New Media, Revolutions, and the Search for Causality

Gwenyth Jackaway, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Communication and Media Studies

Fordham University

Was it the new technologies or was it the brave revolutionaries? Was it the synchronous interconnectivity, or the young tech savvy organizers? Is it the power of the tool or spirit of those who use it? Will the ‘Facebook and Twitter effect’ continue to spread across the Middle East? Will the successful use of networked communication to organize political resistance in the Arab world inspire similar uprisings against repressive governments worldwide? Will authoritarian political systems increasingly resort to 'turning off' the internet to instantaneously shut down dissent ? Are these new developments in communication to be hailed or feared?

These and many other questions are currently being explored in a seemingly endless stream of discussion taking place in meetings, in classrooms, in a myriad of forms on-line, in blogs, in youtube videos, on talk radio and television news, in magazine essays, newspaper op ed pieces, and even in the pages of those ancient communication devices…. books. We are in the midst of an international conversation about the role of communication technologies as catalysts for change. It’s a conversation that we seem to have each time a new medium achieves widespread adoption. There were similar discussions about the telegraph, the telephone, the radio, the television....It’s a conversation about technology and causality. It’s a conversation about change. It’s a conversation about human nature. It’s a conversation about revolution and the factors necessary to bring about true transformation.

The word, revolution, describes a powerful and significant change. On a political level, the term is generally reserved for a dramatic overthrow of one governmental system in favor of another. On a social or philosophical level, revolution is also used to describe “a dramatic and wide-ranging change in the way something works or is organized, or in people’s ideas “ (New Oxford American Dictionary). Whether we welcome or fear revolution, of course, is directly related to whether we feel that the world should work towards or should guard against change.

We humans have a curious relationship to change. We hunger for, and fear it, often at the same time. Often, whether we welcome change or work to fight against it depends a great deal on our views about the present. As Adam Gopnik observes in the New Yorker, If all you have is a hammer, the saying goes, everything looks like a nail; and, if you think the world is broken, every machine looks like the hammer that broke it. When we are opposed to the current arrangement of things, of course, we tend to side with revolutionaries, and see the tools they wield as welcome aids in a worthy cause. On the other hand, when we want to preserve things as they are (such as “our way of life” ) or wish to return to the ways of the past, then we fear the revolutionaries and their tools look like weapons.

We are interested in questions of causality as part of our endless quest for control. If we long for change, then we want to figure out how to ‘cause’ it. So, for example, if new communication technologies can be used to help cause political revolution, then: let’s give smart phones to people in oppressed nations everywhere. If, on the other hand, we want to prevent upheaval and chaos: let's approve the use of an 'internet kill switch', if necessary, to preserve order and stability.

The search for a clear cut and well define ‘cause’ of revolution is tantalizing. If we can only identify the ‘independent variable’, we like to imagine, then we can control the rate and pace of change. We can help to bring about change, or try to block it. The thing about real revolutions, true transformations -- whether on the deeply personal level or on the most public, political level, is that they don’t happen overnight. Real, lasting change, true revolution, takes deep commitment. The people involved must have passion, will, commitment, drive and perseverance. Under the right conditions, with enough key interlocking variables in place, social media may indeed be helpful in galvanizing political protest. Much like an joining a gym or buying an exercise bike might help someone kick start a diet, the technologies of synchronous networked communication may provide momentum. But the gym membership doesn't do the heavy lifting, and the bike doesn't peddle itself.

In the end, sparking a revolution may turn out to have been the easy part. Keeping the change going, especially when people are trying to overthrow years of patriarchal, authoritarian theocracy, for example, will take hard work and much dedication. There will, inevitably, be push back. People who have long held power don’t usually go quietly. The people of the Middle East, and in developing nations around the world, are going to need more than just Twitter accounts and Facebook pages to find their way to their own version of popular sovereignty (if that is, in fact what they want). In the end, thoughts are bigger than the things that deliver them. Although aspiring revolutionaries in developing nations may find it helpful to have access to the new tools of social media, they are likely to discover that in order to achieve lasting change in their nations, they’ll need other things as well, including: a clear political and philosophical perspective, a practical plan, sustained passion, the right timing, and most likely, a great deal of patience.

