13 July 2009

Politweets


The disputed 2009 Iranian presidential election sparked an unprecedented amount of U.S. media coverage, which of course led to a curious amount of attention in pop culture. As I basked in the warm glow of various electronic screens, I couldn’t help but feel a strange sense that something was awry within the bombardment of images of, chatter about, and support for the ensuing political demonstrations.

Time for reflection has helped me get closer to uncovering what I couldn’t put my finger on before: the benefit of devoting mass amounts of media coverage to the Iranian demonstrations, and the specific type of attention it was getting in the United States, would ultimately have nothing to do with the state of democracy in Iran.

As they often do, a few words from Slavoj Zizek ring true for me and seem to speak precisely to such a phenomenon. Describing the techno-savvy, business-minded, yet cause-sensitive people who are at the forefront of capitalism’s recent evolution into a non-self-perpetuating (i.e. not driven by greed alone) system which is very good at making lots of money by trying to care about Stuff at the same time, Zizek notes their odd political ethos by sarcastically pointing out the way they have reworked Marx's observation about the steam engine:
What are all the protests against global capitalism worth in comparison with the invention of the internet?
We are apparently a step even further now, for the overwhelming sense I had when the protests in Iran and the coverage of them were at their peak was that the message we were intended to receive had little to do with Iranian democracy; the real message was, “What is the struggle against totalitarianism worth in comparison with the onset of Twitter?”

Indeed, let’s ask ourselves who the winners of the whole ordeal were: the Iranian people? Certainly not, as their potentially flourishing democracy remains restrained by a totalitarian theocracy. The Iranian establishment? Obviously, Ahmadinejad will always look bad, but even Khamenei will find it hard to possibly look good after suppressing an opposition with very real concerns over the legitimacy of the election. Twitter? The company quickly discovered what the neo-capitalists have known all along, that nothing is as good for business as a humanitarian crisis. This is not to say that Twitter’s end-goal was to exploit the situation of the people of Iran. Nor am I suggesting that the awareness the Western world was allowed via Twitter was not beneficial in some way.

However, I think the subsequent inane Twitterization of everyday life we have seen since that time is evidence that the web site walked away with much gained. From inconsequential celebrities to legitimate news programs, Twitter has suddenly become some kind of proxy journalism; journalism being the institution formerly made up of professionals who sought the public good by seeking out first-hand, the developments society needed to be aware of, in order to bring about change.

It’s not that I find Twitter annoying and pointless (which I do), I just find this growing trend toward e-politics troubling. I remember during the last presidential election in our own country how often I heard facebook and MySpace group numbers being cited on the news. The advent of e-campaigns was the true focus, not political change.

Just as the internet boom failed to translate into deep political change in our own democracy, it is no surprise that we witnessed the same impotency in regards to Iran. While the people of Iran risked their physical well-being to take to the streets and demand to be heard, we in the U.S. failed to do the same. The Western media in general failed to move beyond the fact that Iranians were tweeting, and thus missed why they were doing it. I hope would-be activists in the U.S. soon realize that we can't tweet our way to a better future.

3 comments:

  1. I agree with much of your post; I don't think that social networking websites are going to lead to mass revolution just because people talk about it all day, nor do I think social networking sites count as reliable sources in most situations. I also agree that the Western mainstream media often hindered, rather than helped, protesters, and often focused far too much on the tools for protest, rather than the outcry itself (particularly in the early days after the election).

    I guess I do have trouble understanding exactly how you're condemning the use of Twitter, in regards to the Iranian protesters specifically. Are you advocating the position that people in Western society (or the US in particular) failed to provide adequate support for the Iranian people because we relied so heavily on internet sources such as Twitter? I doubt many Western "would-be activists" considered Twitter alone capable of supporting the revolution, nor do I think many socially conscious people would believe the internet alone is the means by which a "better future" will be built.

    However, in the specific instance of the protests following the Iranian election, Twitter served multiple valuable purposes. There was a wide movement, driven via Twitter, for setting up safe, anonymous proxy servers for Iranian citizens to utilize without fear of being tracked by the government. It allowed people in Iran to communicate with friends and relatives outside the country, make plans and share information with fellow protesters anonymously, as well as update the world (refuting misleading reports coming from the government) on the situation with photos, videos, and personal observations. Particularly after foreign journalists were banned, and voices of opposition in the local press were jailed, Twitter (and e-mail, often aided by the proxy servers) was one of the few remaining sources of information from within Iran.

    The widespread protests in the streets of Tehran, and throughout the country, were obviously more effective means of protest; Twitter was just a tool to aid those protests and continue communication when the government of Iran was attempting to silence the voices of the protesters.

    I don't think that revolution will happen immediately as a result of the election, but it seems far too early to dismiss the demonstrations as "impotent." The fact that so many Iranians felt moved to protest the current regime, despite the inherent risks, seems like a signal that many people there are increasingly dissatisfied and wanting change. A movement like the Sea of Green won't be easily forgotten.

    I apologize if I've misinterpreted your statements, and I do appreciate your thoughtful analysis. I look forward to your response and/or clarifications.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stephanie-
    Likewise, thanks for the thoughtful comment and I'm in complete agreement with everything you said. Therefore, I probably owe some clarification: I briefly mentioned, but in hindsight was a little vague about, the fact that I'm not condemning the use of Twitter as such. You pointed out the very important role it did indeed play in assisting the Iranian demonstrations.

    Furthermore, the demonstrations are not what I was referring to as impotent; precisely the opposite. The demonstrations are exactly what I am advocating as the vehicle of true policital change. What i was referring to as impotent are the types of e-revolutions lauded by the media in ways which forget the root struggle. That being said, I do agree with you that it is too early to determine what the effects of the Sea of Green will be. At any rate, the fact that it happened says something important, I think.

    As for my comments about would-be activists in the U.S., in general i meant them more as an exhortation than a condemnation. That being said, I think we do need to be very wary of the popular tendency to become distracted by the hipness of political struggle. Sticking with the Marxist motif, I think the internet in a lot of ways is becoming the new opiate of the masses. I think there are indeed a troubling number of people who for whatever reason--be it personal disposition, media influence--are content and happy with themselves, having achieved a sense of having done their duty by passing along a few tweets.

    I'm sure this wasn't the case across the board, but I remember being really confused when i read an article called (something to the extent of)'How to help the Iran protesters.' It contained a bunch of tips on how to forward pictures, label your tweets appropriately, etc.; absolutely nothing about community organizing, editorial writing, letter writing to officials and responsible parties, protest dates, etc.

    Additionally, I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to downplay the importance of spreading awareness. However, awareness is only half the battle. The other half is action, and unless one is using twitter in a directly subversive way such as the Iranian students (who not coincidentally supplemented that with physical organization), I'm skeptical as to whether tweeting can be construed as action.

    Let me know if I still have some 'splaining to do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i love the irony of the fact that i really want to tweet your blog.

    well done.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for contributing to the conversation!