A very social revolution? (Image: Sipa Press/Rex Features)
Economic meltdown, pro-democracy revolts, protest
camps - it's kicking off everywhere. But was all this catalysed by new
social media and technologies as many claimed? Paul Mason, a BBC correspondent who witnessed much of the unrest at first-hand, tells Liz Else that it's a lot subtler than that
There has always been social unrest in the world. Is it different this time round?
I think the human factor in the events we're witnessing goes beyond the political and the economic; it's about changes in behaviour and in the relationships between networks of people and hierarchies of power.
I think the human factor in the events we're witnessing goes beyond the political and the economic; it's about changes in behaviour and in the relationships between networks of people and hierarchies of power.
Much has been made of the role of Twitter, Facebook and the like. What's your take?
Digital communications and social networks are the two big things facilitating revolutions and uprisings. I don't say they've caused them, any more than the printing press caused the English revolution of the 17th century. People starting these revolutions are often insulted by suggestions that Facebook and Twitter have anything to do with it, but they do.
Digital communications and social networks are the two big things facilitating revolutions and uprisings. I don't say they've caused them, any more than the printing press caused the English revolution of the 17th century. People starting these revolutions are often insulted by suggestions that Facebook and Twitter have anything to do with it, but they do.
New
media are obviously important in circumventing police repression and
armed activity. In the early stages of the Egyptian protests, small
groups were able to bring out tens of thousands of poor people who
can't read by organising groups of up to five people to go to the same
place using texting and social media. They arrived, and found each
other - the idea of finding each other is crucial for the movements
we're talking about.
Are such flashmobs inherently undefeatable?
I don't say they are undefeatable, but to defeat the essence of them, you have to undermine democracy through, for example, pre-emptive arrests, and do things like switch off the internet and Facebook.
I don't say they are undefeatable, but to defeat the essence of them, you have to undermine democracy through, for example, pre-emptive arrests, and do things like switch off the internet and Facebook.
Aside from aiding democracy, what exactly can new media do?
One of the brilliant things about Twitter is that it kills propaganda. When the Bahrain crackdown began, for example, I happened to be awake and following Twitter. People were saying "they're firing live bullets". We were trying to check this, and one of the most immediate ways was to follow links to pictures posted from cellphones. Two or three pictures of people arriving at hospital with injuries consistent with live bullets takes you a lot further towards verifiable truth than you would get normally.
One of the brilliant things about Twitter is that it kills propaganda. When the Bahrain crackdown began, for example, I happened to be awake and following Twitter. People were saying "they're firing live bullets". We were trying to check this, and one of the most immediate ways was to follow links to pictures posted from cellphones. Two or three pictures of people arriving at hospital with injuries consistent with live bullets takes you a lot further towards verifiable truth than you would get normally.
How does this let us see the world differently?
It allows activists to disseminate news of what they are doing almost in real time. If you follow second by second some of the accounts coming from Cairo's Tahrir Square, you can almost see when activists realised they had broken through, that it wasn't just a few hundred people turning up but tens of thousands. What I observed is that if you discover the right 15 people and follow them, you can spot things going on, for example, in Libya, even before the news reports it - probably 24 hours beforehand.
It allows activists to disseminate news of what they are doing almost in real time. If you follow second by second some of the accounts coming from Cairo's Tahrir Square, you can almost see when activists realised they had broken through, that it wasn't just a few hundred people turning up but tens of thousands. What I observed is that if you discover the right 15 people and follow them, you can spot things going on, for example, in Libya, even before the news reports it - probably 24 hours beforehand.
Who is driving this change?
When you're following these people, or interfacing with the activists who organised the Egyptian revolution and the people in Occupy, the international anti-capitalist protest movement, what you realise is that at the centre of all the events are what I call graduates without a future.
When you're following these people, or interfacing with the activists who organised the Egyptian revolution and the people in Occupy, the international anti-capitalist protest movement, what you realise is that at the centre of all the events are what I call graduates without a future.
While
the graduate without a future is not a new sociological type, the
interesting thing is that it's uncommon in the last 20 or 30 years for
a younger generation to believe its future has been destroyed or
stolen. And this is something that you find if you go into a Starbucks
in New York, or Cilantro in Cairo, the Egyptian equivalent.
In
your book you argue that these technologies, plus other factors, are
bringing down the power hierarchies. Are there echoes in the past?