GLJ, 2/27/11

The Social Tools for a Revolution

2011 has had a tumultuous start for some parts of the Middle East. We've seen a sort of domino effect of revolutions occurring in Tunisia, and then Egypt, Iran, Bahrain & most recently, Libya. Interestingly, many argue that the "backbone" of these revolutions has been social media powerhouse tools like facebook and twitter. However, there is a dichotomy here: some say that facebook and twitter are not the sole reason for revolution, arguing that it's not just facebook and twitter but the power of real-time networked communication, and others say that the fearless bravery of the revolutionaries is what accounts for the success of the revolution. However, no matter what side you see truth in, it is undeniably true that social media is playing a major role in these revolutions and notes a interesting developing relationship between social media (or real-time networked communication tools), the government, and revolutionary leaders.

"It couldn't have been done without Facebook & Twitter"

That's been the argument from many of the fearless and modest revolutionaries in Egypt over the past several weeks. According to a CNN report, many of the revolutionaries in Egypt give credit to facebook, stating that it was the "crucial element" for the success of the revolution. This has been the tone of most Egyptian revolutionaries and citizens. While they don't deny the power of people, they have seemingly named facebook as their sole reason for achieving action, justice, and the mass number of people who became involved in this cause.  

After reading so much about these revolutionary events, I've noticed a pattern on the point of views on the situation. Those who were directly involved in the revolution in Egypt (the revolutionary leaders and the people of Egypt) seem to play the role of a martyr, not giving themselves much credit beyond showing up, while the brains behind the social tools they used, like facebook and twitter, argue that their platforms are not the reason for this uprising and that it was the bravery of the people that truly fueled the cause. So where do we see truth and what does this all mean? Is this a customary and polite argument to the tune of "thank you -- no, thank you -- no, please, thank YOU" or is there really a split between what is truly believed to be root of the success of this revolution? 

Real-Time Networked Communication

"It seems clear that social media has played a key role in getting the word out, and in helping organizers plan their protests. In the end, it’s not about Twitter or Facebook: it’s about the power of real-time networked communication." -Matthew Ingram

Perhaps facebook and twitter did place extreme momentum in the revolutions we've seen in Egypt, however, what if we de-brand the situation and look at the root of the technolog? What the internet has done, and is still making in advancements in, is closing the gap between asynchronous and synchronous communication within the realm of new media technologies. We remember when email started; it was an asynchronous technology that allowed us for the first time ever to submit messages to each other (across the country) digitally. When this technology was first introduced, and for the first decade and a half or so of email's presence, it was primarily asynchronous and we didn't see any social stands enacted of timely replies until the introduction of smart phones, laptops, and other mobile communication devices. Moving past email -- social media, instantaneous messaging services like BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), which provides perhaps the most synchronous chat experience, letting the users know when each person has read the message, is currently typing the message, and has sent the message, twitter, and advancements in already established technologies (like the real-time search on Google), have changed the playing field dramatically and established a new standard for synchronous, real-time networked communication technology.

Text messages. Facebook wall posts. Tweets. Blog posts. Real-time search. The ability to communicate on a synchronous level while being mobile has given the ordinary person extraordinary power and the ability to assemble, disseminate information, and take action as if they were secret CIA agents. Like magazines, newspapers, billboards, and television news programs, social networking is essentially about spreading information and coordinating action (It’s Not Twitter or Facebook, It’s the Power of the Network). Take away the idea that "social networking" means a laptop and a facebook account and pretend it's 1950. Social networking takes on a whole other meaning, the authentic meaning. Social networking is merely the action of people talking, sharing information, and as Ingram states, assembling & coordinating action -- whether online or off. So then take away the idea of facebook when we say social networking, and insert the idea of real-time networked communication technology -- that, for many, is where the power lies in these revolutions we've seen over the past few months.

Social Media, the Government & Revolutionary Leaders

If the aforementioned is true, than the internet and real-time networking via the internet is a major, if not vital, element in the revolutions in the middle east. On January 27, 2011, the Egyptian government, namely Hosni Mubarak, responded by turning off the internet. An action that is seemingly as simple as flipping a switch turned the nation upside and fueled protest two-fold. Christopher Mims notes in his article in MIT's Technology Review that

"What makes communication and community building so powerful on the Internet is its public nature -- everyone who is similarly disaffected can find common cause. But for precisely the same reason, the Internet can make it apparent to authorities who should be locked up first; indeed, simple network analysis of the sort regularly conducted by academics could even grant oppressive regimes deep insight into who are the leaders, or the most influential communicators, for nascent movements."

