Kelvin Teo
The internet today is social by default
Malcolm Gladwell published an interesting piece entitled “Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted” in the Annals of Innovation section of The New Yorker, commenting on the effectiveness, or more precisely the lack thereof of social media in bringing about social changes. Gladwell drew evidences from the Greensboro sit-in as part of the African-American Civil Rights Movement which took place in the 1960s.
The protagonists of the sit-in protest against racial segregation, more famously known as the Greensboro Four, comprised Ezell A. Blair Jr, David Leinhail Richmond, Joseph Alfred McNeil and Franklin Eugene McCain, all of whom are African-Americans. Originally, the lunch counters of the Woolworth’s store had chairs and stools for whites, whilst blacks had to stand and eat. The four sat at the lunch counter in an unprecedented move, borne out of a plan that was deliberated over weeks earlier. They were naturally refused service by the staff; the situation grew tenser with the showing up of white toughs who hurled racial epithets at the four.
However, beginning with the four, the number of African-American participation in the protest grew. The next morning, the protest involved 27 men and four women, all of whom reside in the same dormitory as the original four. In subsequent days, the protest swelled to six hundred people which included the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College football team.
The Greensboro sit-in and other movements were analyzed by Stanford sociologist Doug McAdam and according to the latter, yielded an interesting pattern – participants of such movements have a great degree of personal connections with each other. To put things into perspective, the Greensboro Four were close college mates. McNeil was Blair’s room-mate, while Richmond bunked in with McCain one floor above Blair. And the four would smuggle beer and have long chats late into the night at Blair and McNeil’s room.
The same strong tie phenomenon was found in other revolutionary events such as that leading to the collapse of the Berlin Wall. The primary determinant of the East German opposition movement was the number of critical friends – the more friends an individual had who were against the regime, the more likely one will take part in the movement. There is no reason to doubt that the same phenomenon that happens elsewhere is also applicable to Singapore; i.e. in order for any social movement in Singapore to succeed, it has to involve like-minded individuals with close ties with each other.
The other important element is the presence of a centralized hierarchical organization to coordinate the activities of the movement. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was an example of a centralized organization, the other one being the black church. Both were at the center of the civil rights movement. Hence, a similarly effective movement in Singapore would have required the presence of a centralized organization that is able to execute its functions smoothly. The ability to run one such organization without hindrance and interference is an important determinant of the success of the intended movement.
To put things into a Singaporean perspective, there are additional procedures that an organization must undergo as indicated by the experiences of the Roundtable and Socratic Circle. Although both organizations were not the typical agitating-for-social-movements types but rather their activities revolve around policy discussions and other issues concerning Singapore, both were subjected to restrictions. They were registered with the Registrar of Societies in 1994; the scope of their activities were restricted to closed door meetings and were open to members only or invited guests. When the Socratic Circle posted an online survey, officials from the Registrar of Societies informed the group that the latter was contravening the rules – they were not allowed to reach out to non-members as the rule states that they could only conduct discussions amongst members. In later years, Think Centre, another one of such an organization was told by our authorities to apply for Public Entertainment license under the Public Entertainment Act in order to be eligible to conduct its activities. Hence, this illustrates the formalized procedures and restrictions that such a centralized organization would be subjected to. Thus, it would be difficult for organizations who played a prominent part in the civil rights movement in the USA to take off here in Singapore.
Gladwell brought up an interesting discussion of the Facebook phenomenon using the illustration of Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sameer Bhatia’s experiences. Bhatia came down with leukaemia and his only hope of a cure was a bone marrow transplant. Unfortunately, the bone marrow database had minimal number of South Asians and Bhatia’s hopes of a cure was slim, given the fact that chances of a match are higher if the donor comes from the same ethnic group as the patient. What started off as an email made it to Facebook, and soon 25,000 people signed up to be potential donors.
Gladwell explained that the mobilizing strength of social media sites like Facebook lies in not asking too much of its users. Bone marrow donation doesn’t ask too much of the donors. All it takes is a blood test and a subsequent bone marrow extraction procedure if the donor is found suitable which is on the painful side but otherwise without much ill effects.
Reverting to the earlier point on close relations, friendship is still relevant in the Facebook context. Facebook has two kinds of friends, the real friend whom we know and cherish in real life, and touch base via Facebook, and the ‘friends’ whom are acquaintances that we have met via third party introductions, etc, i.e. those whom we are not close to. As brought up earlier, we are likely to participate in the similar activities as our friends do, and by the Facebook extension, go to the same Facebook events, participate in the same Facebook activities or advocate the same cause on Facebook as our friends do. However, ‘Friends’ or put more accurately acquaintances may be selective about participating in the same activities as we do; so long as such activities do not ask a lot from them.
David Unze wrote in the USAToday enthusiastically on the ability of Facebook to effect social changes. He cited Obama’s successful online campaign in garnering political support, and the case of Casey Allen Sear’s organization of protest against Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s assertion that public universities should back away from policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is true that Facebook is able to mobilize support for a cause, sway voters to favour a candidate, or spread anti- sentiments against an entity. But, that’s really about it. Unze might have been a tad too optimistic with regards to the impact of Facebook.
Such social media sites lacked the critical element of central organization, and even the events organized via Facebook did not actually require a high magnitude of organization and centralized planning. It doesn’t require much organization to get people to come down to attend a rally, vote for or against somebody. But imagine if Facebook was already available during the period of the Greensboro sit-in. Chances are that if used, it may not be able to achieve the goals of the movement simply because the sit-in was an organized event with planning by a central organization and coordination via authority structures.
This is not to say that a site like Facebook is not without its utility despite its shortcomings of lacking in central organization. It depends a lot on the goal intended with the use of the Facebook platform. Some Singaporean Facebookers may recall the creation of the “Mass Boycott Singtel/Starhub Overpriced World Cup Package” page. The page was created in protest against what was perceived to be an exorbitant charge levied at those who wished to subscribe for the World Cup 2010 channel on cable TV. On current count, members of the group numbered 30,027. And in addition, the group members organized a gathering known as “Be part of the first red card wave in Singapore” at Hong Lim Park. Marketed as a celebration, the other goal of the event was to say “NO!” to our cable providers in the wake of the expensive World Cup subscription. It is an example of what started out as a Facebook page turning into a public event.
To end, it is apt that we ask ourselves this rhetorical multiple choice question – Which online media is likely to make the greatest social impact: (1) Citizen journalism websites e.g. The Online Citizen, New Asia Republic (us) (2) Political parties/Sociopolitical websites e.g. respective political party websites, Think Centre (3) Blog sites e.g. WordPress, blogspot, livejournal (4) Social media sites e.g. Facebook. If your choice was 4, you are likely to be on the same frequency as this page. To quote the Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg :” The web is at a really important turning point right now. Up until recently, the default on the web has been that most things aren’t social and most things don’t use your real identity. We’re building toward a web where the default is social.” While admittedly, the likes of Facebook lacks the capacity to effect real social change through organized movements, it is still a platform to advocate or condemn social-political causes, and will turn out to be a boon or bane to the beneficiary or victim respectively.
