Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Facebook ousted Mubarak but China still going strong


            I remember in 2008 when most people realized that Facebook had successfully overtaken MySpace and that social media would not only be around to stay but would have an impact on everyday life. Admittedly I was not so sold on it despite my young age; I remember telling my dad how ridiculous I thought Twitter was: “Who needs to tell the world that they’re going to go get a cup of coffee?”
            Alas, I was profoundly mistaken. While social media does satisfy the needs of teenage girls and boys talking about their quotidien, it does present serious problems for authoritarian governments such as the Mubarak regime overthrown in 2011 in Egypt. The “Facebook Revolution” essentially means an expansion of invisible networks that is difficult to stop. My question: how can certain governments, like that in China, prevent for such long periods of time revolutions that were capable of dismounting a powerful dictator – and what’s more a Western-backed dictator – in Egypt, Tunisia, etc.?
In Lim’s article, Clicks, Cabs, and Coffee houses, she correctly notes that social activism was popular even before the advent of social media on the Internet, but that social media was able to act as a catalyst to a growing disenchanted and disenfranchised Egyptian public in starting a revolution. The high “biographical availability” that Lim discusses has allowed the youth to use social media as a way of disseminating their views across a wide audience. It wasn’t that social media itself caused the revolution, but it surely helped. As early as 2004, social media was at work in Egypt: “The first anti-Mubarak movement in history, Kefaya … had neither physical headquarters not permanent meeting place.” These anti-dictator movements clearly don’t appear out of thin air and must me, as Lim suggests, the result of years of angry people. Social media simply facilitated the movement, having acted as a forum for upset youth to gather and say, “We’re not alone.”
Amelia Arsenault in Networks: Emerging Frameworks for Analysis briefly touches on the chicken or the egg debate: “Did the rise of technological networks facilitate networked forms of social organization? Or do technological networks mirror pre-existing social networks?” Arsenault later suggests that advancements in technology lead to human action (note: “Facebook Revolution”) which then produces a modification to the social structure.
What seems to be an answer to my question then is that the Chinese government is simply more stable and has a better grasp on its state than did Mubarak on Egypt.  I wish that Lim had provided a little more analysis on Internet governance in Egypt, since during my read through of her case study I kept asking myself, “Why didn’t the Egyptian government get a hint and do something about citizens’ access?”

2 comments:

  1. In response to your question regarding how certain governments, such as the Central Communist Party in China, can prevent revolutions for such long periods of time -- it is interesting to consider your comment on how, on the surface, the Chinese government appears to be more stable. I’m not sure if it’s just more stable, or more liberal with its use of violent force—to which the world has stood witness. Examples of the Chinese government’s crackdowns on dissidents who use and/or are in contact with others who use social media include the stories of the famous blind dissident Cheng Guangchen and international acclaimed artist and dissident Ai Weiwei. The government has come down even harder on those who elected to protest its actions through non-social media means, such as the anti-Chinese government self-immolation protests in Tibet. (VOA has details here: http://www.voanews.com/content/tibet-protest-crackdown-china/1120496.html)

    With regard to the “Facebook revolution” in Egypt, Lim hypothesizes that “social media represent tools and spaces in which various communication networks that make up social movement[s] emerge, connect, collapse and expand” (Lim, 234). I believe that social media can come to represent Lim’s “tools” and “spaces,” however, there must be a genesis—a symbolic beginning of social media being used in this very particular way. Lim traces it to the upstart of the 2004 Kefaya movement.

    In China, however, it is unclear if such a genesis with social media ever existed, and if it has been sustained. While there seems to be a nascent understanding or call for the use of social media as an extension of socio-political activism, such activity is forbidden in the Middle Kingdom. If they exist, these underground movements remain underground, for once they surface, the Party often vanquishes them. Moreover, the Chinese government actively employs censors and its “50 Cent Army,” which Professor Hayden mentioned in class. (The BBC has a news article about them here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7783640.stm)

    It’s been over 23 years since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Was that the genesis? If it was, it seems the Party has succeeded in stomping it out. But for how long will this army of censors and “spin doctors” be effective? How long can they hold back the flood with violence? It seems that they can hold back the tide as long as the Chinese public allows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Learned a lot from your response, thanks!

      Although I would say the comment on China being "more liberal with itse use of force" is touchy, since I would not necessarily have considered Mubarak conservative in the oppression of his own people. The US just happened to support that oppression, and we like to highlight China's human rights abuses to further our own interests.

      ....unless you're speaking on behalf of the US government in which case what I mean to say is "EVERYTHING THE US DOES IS RIGHT/CHINA IS EVIL/DONT ARREST ME"

      Delete