The government knows that people are assembling and plotting via social tools (and the mere nature and ability of the internet) and sees them as an incredible threat. We now see, in the most recent revolutionary efforts in Libya, revolutionaries again pouring into the streets to fight for democracy. Libya, most likely taking cues from its neighbors, has shut down the internet for two full days as of today, in order to stop protestors from overthrowing the long time Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. It is interesting to note that governments in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and the other countries we've seen revolutionary efforts in, did not say that weapons are illegal, did not say that violence is now illegal, but they instead directly shut-down the internet, which has proven to be perhaps the most dangerous weapon of them all. 

We must remember that facebook, twitter and real-time communication technologies are tools and like traditional tools, can be used in a number of different fashions, whether helpful or not, proactive or not, or used to assemble or not. It is clear that the inherent power of social media and the internet has truly been released and shown how effective they truly can be. The revolutionaries in Egypt will tell you that facebook caused Mubarak to step down and facebook c-level managers will tell you it was the bravery of the fearless leaders. We are witnessing the future of new media technologies and real-time communication right now and for the first time in history, we see the drastic and monumental effect they can have within a non-mediated cyberspace.

"Catfish" - A True Story of Social Determinism (Part 1)

I know this week I was supposed to write about China, but then I watched Catfish, the brave documentary about an online relationship that doesn't turn out the way you think it will, and came out right around the same time as The Social Network. I will write this blog post in two-parts, the first, this blog post, will merely set you up for watching the film and the second will include my analysis. There are no spoilers here. 

Before I begin, I recommend watching the featurette for Catfish here:



And the trailer here:





"It is important to take a step back from this [the internet, social media] and see what we're doing and the revolution we are a part of." - Henry Joost, Producer/Co-Director/Cinematographer, Catfish


If you strip away the storyline of Catfish, you are left with a gleaming parable that will enlighten and bring to realization the power of the internet, human nature, and the power we have with these social tools. For the past few weeks it seems as though we have been "stuck" with writing about technological vs. social determinism, spiraling analytical theory on these arguments and seeing examples of them every day. I feel a fascination with the arguments and the opposing ideas and I think it's because it can truly sum up, or theorize, the internet in just those two terms. There are those who believe the technology has the power and there are those who believe the the human has the power.

Catfish is a prime example of social determinism, but that's not to say that it couldn't be argued from a technological determinist viewpoint either. Yaniv "Nev" Shulman is a photographer in NYC who specializes in dance photography. In 2008, one of his photos was published in the New York Sun and seen across the country. Soon after, Nev received a package containing a painting of his photograph from an 8-year-old girl named Abby who lives in Ishpeming, Michigan. Flattered and floored by Abby's talent, Nev profusely thanks Abby and her mother and embarks on journey of emotions with not just Abby and her mother, but also her other siblings, family friends, Abby's father, and most importantly, Megan, Abby's sister who Nev sees pictures of and immediately becomes infatuated and begins an online relationship with. Now, most of what I just summarized is given away in the trailer and you feel like you can almost predict the outcome of this story. Almost.

After 8 months of texting, phone-calls, receiving .mp3's of Megan's singing, Nev is swept off his feet by a woman who he has never actually stood in front of. In the middle of this la la land love affair, something happens that leads Nev, his brother, and Henry (who are all present and heard throughout filming) to believe that this interaction between Nev and Megan and her family is not as truthful as they may have led on. Ultimately, Nev, Ariel and Henry decide to go to Ishpeming, uninvited and unannounced to truly get to the bottom of things.

What happens in the latter portion of the movie will give you chills, keep you guessing, and may even put you in tears.

Stay tuned for the analysis in Part 2...

Not Either/Or, but Both/And

The Seductive Illusion of the Technology/Society Dichotomy

Gwenyth Jackaway, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Communication and Media Studies

Fordham University

“The history of media is never more or less than a history of their uses, which always lead us away from them to the social practices and conflicts they illustrate”.

--Dr. Carolyn Marvin, When Old Technologies were New, Oxford: (1988)

“There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it.”

--Lord Voldemort, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001)

A young child, bending spoons, spoke to Neo: ''Do not try to bend the spoon—that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.''

