My research has been currently focused on past revolutions (both successes and failures). My previous blog post for Mediated Cultures is my actual KYHOI proposal. I intend to further this study with the book resources that I am currently reading. Ultimately this is an update on my research and further support of my thesis.
Recently within class we have been discussing the Twitter revolution in Iran. Neda's death on camera was the initial spark for the fire of the online movement. This first video acts as a story for the actual events that took place.
And this is the real event (Be Aware: Video is blocked due to youtube flagging of inappropriate content. You will have to provide your age to view the video.)
The 2009-2o10 Iran revolution movement provoked global awareness. Twitter became the tool for revolution. Yet, it is important to discuss what the tool was actually used for. Jared Keller wrote an article stating, "But it was the critical role of Twitter as a lightning rod for international attention that established it as a tool for political communication rather than outright organization. Iran's post-election unrest was the micro-blogging service's baptism by fire as a means to observe, report, and record, real-time, the unfolding of a crisis." Keller is developing an interesting insight, and it challenges the online-offline dynamic. Is the realm of online truly a depiction of the offline movement?
Even Twitter's actual role was questioned by Charles Krauthammer, "Twitter cannot stop a bullet. There was a lot of romantic outpouring here thinking that Facebook is going to stop Revolutionary Guards. It doesn't. Thuggery, a determined regime that is oppressive, that will shoot, almost always wins." This challenges the uprisings that we are seeing today, and it provokes detailed exploration of social media and its use in social movements. Social media today has become much more dynamic. The composition of video/text/audio/mapping/real-time/etc. creates a rich equation for social movement. Yet, I argue that the focus on a leader (person or idea) establishes a focus for change.
Without a focus... are the social movements of today a result of chaos? Can a structure change if it is tossed and turned? Or does change arise from finding a weak beam within the structure and targeting a collapse (a focused change)?
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Monday, April 11, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Where Are the Leaders?
The major question that I have created within the Mediated Culture project deals with forging links and the ripples that arise from connections. The best approach for understanding the process of the Egyptian revolution is to study the leadership dynamic. I am attempting to understand this dynamic starting at the origin of movement. I am currently studying other social movements for comparison, and I routinely find the prevalence of a leader. Mahatma Gandhi was a prominent leader during the Indian civil rights movement (1893-1914) and struggle for independence from the British during (1915-1945). The direction of the movement was dictated by its leader in both form and goal.
The above example is just one of many. Another arises from the civil rights movement with the leader known as Martin Luther King Jr. These are movements for rights of a people, and they are not so different in purpose from the Egyptian revolution.
The medium is the major contrast between movements then and movements now. An example of a new media movement arises out of Burma VJ. This is one of the first major examples of video in the hands of the people, raw footage, real image, a lens into reality.
Burma VJ is a starting point of change in revolution. The lens of a video camera changes the focus. The definition of a leader becomes skewed, and the focus on an individual becomes more variable. Burma VJ starts with a leader (Aung San Suu Kyi) and the movement shifts to the leadership of Buddhist Monks. This shift is descriptive of the individual-to-masses movement. During the shift process, videographers are continually placing power within the people. I believe that this is the development that arises within the Egyptian Revolution. New forms of social media are placing power within the masses.
The leadership dynamics have completely changed, and they are descriptive of the development of a new medium. I have been researching the leader figures within the Egyptian movement, and one major figure is Wael Ghonim. Yet, his leadership is not manifested within the old form of discussion. He is leading through twitter and Facebook. His statements are confined to 140 characters and manipulated by the links we forge. He works for Google. He is composed of the masses.
We are truly redefining how we operate and how we make decisions. The concept of agency is changing. Everyone has a say in the choices we make, and the focus shifts from a leader to the people. Is this a beneficial dynamic? Can we operate within this new realm?
More to come on decisions within groups...
The above example is just one of many. Another arises from the civil rights movement with the leader known as Martin Luther King Jr. These are movements for rights of a people, and they are not so different in purpose from the Egyptian revolution.
The medium is the major contrast between movements then and movements now. An example of a new media movement arises out of Burma VJ. This is one of the first major examples of video in the hands of the people, raw footage, real image, a lens into reality.
Burma VJ is a starting point of change in revolution. The lens of a video camera changes the focus. The definition of a leader becomes skewed, and the focus on an individual becomes more variable. Burma VJ starts with a leader (Aung San Suu Kyi) and the movement shifts to the leadership of Buddhist Monks. This shift is descriptive of the individual-to-masses movement. During the shift process, videographers are continually placing power within the people. I believe that this is the development that arises within the Egyptian Revolution. New forms of social media are placing power within the masses.
The leadership dynamics have completely changed, and they are descriptive of the development of a new medium. I have been researching the leader figures within the Egyptian movement, and one major figure is Wael Ghonim. Yet, his leadership is not manifested within the old form of discussion. He is leading through twitter and Facebook. His statements are confined to 140 characters and manipulated by the links we forge. He works for Google. He is composed of the masses.
We are truly redefining how we operate and how we make decisions. The concept of agency is changing. Everyone has a say in the choices we make, and the focus shifts from a leader to the people. Is this a beneficial dynamic? Can we operate within this new realm?
More to come on decisions within groups...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
