A Revolution Does Not Twitter Make
The Arab spring of 2011 toppled long-held regimes, won huge concessions from five countries, and continues to shape the Middle East’s relationship with the world.
However influential social media was in the global discussion and news cycle, the energy of those revolutions came from basic human needs gone unmet for far too long, argues Philip Seib in his new book, Real-Time Diplomacy: Politics and Power in the Social Media Era.
Mr. Seib is a Professor of Journalism and Public Diplomacy as well as a Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California. At a recent NYC event sponsored by USC’s Marshall School of Business, thirty or so alumni of varied ages but mostly political or media backgrounds gathered in an Upper East Side living room to discuss the role and impact of social media on the revolutions that swept the Middle East from December of 2010 to that of the next year.
In Part I, Seib deftly guides us through a country-by-country state of affairs, painting the picture of not one but two revolutions: that of politics and that of the media. Mr. Seib, a pre-eminent Middle East researcher, lays a strong foundation for the near-inevitably of social upheaval in some countries, like Egypt, in presenting details like the jobless rate among young men.
Perhaps more revealing, he discusses countries like Bahrain and Algeria, for example, which were able to avoid political ousting through social and infrastructure (read: jobs) improvement programs.
The media revolution is where the magic of social media made the difference, bringing first-hand accounts into the global fray, just as the world and the media were also learning how to handle false accounts and fraudulent digital content.
Freed by the clear distinction between new-age political diplomacy and the parallel media revolution, Part II recounts diplomacy in its Western historical context, recalling how much diplomacy has been shaped — sometimes for the worse — as it adapts to the 24-hour news cycle and the expectations of an increasingly-informed populace. In doing so, Seib does the human connection a welcome service.
Diplomacy is about the human and social connections that may not be quantifiable in a text message or email, however impacted by media expectations and technological capabilities.
In covering social media technology more directly, Part III reads like a much-needed beginner’s manual for the political and diplomatically-employed who may not have much regard or understanding of social media. Social media is inherently founded and fueled by the power of networks. These networks are intuitively powerful but given how early in the one-world stage we are, research is sparse and social influence is not necessarily predictable.
As a primer on the Arab spring, Real-Time Diplomacy is an excellent read. Mr. Seib’s background and lifetime of travels to the Middle East shine through. His tale of the social media aspect is fair and willing to challenge the sometimes over-hyped faith in technology, reminding that “old-school” diplomacy is really just about human connections, and that connection will never get old.
Rightfully, the book leaves the reader with questions about the true impact of social media and how the relationship between leaders and the public will evolve. But for certain, it is clear that technology is a much more dynamic conduit for human passion and human networks than ever before. These are early days for leveraging the power of human connections.
I’m glad you appreciate the reference and the article, Karen. And Matt, thank you for your contribution. Very interesting and good points, especially on the inherent limitations of using someone else’s platform for organization of a movement.
I love the aristotle reference in the title of this article. An engaging topic you bring to attention, and an equally intriguing comment above, it seems Mr. Sonnenshein deserves a column on here!
Mike,
I appreciate how you tempered down the idea that was floated by the press that social media equals political/social revolution. Journalists so often miss the point.
In Egypt, social media, in this case Facebook and Twitter, served as a walkie talkie, political meeting and newsletter all in one. Yes, an accomplishment, but remember most of the command centers for the technologies and the assets were overseas in the US. It was like they borrowed the Pentagons internal communication network and used it for a revolution. Say if some organization in the US wanted to challenge the government, the government would surely start meddling, like they do when they look through our emails without a warrant.
We all to frequently miss (in that “isn’t this cool”) that unlike the internet, social media is highly restrictive and controlled by companies that may not have an interest in socio-political events. Now that Facebook has to answer to shareholders, Facebook has an interest against participation in any socio-political events. Leave us out of it as advertisers may run for the hills!
The miracle, for lack of a better word, is the internet. The internet transfers data, and data can be almost any form (other than true human animation). Also, internet allows countless structures of transfer and arrangements of participants.
Social media is rule bound, as Facebook does not let me do anything I want and pulls all the strings (many of which I do not see). Its design is not to foster socio-political change and its hierachy can soon scuttle any such usage.
Essentially, you have maybe 10 inputs into social media, and although you may formulate a brilliant strategy and see it through, your content better sell itself, so there goes introducing a viewpoint dramatically different from their own. In the US, the Occupiers found out how the content didn’t sell itself like it did in Egypt (well when you see the bashed in face of someone torture, it become visceral). Occupiers I believe assumed that they faced a discriminating public that didn’t just wake up from a 30 year dictatorship. There was no simple goal like getting rid of a strong man.
Surely, the internet is a space (really an extension of the general human symbolic space) to come up with new paradigms, while social media is a paradigm, slow moving that it will probably never be much more effective later than now. My firm belief that if socio-political movements of the highly industrialized world are to do the necessary “work” online that those movement better get down and write their own code, find their own programs and systems of information exchange. It is these issues of design and access and conflict of interest in current social media that bring us back down to earth and realize the task in front of us is quite hefty and will not naturally flow from business innovation.
The internet (not invented by business) is a leveler. Facebook is not. It is a dynamic real time yearbook; you are checking people out essentially. And hopefully, someday the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world will get over putting up photos of who is hotter (because essentially that is the heart of Facebook) and do something real with the internet. He has got to get over not being popular in high school.