Neo asked him, "What truth?"

The child answered, "That there is no spoon."

Neo meditated on this. "There is no spoon."

The child continued: "Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends—it is only yourself."

And Neo was enlightened.

--The Matrix, (1999)

For the past few weeks, we’ve been exploring the contrasting views of social and technological determinism. Ultimately, the debate is a spurious one… seeking the answer to who is ‘right’ leads one in a circle. It’s much like the nature/nurture debate. Does technology cause social change, acting upon us bringing about inevitable ‘effects’? Or do people use technologies as tools to bring about social change? Are we in charge, wielding tools like magic wands or swords, or are our machines more powerful than we are? We’ve been asking this question, in various ways, most likely, as long as we could ponder the nature of causality and our own place in the universe. In reflecting upon the locus of change, we are, ultimately, looking in the mirror. What we see, of course, can only be a reflection of our own priorities and assumptions. . These two theoretical perspectives, inevitably reflect the worldview of those who hold them. When we listen deeply to the two sides of the debate, we can hear age old issues resurfacing in new guise.

Contained within this debate are assumptions about human nature . Will humans use tools for good or for evil? Does the expansion of human knowledge, and therefore human power, lead us out of the garden, or into it? Are we naturally ‘good’ or naturally ‘evil’? Do we need liberation or taming? Which side is ultimately dominant – our animal lust for power and dominance, or our civilized capacity for cooperation and compassion? Given a new tool of power, how will we wield that power? It’s a tale as old as time, and we keep telling it, again and again. Each generation revisits these issues, despite the many versions of the story that have already been told. And perhaps that is as it must be. Only by living the questions can we arrive at our own answers.

In the weeks while we’ve been exploring these questions in our discussions, I’ve been watching films with my son: Harry Potter, Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings. Set in the past, in the future or in some other dimension, the stories remain the same. There is a special tool – a ring, a weapon, a wand… there is a special power – a magical force – which can be accessed and channeled by the one who wields the tool. But the tool, and the power that flows through it, can be used for good or for evil. And so, over and over these stories wrestle with the same basic question: will Frodo be engulfed by the dark powers of the ring he carries? Will Luke, with his light saber, be lured over to the ‘dark side’ of The Force? Will Harry, the young wizard, be able to use his wand to ward off Voldemort, or will he too be seduced by the dark arts?

Perhaps it is no accident that often the dark force is in the hands of someone older – a dark father figure… and the hope for the light is in the hands of the younger hero. Maybe that too is as it must be. Hope for change often lies with the next generation. Perhaps that reflects our optimistic side…. If we just have the right tools… in the right hands…. Twitter and facebook in the hands of 20 year old Egyptians…. But the same magic tool, in the wrong hands, can be used for evil. Hitler made very effective use of film and radio. Over the past 150 years, the United States helped to develop virtually all of the tools of modern electronic mass communication, thereby contributing to an exponential expansion of access to information for people around the world. More information is not always better information however, and there are ways in which we’ve misused these technologies, at times doing more harm than good. Communication technologies are tools of power, and there are always temptations to abuse power. As we were watching the television coverage of the celebrations in the streets of Cairo, my son asked: “Will they still be that happy next week?” It’s a good question. Once the revolutionaries become the authorities, will they continue to use social media to liberate?

Technological determinism is an appealing perspective, especially, perhaps for those who have a fundamental distrust in human nature. By locating power in the machine it seems to absolve us of responsibility for its use. We can ‘blame the box’, and not ourselves. Conversely, by investing power in technology, then all we need to solve current problems is the right invention. This perspective places all of the ‘power’ to create change in the machine, and ignores human agency. It allows people to credit or blame any ‘effects’ of the technology on the machine itself. Then when the technology goes out of control (as it does in much of our science fiction) it’s not really our fault. While it might be tempting for some to see technology as a magic ‘pill’ or magic ‘bullet’, the problem with this position is, of course, that tools don’t do anything on their own. Even today, when robotic technology has become so advanced, machines can’t think on their own. A hammer can be used to build or destroy. A printing press can be a tool of liberation or a tool of propaganda. Social networking can be used to organize a revolution or to bully a teenager.