I do think that some of the ideas we're looking at were born in the 1960s. There is a straight line through from hallucinogenic drugs to computer design that leads directly to the internet and social media. The dreams those guys had are not just achievable, they are happening right now. They just didn't have the technology to deliver the levels of freedom that the average Joe in Starbucks with a smartphone has now.
I do think that some of the ideas we're looking at were born in the 1960s. There is a straight line through from hallucinogenic drugs to computer design that leads directly to the internet and social media. The dreams those guys had are not just achievable, they are happening right now. They just didn't have the technology to deliver the levels of freedom that the average Joe in Starbucks with a smartphone has now.
This
technology also delivers amazing individual freedoms, and can turn us
into instant experts. But can't empowerment also be shallow without the
right education?
That's something some of my interviewees in my book are very frank about. I've interviewed people who've read hardly anything, students who are determinedly unread. They say, I don't need to read a newspaper because I know everything happening in my world is on Twitter before it's going to get into a newspaper. What they are also revolting against is the processing of information.
That's something some of my interviewees in my book are very frank about. I've interviewed people who've read hardly anything, students who are determinedly unread. They say, I don't need to read a newspaper because I know everything happening in my world is on Twitter before it's going to get into a newspaper. What they are also revolting against is the processing of information.
Despite all the challenges we're facing, climate change, economic collapse and so on, you seem very upbeat about the future
The economic crisis has brought forward a lot of the strategic resource issues but at the same time we are improvising the means to solve some of them. Take slum housing. There, the innovation among informal communities is massive and they are being rapidly empowered by technology, new cheap materials and the printability of solar panels. It's all micro, but add social networks, and lots of things can be solved by mobilising resources fast to the right place. And that's all down to simple telecoms and open horizontal networks.
The economic crisis has brought forward a lot of the strategic resource issues but at the same time we are improvising the means to solve some of them. Take slum housing. There, the innovation among informal communities is massive and they are being rapidly empowered by technology, new cheap materials and the printability of solar panels. It's all micro, but add social networks, and lots of things can be solved by mobilising resources fast to the right place. And that's all down to simple telecoms and open horizontal networks.
How can this make a real difference?
Say an aid charity asks, how does it apply to us? I say, next time you're digging a well in Bangladesh and it's going wrong, your instinct will be to tell nobody. But what you should do instead is tell everybody via Twitter, and probably some guy in Stanford, California, a second generation migrant from that village, might be able to mobilise people and resources you can't to sort it out. Things like that happen in the modern world.
Say an aid charity asks, how does it apply to us? I say, next time you're digging a well in Bangladesh and it's going wrong, your instinct will be to tell nobody. But what you should do instead is tell everybody via Twitter, and probably some guy in Stanford, California, a second generation migrant from that village, might be able to mobilise people and resources you can't to sort it out. Things like that happen in the modern world.
The
effects on poor countries really are immense. Just a simple cellphone
is a very powerful dissolver of old-fashioned hierarchies. My best
example comes from the Kenyan hairdressing salons in Nairobi, which can
be quite medieval and run by a madame to whom you are effectively
indentured. She guards all her clientele closely. Once cellphones came
in, the hairdressers would take the numbers of their clients and that
was the end of the old system.
Does new media allow people to come up with new ideas about organising the world?
People are unprepared to try to replace the existing system with a different one. And this puzzles people who believe in hierarchies - both from the right and the left. The left would like the protestors to go the whole hog; the right are puzzled by their non-acceptance of the system.
People are unprepared to try to replace the existing system with a different one. And this puzzles people who believe in hierarchies - both from the right and the left. The left would like the protestors to go the whole hog; the right are puzzled by their non-acceptance of the system.
The
reason that this horizontalism is such a prevalent ideology is because
the technology and the expanded power of the individual allow you to
create something in between: areas of autonomy, either in your personal
life, online, or among a smaller community. The Occupy camps are a
physical expression of what people experience when they're online:
negotiated, benign, hierarchy-free spaces. I see a camp as an analogue
social network.
Is it possible to have revolt and revolution without getting rid of capitalism?
We will see. We have to be aware that this generation believes power ought to be disseminated. They are almost religiously anti-hierarchy and anti-power.
We will see. We have to be aware that this generation believes power ought to be disseminated. They are almost religiously anti-hierarchy and anti-power.
Profile
Paul Mason read music at university, and worked as a music teacher. He is now economics editor at Newsnight, the BBC's current affairs programme. His latest book is Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere: The new global revolutions (Verso). Follow him at bbc.co.uk/paulmason or @paulmasonnewshttp://www.newscientist.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment