Why Social Media Means A Social Revolution

Social protests and revolutions are spreading like wildfire in the Middle East, shaking the very core of social orders which have been established for decades. In many ways the failed Green Revolution in Iran can be seen as a precursor to what we are seeing now in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, etc. Although the causes for these events are deep-rooted and varied, there is a general agreement that they would not have been possible without the social media revolution led by online blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. So what is it about the nature of social media that opens the possibility for social change where it has been supressed for so long?

In my Mission statement I mentioned a quote from “Democracy & Rhetoric: John Dewey on the Arts of Becoming”: 

“By making the individual both the means and the end of democracy, it [society] committed itself to investing its energies into creating individuals capable of possessing a moral will that achieves enough autonomy from dominant social forces that it is capable of reacting back on those forces with intelligence and power.”

One of the main imbalances that has existed in modern societies is the unequal access people have to channels of expression. So although there may be people who possess a moral will and achieve autonomy from sociel forces (media being one of the greatest of these), they do not have sufficient access to channels of expression. As a consequence of this, they may be able to react with intelligence, but not with power. Unless they are some of the few privileged to be in the spotlight, their reaction will not reach or influence many others. The potential for a public uprising is quenched before it has begun because they cannot distribute their message to enough people.As a result, the ones who controled the channels of expression controlled public opinion.

As I mentioned in Rhetorical Pressure and Moral Will, Kenneth Burke gave this warning in 1955:

“In practice, democratic states move toward a condition of partial tyranny to the extent that the channels of expression are not equally available to all factions in important public issues. Thus we see democracy being threatened by the rise of the enormous ‘policy-making’ mass media that exert great rhetorical pressure upon their readers without at the same time teaching them how to discount such devices; and nothing less than very thorough training in the discounting of rhetorical persuasiveness can make a citizenry truly free.”

What we can see right now is that social media has opened new channels of expression, and as a result information, emotions, and initiatives are spreading and bringing revolutionary consequences. Protests are being organized through Facebook groups and Twitter, restricted information about corrupt officials are available to everyone through Wikileaks and other web sites, and the social consciousness of new societies are being formulated by blogs and debated in online forums. Regimes are perplexed at this new social structure that is emerging. Unlike hierarchical institutions it is impossible to determine a leader you can kill or imprison to quell the movement. The new media are releasing private initiatives which organize themselves without directives from any organization. 

If any of you are in doubt about the real impact of the social media revolution, may I suggest you take a look at the following video clip ;)

We are in the middle of an exciting and scary media revolution. We do not know what social structure will emerge from the new possibilities of communication that we have unleashed. As Douglas Hesse points out, unlike the hierarchical structure of power and information, we are today experiencing “a quite different textual world in which knowledge and belief are shaped less by special isolated rhetorical acts than by countless encounters with any manner of texts, as if belief were a massive wiki."

In any case, I am excited about the possibilities this Brave New World offers, and if it can lead to a more democratic society, so much the better!

Rhetorical Pressure and Moral Will

We are currently living in deficient democracies. For democratic rule depends on an informed public who have the ability to be heard in the public discussion.

In “Introduction to Rhetorical Theory” Hauser writes that public discussion forms public judgment, and the quality of this discussion “depends on the conditions under which it takes place.” (88) Hauser mentions some of the conditions necessary for a good public discourse: “right to participate”, “access to relevant information”, “access to relevant media of dissemination so that they [citizens] can share their point of view with others in the public”, and “right of free speech.” (90) Whenever any of these are lacking it undermines good public judgment and (by implication) poses a threat to democracy.

Except for freedom of speech, all the conditions mentioned above are controlled mainly by the media. Though a citizen may want to participate in the public discourse, he is not likely to be heard unless he is granted access to relevant media of dissemination, and the media organizations often have the privilege to decide which information is relevant for their audience and how that information is presented.

Mass media is arguably one of the strongest “social forces” of modern society. There is a real danger that such forces could deceive a people to identify themselves with principles, parties and social movements that they ultimately do not have joint interests with. As Burke remarks in “Linguistic Approach to Problems in Education”, “In practice, democratic states move toward a condition of partial tyranny to the extent that the channels of expression are not equally available to all factions in important public issues. Thus we see democracy being threatened by the rise of the enormous ‘policy-making’ mass media that exert great rhetorical pressure upon their readers without at the same time teaching them how to discount such devices; and nothing less than very thorough training in the discounting of rhetorical persuasiveness can make a citizenry truly free.” (285)

Burke claims that a citizenry which has not been "thoroughly trained in the discounting of rhetorical devices" is in some ways enslaved. Clearly such a citizen will not be able to achieve enough autonomy from social forces to render him capable of reacting back on those forces effectively. Such training would contribute to restore the balance upset by the rise of ‘policy-making’ mass media and make citizens able to detect and hopefully avoid manipulation.

A stable democracy needs citizens who are able to distance themselves from these influences, question them to see what they are doing, and make a conscious decision to act with or react against those influences with intelligence and power. I believe that in order to become such a people we need to be learned in the intelligence of persuasion: rhetoric and rhetorical criticism.

As Professor Gary Layne Hatch writes, "those who understand the power of language to shape and respond to significant moments in time can gain some power over their circumstances and expand their individual freedom and influence. They become agents [no pun intended] - those who act - rather than those who are acted upon." Rhetorical criticism is how we can pause and negate some of the "bullets of influence" that fly at us all the time, and by using rhetoric we can fight back against those influences that are harmful. 
I believe we need to raise more awareness and help people be more educated about persuasion and democratic participation. Otherwise we may as well let a handful of powerful people rule us, since that is in effect the same experience we have as non-participating citizens. Hatch comments, "For many people, life is motion rather than action. Things happen to them that seem beyond their control. They are caught up in the flow of time and seem to be victims of circumstance."

Democracy is a gift that should be a cherished and living part of our societies. As Senator Smith says in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Liberty is too precious a thing to be buried in books."