The main discussion point that i took from the reading and probably more the tutorial, was the argument: "Do people or technology start revolutions?". There were alot of points for and against. "Revolutions cannot start without the people", "Technology is the only way these revolutions are successfully coordinated", etc. One of the groups did a great presentation on the history of communications technology and how they have been used in aiding and fanning the flames of revolution. Evgeny Morozov (2011) touches on this point by acknowledging the role of the telegraph in the 1917 Bolshevik revolution – just like
the role of the tape-recorder in the 1979 Iranian revolution and the
fax machine in the 1989 revolutions. He goes on to say that the fetishism of technology is at its strongest immediately after a revolution but tends to subside shortly afterward (2011). Will Twitter's and Facebook's influence on current events be forgotten in future years? Is the outcome of these acts of activism the only thing that matters? To come back to my original discussion, i believe people start revolutions and use available technology to spread their message and connect with like minded people. The revolutions of the past would have been nowhere near as successful if not for technology but they wouldn't have occurred at all if it weren't for the people. Thanks for reading. Peace out.
References
Morozov, E. (2011) ' Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go' The Guardian, 7 March, accessed on: 29/10/2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/07/facebook-twitter-revolutionaries-cyber-utopians
Image sourced from: thefosburyflop.com
Technology does come with a history and it is amazing to see the way that we have adapted and changed, as well as doing the same to technology in order to use it for our own purposes. I think the big issue here is whether the revolutions would have started without the technology and I think the answer is yes. I think that technology sure did assist the revolution, to happen so fast and on such an unprecedented scale but i don't think the technology can claim ownership over the revolutions. We are the people who have the control not the technology.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you. I think people get too excited and caught up in this technological fetishism, and forget that technology is nothing without people using it. Power to the people!
ReplyDeleteJust like paintbrushes do not create art, and large machines do not build build skyscrapers, Twitter and Facebook did no incite the Arab Spring Revolutions. Whilst the technology makes certain things possible, it is the passion of humanity that makes such achievements possible
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the above 100%. I think that both arguments have good points for example, the success of a revolution can hinge on how quick, how organized and how large it is. Which is all aided by the technology. But in all of these situations i believe the human element is always the most important. After all it wasn't a man deleting his twitter that sparked protests in Tunisia, it was a man setting himself on fire.
ReplyDelete