ONLINE ACTIVISM
CREATING OFFLINE CHANGE
The Bigger Picture
Consideration of Jurgen Habermas’ public sphere theory is imperative to understanding the emergence of online activism, the motives of online activists, and reaching an understanding of the role social media can play in tangible offline change. It may seem age old; nevertheless many media scholars and academic discussions of civic engagement archetypally make reference to the concept of the public sphere (Papacharissi 2008). As we are very much deliberating a matter of civic engagement, we will consider the public sphere from its historical context and its place in modern society. Pieter Boeder (2005) considers the post-modern concept of the public sphere still important and relevant, though subject to dramatic change as our communication technologies change and advance. We must consider the history of the public sphere to explain the evolution to its current state.
Habermas regards the Liberal Model of the Public Sphere as unprecedented in history with unique public discussion. He suggests that after the democratic revolutions in bourgeois society, the bourgeois public sphere was institutionalised in constitutional orders, resulting in a system to mediate between individuals or groups and the state. In a sense, we are facing a similar dawn where the online manifestation of the public sphere has begun to penetrate constitutional orders.
Is it as effective in doing so as its former self? How has our public sphere changed over the last century? What influence does it really have on society now?
According to Habermas the public sphere is a ‘realm of our social life in which something approaching a public opinion can be formed’ (Habermas 1964 p.49). The public sphere facilitates rational discussion or discourse of public affairs directed toward the greater good. So what role can digital communication technologies play in facilitating change?
Before we get to this conundrum, let us backtrack to the advent of new media and ‘web 2.0’ where the emergence of electronic mass media has since radically changed the notion of the public sphere, its future and the future of participative democracy. Previously, the means for transmitting information included newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Owing to the digital age, now incorporated are platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, blogs and online forums, all of which allow a public body to express and publish their opinions and concerns; to ideate; and to analyse social situations in rational and critical discussion. While political activism has been around for quite some time, the development of digital communication technologies has in effect established a global communication sphere which attempts to provoke social, cultural or political change within the real world (Meikle 2002 p.4). This has subsequently given rise to the theory of digital democracy - the use of digital technologies and new media in order to enhance political democracy.
Zizi Papacharissi is of the opinion that a medium like the Internet, with an infrastructure that promises unlimited and unregulated discourse and which operates beyond geographic boundaries, would suggest a virtual reincarnation of the public sphere (Papacharissi, 2008, p. 231). But that’s just it - “virtual reincarnation”. We already know the Internet is unprecedented in terms of communication. What we need to know is whether or not the discourse that occurs in this virtual public sphere results in any offline, real, tangible, social, political or cultural change, and if so - how?
In recent years the use of Internet-based communicative technologies for activist purpose has been an ever-growing phenomena. One of the earliest known cases of the use of Internet as a medium for activism was in 1990, during a mass e-mail and e-bulletin board campaign against Lotus MartketPlace. Soon thereafter, many realised the suitability and potential of the Internet and digital communication technologies as a means of democratic communicative action. The potential lies in the highly developed modes of computer-mediated communication, which people began to harness more and more for cause-related fundraising, community building, lobbying and organising. This trend subsequently resulted in the virtual reincarnation of the public sphere, the ‘Virtual Sphere’ or ‘The Public Sphere 2.0’ (Papacharissi 2008).
While all this sounds overbearingly impressive, we must avoid sounding biased cyberutopian views. Papacharissi states that ‘scholarship examining the public sphere potential of the Internet has typically been divided into utopian and dystopian views’ (Papacharissi, 2008 p.234) meaning they either praise online political participation, question its actual impact, or both. The reality lies in the fact that the Internet serves as an asset or detriment depending on how it is put to use. As a group, we agree with Papacharissi’s contention that ‘the Internet serves as a tool and does not contain the agency to effect social change. Individuals, on the other hand, possess differing levels of agency, based on which they can employ the Internet to varying ends, effects and gratification’ (Papacharissi, 2008 p.2). However, we personally do consider raising awareness, either good or bad- simply being seen or noticed has a degree of social change. Habermas himself actually doubted the democratising potential of the Internet, predicting a commercial orientated direction with circumstantial political activity (Habermas, 2006).
There are a number of factors influencing ‘The Virtual Sphere’ that should be considered when questioning its impact compared to the Habermasan ideal. The main few being;
-
The Internet as a public sphere is only available to those who have access to it, which is, in some areas of the world, still limited. A 2014 study by social media agency WeAreSocialSG reveals there are 2.5 billion internet users at a global level, meaning 35% internet penetration worldwide. By region these statistics sit at North America 81%, Western Europe 78%, Oceania 63%, CEE 54%, East Asia 48%, South America 47%, South East Asia 25% and Africa 18%**. Papacharissi (2008 p.9) notes that this diffusion means the internet harbours an illusion of an open public sphere.
-
Online discussion can connect people from all over the world with similar ideas, motivations and hopes but scholars (Mitra 1997, Schmitz 1997) suggest they can also magnify cultural disparities.
-
Commercialisation of the Internet is a threat to the Internet’s potential as a virtual sphere. This threat evokes the same concern Habermas has for the detrimental and manipulating effects the mass media could have on the contemporary public sphere (Ben Macloughlin, 2009, p.13)
Overall, examinations of the Internet as a public sphere suggest that the Internet and digital communication technologies provide a public space but do not necessarily create or enable a public sphere (Papacharissi, 2008 p.12). However, online activism is a phenomenon that is still relatively new and we cannot assume its future. Lasch (1987 p. 295) describes technologies as ‘mirrors of society’ which expose the inadequacies, merits and hopes of society. Individuals are likely to respond to technologies and even more so to the discourse surrounding them. Gunkel (1997) believes ‘the future of technology rests on the metaphors and language we employ to describe it’.
History of Activisim
The history of activism is also the history of democracy. James Laxer sums this up beautifully:
“Democracy has origins in diverse societies, including those of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but it evolved in modern times in the struggles for social equality and liberty during the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries in Europe and North America. These struggles, buttressed by new concepts of human nature as well as by revolutionary breakthroughs in science and philosophy, culminated in a massive assault on the established order. The American and French Revolutions in the latter decades of the eighteenth century were climactic episodes in that struggle.” (2011 p.18).
Activism is precisely linked with a social groups perception of injustice, inequality or unbalance, which translates directly from the writings of seventeenth-century philosophers such as Thomas Hobbs and John Locke, which claimed that all men (not women) were created equal. These original ideas, inspired by the scientific work of Galileo, Copernicus and Newton, have developed over the centuries and are strongly represented at the root of many social and political movements - including the French and American revolutions. Written in 1776, the dominant ideaologies represented in the United States Declaration of Independance asserted that 'all men are created equal' and they have the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.
Almost a decade later, in 1789, The French National Constituent Assembly successfully overthrew the traditional feudalism that had been the defining factor of the country and wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the forerunner of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (passed in 1948). The first article of the Declaration reads: 'Men are born free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good'. The second article states: 'The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression'.
Again, the disruption of these basic human rights can be found at the heart of many activist movements. Activism is the result of a politically engaged society who calls into question the policies and actions of their government. As long as there has been democracy there has been activism, which is why following the history of democracy provides us with the background and progression of activist movements; the first and greatest movements being those seen during both the US and French revolutions.