egypt, accelerated by social media, the first time people demanded democracy and governmental reform? Absolutely not. These revolutions are a part of a pattern in society, a facet of human nature. When we don’t like something, we find the courage to stand up for ourselves; social media doesn’t necessarily contribute to that principle. Social media was merely a tool, an advanced tool, which was used in a particular fashion to accelerate a cause – just like we’ve witnessed again and again throughout history.
So then what does all of this mean? Referring to Shirky’s idea of a bee hive, “though the bee hive is not part of any individual bee, it is part of the colony, both shaped by and shaping the lives of its inhabitants” (Shirky, 17). We as a society embrace or deny new technologies, the “hive,” and witness them integrate into our society, the “colony.” However the technologies do not shape us entirely, nor does society entirely shape the new technologies. Instead there is a unique two-way communication between technology and humans; a learning process, in which our society critically responds to new media technologies based on a set of principles and values that are important to us individually. These local characteristics and values are what ultimately form our approval or disapproval for new technologies and they can include religion, politics, sexual identity, philosophy, or historical background. Furthermore, these local characteristics of the individual are then backed by universal aspects of human nature such as excitement and acceptance towards the new technologies, extreme adverse/fear of change (technophobia), or the fight or flight principle. Throughout history we see patterns of this approval process continuously repeating every time a new technology is introduced; with the printing press, with television, and now with new media technologies. However, in our modern society, you would have a hard time finding people who are completely against television, completely against the internet, or completely against the telephone -- but that’s because these technologies are already integrated into our society and endured the same process of social response as new media communication.
The social response to new media reflects people as much as technologies; one cannot be without the other. As Morozov highlights, “new technologies are tools without handles” (Morozov, 31) and the handles are useless without the human touch to guide them. These basic principles can be argued now with new media technologies, years ago with old media technologies, and will still be relevant and used to argue the introduction of future technologies. Human nature will never change; it may become more advanced and experienced, but unlike any machine or robot, the human mind develops and learns by means of emotion and interaction with society. At some point in time, there will be people who are opposed to future communication technologies, whatever they may be, and will argue that the old (now new) technologies of social media and internet communications are still almighty, powerful, and underappreciated by younger generations. This idea brings home the point that like the argument of control being the only constant in our lives stated earlier, human nature and human beings are the only constant in our universe. We know that humans will (seemingly) continue to exist and human beings will continue to develop new technologies. It is undeniable that these new technologies will be responded to differently by the critical mass, but that’s the notion of human nature. We see repeating patterns of social response because we are human and human nature is our constant; every human acts in accordance with human nature.
Works Cited
Morozov, Evgeny. The Net Delusion: the Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2011. Print.
Peters, John Durham. Speaking into the Air: a History of the Idea of Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1999. Print.
Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: the Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin, 2009. Print.
Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic, 2011. Print.
