Technology and Political Change
Henry Farrell is skeptical of the “twitter revolution” narrative:
As someone who has thought a reasonable amount over the past few years about the relationship between information technology and political action, I am somewhat skeptical of these claims (I also don’t know what the word ‘protagonal’ means, but that’s a whole different issue). First – while Twitter (like SMS) can be used to organize protests on the fly, I haven’t yet seen any evidence that it made a substantial difference to organizing efforts in Iran. This is not to say that it didn’t – but we need good evidence (which will require Persian language expertise, obviously) of correlation between specific bursts of Twitter communication and forms of social protest etc before we can really be sure that there was an effect. What we can say is that previous instances of ‘color revolution’ relied much less on technology than you would have thought from reading Western media. New technologies tend to be less reliable and more easily disrupted than traditional forms of organizing – while they are surely becoming more important over time, I think it is fair to discount some of the more breathlessly enthusiastic reporting until the actual evidence comes in.
Another issue is getting causal direction right. I frequently use my personal Twitter feed to coordinate plans with friends. Anyone interested in seeing such-and-such a movie? But it’s not as if the existence of Twitter caused me to start seeing movies with friends. Thanks to Twitter I now never use one-to-many SMS in order to organize movie going, and I use email for that purpose somewhat less than I once did. And thanks to email and Twitter and SMS, I never arrange movie plans over the phone, which is what I used to do. But, again, what’s going on here is the same old thing happening in a new medium, not the new medium actually allowing new things to happen. Insofar as Twitter becomes a more popular communications tool, popular protests will increasingly have a Twitter component. But that’s not the same as saying that Twitter is actually driving the political events.
20 Responses to “Technology and Political Change”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 16th, 2009 at 9:15 am
It’s like octagonal, but cheaper and more dangerous.
Protagonal is to octagonal as propane is to octane.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:16 am
“Protagonal” = shaped like a polygon with as many sides as a protagonist.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am
But that’s not the same as saying that Twitter is actually driving the political events.
Um, I haven’t seen anybody say that. What I have seen people say is that the decentralized, informally networked nature of twitter or SMS has made it more difficult for oppressive governments to isolate people.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:37 am
It would be ludicrous to say that twitter caused the recent events in Iran. At best, for the people there, it facilitated the organization of activities. However, it may be that the most important function of twitter in the current “revolution” is the dissemination of news to people outside of Iran.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:52 am
[...] content where most major news organizations have cut back on reportage, I think Henry Farrell and Matt Yglesias get it right about the role of these technologies in these [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 9:56 am
I haven’t yet seen any evidence that it made a substantial difference to organizing efforts in Iran.
what sort of line-of-sight does mr farrell have that he might be able to see such a thing? i am thinking a comfy chair in an east coast office where he is paid to offer opinions on things he doesn’t have much line-of-sight on.
the question is not “is there a revolution b/c of twitter” but rather “what does twitter/sms/etc mean to the revolution”? but, that question would require mr farrell to think, not opine.
we expect better, matt.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:57 am
My experience is that people who are convinced that X New Technology is going to have a big impact on political organizing have spent a lot of time around technology and not a lot of time on political organizing.
When new communication technology comes around, it makes a difference. Organizers need cheap ways of communicating quickly with large numbers of people, and in repressive environments (where peaceful protest is most vital) they need to be able to do it without tipping the authorities to what’s going on.
Email, text messaging, twitter, blogs, etc. have all helped with that. They’re great! But the key problems facing politial organizers have always been practical, not technological. The logistics of protest are a pain in the ass, and better technology makes it less so. But the steep part of the curve is tactical (how to execute actions for maximum effect and minimum cost) and strategic (setting goals and timelines) and Twitter doesn’t help you there.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Come now, I think we are all forgetting the difference Twitter made during the American and French Revolutions.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Contra Farrell’s (and MY’s, and my) point, Juan Cole says that Iranian protest actions are historically very dependent on emerging technology.
Interesting point.
http://juancole.com/
June 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am
what sort of line-of-sight does mr farrell have that he might be able to see such a thing? i am thinking a comfy chair in an east coast office where he is paid to offer opinions on things he doesn’t have much line-of-sight on.
As opposed to your privileged position? Yeesh. I think the extent to which Twitter is helping Iranian protesters is an open question
June 16th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Websters first definition of “protagon” is:
“A nitrogenous phosphorized principle found in brain tissue. By decomposition it yields neurine, fatty acids, and other bodies.”
Which is what I generally think of twitter.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am
I frequently use my personal Twitter feed to coordinate plans with friends…But it’s not as if the existence of Twitter caused me to start seeing movies with friends….thanks to email and Twitter and SMS, I never arrange movie plans over the phone, which is what I used to do. But, again, what’s going on here is the same old thing happening in a new medium, not the new medium actually allowing new things to happen.
But making something easier through new technology (which is what is happening here), is the same as making something cheaper, because it takes less time and effort. It is a simple economic principle that when things become cheaper, people consume (or do) more of them.
So while it may not make a difference to your movie-going habits–since calling your friends is already awfully cheap–something as complex as organizing a protest rally in defiance of an authoritarian regime could absolutely be meaningfully impacted, not necessarily in motive but in scale, by the availability of new technology.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
The police are not trying to prevent you from going to the movies with your friends.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“Contra Farrell’s (and MY’s, and my) point, Juan Cole says that Iranian protest actions are historically very dependent on emerging technology.”
I’m surprised Cole isn’t defending the Iranian regime. He used to defend them against things Mir-Hosain Mousavi attacked them over in that television debate.
I’ll take Mousavi over Cole.
I do think effective use of new technology helped the Obama candidacy. Maybe it wasn’t decisive but it helped.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
jayackroyd and FearItself get it right. The importance of twitter is not that its the best way to politically organize, its that Iranians have more or less successfully used it as a way to get pass state censors.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Perhaps he isn’t ideologically wedded to either the Iranian regime or Mousavi, and therefore offers opinions on the relative merits of either on a case by case basis – you know, a flip-flopper.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Don’t feed the poptrolls, Njorl.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
And I thought SMS one to many was Twitter.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
“I’ll take Mousavi over Cole.”
Amusing, since Mousavi is reputedly a former hardliner who appears to have re-invented himself for the sole purpose of seizing Ahmadinejad’s power.
In other words, not a penny’s worth of difference between them.
Which makes everybody jumping up and down that Mousavi didn’t win a bit ridiculous.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:28 am
[...] Technology and Political Change | Matthew Yglesias [...]