Social determinism is not necessarily more optimistic however. Taking the position that it is people, not technology who are ‘in charge’ and ultimately responsible for any effects does not ‘solve’ the problem. In fact, if anything, it forces us to look deeper into the mirror. Given the complexities of human nature, and the ongoing struggle in which we seem to be engaged regarding the proper use of our power, it should come as no surprise that the uses of our technologies inevitably reflect the priorities and values of those wielding the tool. We can make horrible choices in the use of our technologies, and the dark side of technological innovation is often in its use to serve the very human traits of greed and aggression. It also may be true that certain tools may ‘bring out’ or tempt the ‘darker’ sides of our nature. There is, after all, only one way to use a nuclear bomb.

Perhaps, as with the nature/nurture debate, we are missing the point by wondering if we or our technologies are in charge. Do we make the media? Or do they make us? The answer, to each question, appears to be: yes. Maybe on this issue, as is so often the case in the West, we are blinded by our preference for clear-cut dichotomies: We want to believe that things are either good or evil, that there is one clear truth, one clear path. We believe in the simplicity of scientific mechanism – a linear relationship of cause and effect. But its likely that reality is far more complex. Perhaps, as the wisdom of the East suggests, apparent polarities of Yin and Yang are ever interconnected, one flowing into the other. What appears evil from one side may appear good from the other. In the end, perhaps it is not by changing our tools, but by shifting our perspectives that we will ultimately be liberated.

GLJ, 2/13/11

The Only Tools I Need On My Toolbelt

"Social tools don't create new motivations so much as amplify existing ones" (Shirky 294). 

I like how Shirky refers to social networking technologies as "tools." If you really think about it, that's exactly what they are. Whether it be facebook, twitter, flickr, wikipedia, blogger, etc., each can be used as a tool, or a means, to achieve something. This "something" doesn't necessarily need to be great, such as spreading the news of a catastrophic natural disaster, but it can also, and more commonly is, trivial such as planning out a time to see a movie with your friend on facebook. So then, you may be thinking, "Great! This all sounds great." And to many people, this is great. However, to a stammering number of theorists, the heavy use of these social tools and the impetus of new social tools we've seen in the 21st Century is referred to as negative and aiding in technological determinism.

Over the past few weeks I have been studying the theories of technological vs. social determinism (because it truly fascinates me that there is even such an argument) and often there is an inherent feeling of pessimism vs. optimism, respectfully. Those who are against the spread of technology and overwhelming adoption of the changes new media introduce into society seem to be pessimists and only view new media technologies as being a hinderance to normal functioning human behaviors, including social interaction. On the contrary, those who embrace social media tools and commend the accomplishments people have achieved through social networking and new media seem to be inherently optimistic. The apparent polarity is merely human nature, yet almost feels inorganic and hopeless for the pessimistic theorists.

Shirky talks about when he was in middle school, teachers didn't allow the use of calculators because they seemed like a fad and wouldn't stick around for too long. We all know this wasn't the case and now there are about 50 calculator applications that one can download on their iPhone or iPad (just to bring the example as current as possible). This proves the point that along with the human nature of polarity among individual thought and theory, we can also note that it is human nature to adopt tools that make life and everyday tasks easier. Like the calculator, like the printing press, like the telephone, like the airplane, like the lightbulb -- these weren't (and still aren't) fads such as skinny jeans or bleaching your hair. Social networking, the online organization of groups, and exponential sharing amongst peers is here to stay.

To err on the side of optimism, let's think about what social media has done to the average person. It's given them a voice (though not a guaranteed audience), given them the ability to know, the platform to debate on, and a place to mindlessly, aimlessly dabble and play around, looking at menial pictures, reading silly posts from friends, or even watching tv. Social media has given the individual the power of a group without actually being in one. What I mean by that is, even though you may not be instituted in the social circle of a group of people that you are merely acquainted with, but you are friends with all of them on facebook, you still see their online interactions: what they say, what they share, and to whom, in your newsfeed -- that's just the nature of facebook. Often times when you post something on your friend's wall or as your status, you aren't thinking about what every single friend you have on facebook will think. Hell, you're probably not even thinking about what any of them will think, but you are inherently aware that every single one of your friends will be able to see it. The person who is not a part of the social circle can still see and perhaps benefit the interactions of the social circle or the group because it has been made public thanks to you and the parameters of facebook.

"Social media makes creativity not just possibly but desirable" (Shirky, 311). My professor, Dr. Gwenyth Jackaway said it herself, regarding this blog, she feels that there is a pressure of sorts on the material posted. While the odds of someone coming across this blog and actually reading it without being explicitly directed to it by my professor or I is slim, the action of us writing and creating content that is public on the web, changes the ballgame. It's not just an email between the two of us, private and enclosed, but instead this is a public conversation that anyone can see, just like the example of the person on facebook who can see inside a social circle they are not a part of. Before social media tools and the internet, what would our blog be? Would it have been a written conversation, posted on a bulletin board in the University hallway each morning after we wrote it? Perhaps a journal we assemble and place in the library? However you look at it, there is no comprable alternative to this blog that packs the same punch without the use of social media. Never before have ordinary individuals been able to create for a mass audience for free, and maybe even profit from it*.

Those who side with the idea of technological determinism probably wouldn't be able to spread their opinion and ideas without the internet today and therefore leaving them silenced. What would they say to that? Does a technological determinist use Twitter? Know how to create social groups on facebook for the benefit of society? Understand what Flickr is and what Shirky means when he explains the importance of "tagging" photos? This pessimistic stance taken by technological determinists seems almost hypocritical. New media and social tools are so integrated into our society that it is nearly impossible not to use them. My 80 year old grandmother has a facebook and I was able to talk her through enabling her computer to have a 3-way Skype video conversation with myself in NYC, my cousin in San Diego, and my grandmother in Florida. Social tools help us accomplish things that were not even fathomable in the past yet if we thought about life without them today, it would seem like a step back into another century. Technological determinists use social media and new media, there is no denying it, and they most likely use it to disperse their ideas, their book, or their <gasp> blog.

*With the placement of Google Ads or comprable Ad networks that pay the blog owner on a Cost Per Click (CPC) basis.

Redefining "Community"

Two weeks ago, if you were to search for the #jan25, #Cairo, and #Suez hash-tags on Twitter (trending topics denoted with a "#" preceding them), there would have been no results. However, during the days leading up to the historic protests on "January 25," or even now as the crisis in Egypt is still developing, those hash-tags elicit tens of thousands of hits.

There has been a recent outcry of protest and revolt in Egypt and much of the protest and rioting is all thanks to new media (hence the government block on the internet). According to CNN (and a multitude of other credible sources), there is a facebook page that is devoted to the planning and support of the protest that took place on January 25 and has nearly 100,000 members. The foundation for the protests in Egypt is the internet, facebook, twitter, and other forms of new media (cell networks, blogging). Twitter even provided some help to the victims of the protest, "One tweeter advised people how to wash tear gas from their faces, and warned people to avoid wearing contact lenses during the protests. "Spit, blow your nose, rinse out your mouth, gargle. Do eyewash from inside to outside with your head tilted to side," the tweet said" (CNN article).

While I don't want to venture too deep into the topic of "new media in developing countries" just yet, this theme of building community via the internet and social networking is one that did not originate in foreign countries. In fact, we see examples of this every single day -- just look at your events calendar on facebook, meetup, or an evite you get via email. People create these events on facebook (birthday parties, forums, potluck dinners, holiday parties, etc.) and people show up, in-person to these events.

Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody, opens up his book with a story about a stolen Sidekick cellphone. In May of 2006, Ivanna left her phone in the backseat of a cab, just like thousands of other New Yorkers that year, and went through the harrowing process of getting it back. Unfortunately for Ivanna, her process was not any easier, and perhaps even harder, than any one else's. Upon calling her cellphone provider, she discovered that the phone was found and actually was being used by a young girl named Sasha. When Ivanna reached out to Sasha to get the phone back, Sasha was less than willing and made up a story about how she got the phone. Unwilling to put up with the lies and acting on his frustration, Ivanna's boyfriend, Evan, created a basic website explaining the story, posting accounts of what had happened, and even pictures of Sasha, retrieved from her Myspace page.

After being live for a few days, Evan started to receive hundreds of emails, at times he even got 10 emails a minute, "from people asking about the phone, offering encouragement, or volunteering to help" (Shirky, 3). You'd think there would be a happy ending next -- but such was not the case. As the support grew stronger, Evan's site began to attract media attention from CNN and other news outlets, yet Sasha was not showing any signs of returning the phone to Ivanna. Eventually the phone did get returned, but only after the NYPD was "forced" to change the case from a "lost" to "stolen" phone.

