Friday Posting #4
JUS 430 OPTIONAL POSTING
THIS POSTING MAY BE DONE IN SUBSTITUTION FOR EITHER THE FOURTH FRIDAY POSTING (DUE JUNE 26) OR THE FOURTH WEDNESDAY POSTING (DUE JULY 1).
Answer one of the following in a blog posting of no less than 750 words. Please cite to at least 3 articles or web-based sources (i.e. blogs, Facebook, myspace, etc.) in your answer. Please use proper grammar and proofread carefully as usual.
How do we see technology changing the face of social protest as demonstrated during current protests in Iran?
I believe technology has very much altered the face of social protest and has been a key element in the voicing of Iran’s opposition. Through social networks via the Internet, articulating the conflict has been quite successful. Twitter up to this point, has been the largest use of technology by Iranians. The media for the past week or so has been extensively using the word Twitter. CNN is crazy about it. Although plenty of information to be found on Twitter was unconfirmed, Tehran and many other cities used it as a mechanism to organize. As a result, Twitter allowed for all citizens of the world to get a feel of what was taking place. The opposition, hostility, the violence, everything can now be voiced and seen. Of course technology has been around for quite sometime and it has been known that one can fake a video and/ or photo. However the view of “A sea of protesters, the faces of young people demanding their votes back, handheld and chaotic video of teargas clouds in the streets of Tehran, and ultimately the death of a young woman” would be difficult Renay San Miguel claims. I entirely concur with him. If one watches the video of the death of Neda Agha Soltan, it is clearly not a sham. The shrieking voice of her father, the screaming of the people, brings that reality from their grounds to yours. I get chills even sitting here writing about it as when I watched the video I cried and gloom took over me. Within one day of her shooting by military officials, the conflict in Iran was well known all over the world. This was done through technology, and without it I do not believe the opposition could have felt so confident. By this, I am referring to the support that was given to them through technological social networks. The Iranians seem very smart and perhaps do not need the world’s support as they are strong enough to fight for what they are now calling their “revolution”. However I believe these technological social networks only helped them to voice their views. It was said in one article there were businesses that work with allowing people in various countries whose governments censor the media, to uncensor it with their software. It is said there is no political predilection but the only goal is “to enable users to be private and secure on the Web, and to have access to the Web”. This allows for the Iranian opposition to view news outside of their own which mostly supports their opposition. While technology has been a useful mechanism for Iran, I feel it is safe to say that it may only be useful in a certain circumstance. That is, what country is using it? As I do not know much of Iran itself or their economy, people, and life I cannot say for sure, but it appears that it is not a third world country. Therefore the change of “face” in social protest by technology is overall successful but limited. One man noted, “Many of the Iranian protesters appear to be from the social elite”. In addition from what I have seen in the media there are many protestors, which leads me to believe that there is a pretty decent education given. The reason why I say this is due to the fact that this “revolution” happened very quickly. In another country whose education is poor, it seems to take a while for people to stand up to their government. Take Venezuela, Cuba, and Egypt for example. When I was in Cuba to study music, there was absolutely very limited technology. It seemed the only place you can find a computer let alone one with Internet access was in a hotel. Civil society does not have a way or unrestricted access to the Internet. For the two weeks I was there I saw enough people to count on one hand who had a cell phone. This further proves my point that the change of social protest through technology is limited. Furthermore, when I was in Venezuela many people had cell phones and Internet access. However the Internet was censored just as in Cuba and their phones are generally old models without cameras or video. How are these people supposed to voice their opinions without technology? Sudarsan Raghavan claims “For years, Egypt's democracy movement has used Internet technology, banners and slogans to galvanize its supporters, rallying often against U.S. policies and taking the lead in championing core Arab causes such as the plight of Palestinians or opposition to war in Iraq. Today, the movement is facing a crisis of leadership and vision and is torn by internal disputes…” This new technology change in social protest did not just stem from Iran, it has been used before. Yet it might be more successful in Iran due to the extensive use of Twitter, which is fairly new. All the more Egypt is considered a third world country. Perhaps their citizens are less educated. As a result, it could be that it was not only technology that helped revolutionize Iran but their education. I believe it is a mixture of both. Technology really did help people come together, voice their opinions, raise awareness and support all the easier. Media critic Adam Reilly also believes that it was not technology entirely which helped the Iranians get their word out. He claims due to the veteran journalists being constrained by the Iranian government or forced out “Twitter would have not had as much clout.” In addition he does not view the social network as a populist tool stating that it could very well be used to “co-opt” by “forces of state”. These are two comprehensible views. However all in all what I feel that we need to see is that Iran is a strong nation who is going to fight for their rights. Technology has changed the face of protest overall, especially in the Iranian conflict. It has raised emotion, awareness and support. But we need to keep in mind this technology is not on hand by everyone in the world. Therefore we have to not only think of the conflict in Iran, but those of other countries as well who are also trying to get their voices out but do not have the means to.
Note: It is now much more difficult for governments to oppress their people as a result of advanced technology.
Scholarly Resources:
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/25/second-guessing-twitters-effect-on-post-election-iran/
Great post, You may want to check out http://axisofjustice.org/ which has a collection of different magazines and websites about issues such as the Iranian protest and the War on Iraq. Great job
ReplyDelete