The remarkable theme of the story is the community that developed online and resulted in in-person action. If it were not for Evan's website and the surprising number of hits, forum participants, and media attention that it received, Ivanna's phone would still be "lost." Just like the facebook page for the protest in Egypt, any online community can spark non-mediated results.

In an interview with a reporter, Sasha's mother told the reporter "I never in my life thought a phone was gonna cause me so many problems" (Shirky, 6). Shirky goes on to explain how it's not the phone that caused the problem in the first place, but in fact it was Sasha who withheld the phone and did not return it, even when she knew who it truly belonged to. This is a clear example of technological vs. social determinism (and an interesting one at that). The fact that the phone was the center of the problem, meaning that it was the stolen DEVICE, does not mean that the phone itself is the root of the problem. Let's go back in time 50 years or so. We don't have cell phones or the internet and if you started a conversation about "Twitter" with someone they would probably suggest you undergo psychiatric evaluation. If Sasha found a book under a tree and kept it for herself even after she saw posters around town advertising a "lost book," would Sasha's mother react the same way? What if the book was a cup of water? A shoe? A piece of cake? A hair clip? A car tire? You can place the blame on whatever you want--but the truth is that the immoral act by Sasha would be the same and take on the saem consequences in every situation, whether it was a phone or a shoe. People like to place a lot of blame and attention (both negative and positive) on new media, specifically when there is a large incident like the protests in Egypt or Evan's website making headlines.

So what does this all mean?

In her introduction to Alone Together, Sherry Turkle suggests that the internet and social media connects us "when we wish" and gives us the ability to "disengage at will" (Turkle, 13). She goes on to say that while Skype is in fact a revolutionary way of connecting to each other, people are likely to multitask and check emails or facebook, etc. while they are having the video-chat with a loved one -- presenting the idea of "alone together." This idea of being "alone together" is valid -- I've sat in many classrooms where all of the students are looking at anything other than their notes and the professor ends up teaching to about 3% of the students (I make up part of that percentage :). That's a prime example of being "alone together." However, perhaps those students who are "alone" are actually "together" with other people on the net. In the case of Sasha, maybe they were checking in on the status of the stolen phone and offering support on the forums. Perhaps, if they are Egyptian, they were helping to organize the protest for January 25. To offer my own (somewhat radical) argument: In any "normal," non-mediated situation involving a large group of people, there will always be people who are not really "there." Sure it's not as easy to mentally check-out by checking your email or facebook, but who really cares? If you don't want to be there and you're not finding yourself fulfilled, you should be doing something else (assuming this is an out-of-school type of situation; i.e. a party, or a conversation).

Why should we live life forced to participate in social interactions that we don't want to? It's not paying taxes and it's not going to work -- it's a social interaction. If social media and the internet expands our ability to interact with people who talk about things we want to hear and give us the type of feedback we want to receive, why shouldn't we take advantage of this and rally an online community? Barack Obama might not have been elected into office if it weren't for the help of the power of social media (and...perhaps what he stands for) and the protests in Egypt might not be getting as much media attention as it is if it weren't for social media (that's actually almost 100% certain given the circumstance of the Egyptian gov't banning the internet). Perhaps what this all means is that we have a new definition of community to add to the list, one that involves, and inherently relies on, the internet and social media to start, and go on to thrive, and that's OK. Change is unavoidable and destined to occur so why try and fight it? You don't fight having to go to the bathroom when you have to, right? It's just a part of your life. And so is change.

Social vs. Technological Determinism

It's no secret that our society, world, country, individual communities, and day-to-day interactions have all been transformed (not using that word lightly) by the introduction and influx of new media technologies. To be clear, when I say "new media technologies," I mean anything and everything related to the internet and the derivatives of such. This includes the internet itself, the personal computer, smartphones, and social media (facebook, twitter, blogging, etc.). New media technologies have only been around for a few decades (since the 1980's) yet have expanded and been adopted by society at an incredibly rapid rate. Without delving too deep into this rich history of the internet, I would instead like to explore two important stances that theorists take on modern new media technologies: the Technological Determinist Theory and the Social Determinist Theory.


First, let's explore the stance of technological determinism:

• "The medium is the message. ...It is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action." Marshall McLuhan's famous phrase that sparked a discussion and debate over the effects of new media technologies. 
• States that technology is the driving force behind the change and development of our society, culture and social construction of reality. 
• the machine has the power

McLuhan's stance is really a good summation of the theory behind technological determinism. He makes analogies from history that show we are simply following a social trend with technology. For instance, he speaks about the lightbulb and states that doctors can perform open heart surgery because of the light it produces or it can prolong a baseball game through the dark hours of the night. These examples are the content of the lightbulb, according to McLuhan (Understanding Media, 24). Would these examples be possible without the lightbulb? If you want to get technical, yes, of course they would be, but it wouldn't be with the same ease and convenience as it is with the new technology of the lightbulb. However, according to McLuhan, the lightbulb will (and has) shape(ed) our society and transformed the way we do things and is the content itself.  


And here's the stance of social determinism:

• idea that social interactions and human behavior shape human actions and the power lies in the individual.
• the person has power over the machine
• we are the hands that control the computer and we are the intelligence behind the creation of machine. 
• the human race is given more credit and autonomy 

What I find to be most baffling in the debate over technological vs social determinism is this lacking of the acknowledging who created the technology or the machine. These are all man-made, human constructs that we choose to use, choose to not use, and choose how to use. Perhaps, yes, in today's age it would be difficult to "choose" not to use a computer or pay for the an internet subscription. However, what we do with it, I strongly believe, is birthed from our own inhibition and our prerogative. Why give so much credit to the machine? We are not slaves to the machine nor are we creating machines with that goal in mind. While there are GUI (Graphical User Interface) for most machines (computers, phones, and other electronic devices), which may inhibit the full potential of that device and lead us through the functionality by way of a map, we are still given options. If you're a writer, you can write a romance or a thriller in Word, if you're a web designer you can design a website for an Adult film production company or a GreenPeace organization -- there is no limit to what you can do with a computer or internet connection and to argue that the fashion that we do it in (sitting down at a computer and being connected to the internet) somehow makes us determinant on technology is hypocritical and outrageous.

To play devil's advocate, what should we do then, to alleviate this so-called technological determinism? Should we eradicate all of new media, text messages, the printing press, the locomotive train, and modern language? Should we go back to the time of primal human existence and live in simpler times when we didn't have these technological distractions? Why are we picking on the success, developments, and ingenuity of man and woman? Why are we obsessing over the negative things that people do with technology and criticizing the good by saying we are too technologically determinant. Though I am a liberal and a self-proclaimed new media "enthusiast," I don't see a problem with adapting to our modern times that are spewing out new media innovations.

In a recent study, out of the list of the top 10 highest paying jobs, 4 of the 10 were explicitly related to internet and new media technologies (#6 being Internet Marketing). This is indicative of the reality of our times and to ignore that or try and argue that this is somehow bad is ignorant and will leave you left behind and self-censored. While this reality is not the case for some developing countries around the world, it is for majority of modern nations and what we are accomplishing with these technologies is fascinating and unparalleled with anything we have ever seen in history. 

Going back to McLuhan's example, the lightbulb only knows one job, to provide light. Yet according to McLuhan and the technological determinist theory, the lightbulb is not given the credit it deserves. Yes, the lightbulb has changed the way we do things and also the way we think, but is the lightbulb itself one to take on that blame or credit? Does the lightbulb really have the power over human intuition and intelligence to change us? Or does it only know "on" or "off?" The lightbulb is a catalyst for human innovation and success. The lightbulb, like the printing press, the personal computer, the cell-phone and the tablet computer, enable us to be more worldly, mobile, and aware. We can use these technologies however we want, for whatever we want (if at all), because we are the creators, the exhibitors, and ultimately the ones to then criticize and question our uses -- and that's how it should be. There is no winner or looser in this debate because it is not a debate. We are an ever-advancing world with an evolving technological intelligence and things are not going to get less advanced nor will they take a step back. And why should they? 


We are dependent on technology because technology makes us greater and provides us with countless opportunity. Just as were dependent on transportation, just as we were dependent on fire, and for that case, just as we are dependent on oxygen to breathe. We can depend on modern technologies, because they make our lives easier, and still lead an autonomous, self-fulfilling life.

Just for fun:

Take a look at this visualization of what the internet looks like (connected IP [Internet Protocol] addresses) -- it truly gives you an idea of the complexity and vast nature of this supreme intelligence.