What does it mean if I change my Twitter profile picture to green?
Does it mean I support democracy in Iran?
Does it mean I care enough to do something, even if that something is small?
Does it mean anything?
I have uncomfortable feelings about campaigns like this – as well as what they say about certain aspects of digital ambassadorship. My niggle is that the easier it becomes to do things, the less they mean. ‘Action’ used to mean getting off your arse and moving your limbs and vocal chords. Now it’s wearing a digital badge. A badge that tells people, “I care”. But in the age of Facebook, where I can “join a group” by clicking once and not reading a single word, what does this gesture really mean?
[I'll be very honest. I can't claim to do anything better or more valuable than take part in campaigns like this. I don't have better solutions and this isn't a right/wrong discussion. It's just something that feels important enough to question and think about - especially when trends show that people interact with more and more things but for less and less time. Now I'm going to be working with Barnardo's, I'm becoming more and more conscious about how good causes can garner support. And what that support really means.]
One argument is that things like this green-badge campaign simply raise awareness. That the wearing of the badge is the surface and that beyond this surface, the campaign prompts people to dig deeper, find out more and maybe even do more. The argument would continue to say that, like any campaign, only a minority will be activists and that it can only be a good thing to harness the volume of the less interested masses for pure awareness. And boy what awareness. Only about 5 people I follow on Twitter have gone green, but I see one of them every few minutes.
Awareness, however, is pretty bloody high about events in Tehran.
One of my problems is that I can’t shake the feeling that making such a shallow (read: easy, commitment-free) gesture is simply an announcement/reminder that I’m actually not doing anything at all; its meaning tangled up with all the other little badges and apps that I have played with and which now swirl about in a soup of transient support in my subconscious.
We are socially motivated creatures. And we know that we can enhance our social presence disproportionately to the effort it takes to do so. One click and every friend or follower gets an eyeful of you and your ‘beliefs’. It’s democracy for Iran today. It will be “which character from The Wire are you?” tomorrow (Lester, btw) and and who knows what the day after.
Perhaps the problem lies in campaigns like this inadvertently masquerading as something more. It feels like a ‘movement’ and yet it’s really not. It’s just a bit of presence, magnified gently by a hoard of people whom are (presumably) otherwise passive to the cause. Maybe this pretense is in fact in our own preconceptions. But preconceptions are hard to shake. And if they’re real, the compromise to the gesture’s meaning is real.
On the other hand, I’m doing nothing. Maybe I should think less and do more – I just feel uncomfortable jumping on bandwagons that feel like they’re more about the ‘supporter’ than the cause. More about not not doing it, than doing it.
But maybe it is for us after all. Maybe joining together in this Pantone coalition is just a way for us to feel as though we’re doing something. An illusion of influence for the helpless. Which isn’t necessarily all bad.
Sorry for the brain dump. Helps me to make sense of my own thoughts. Love to hear yours too.
Tags: behaviour, observations, ramblings
[...] Neil just wrote a monster of a post on social media – or whatever you’re enjoying calling it this week. In true Perkinian style ;) it’s incredibly thorough and well thought through. Have a read. It covers a lot, but one thing jumped out at me, which relates to my last post about the Iranian green-twitter campaign. [...]
I think you are a bit too judgmental towards what you call, passive shallow and meaningless activism. For one, think about the realistic alternative, i.e. doing nothing. but because of the network effect, passive activism can potentially be powerful force of change
In this brave new world awareness/attention cannot be underrated. wearing a digital badge might be just as a strong statement as physically holding a support placard or wearing a t-shirt – people around you notice, some move on, some imitate, some talk about it.
most importantly, what you dismiss as passive can still be very scary to those in power and a massive virtual demonstration of support (or defiance) can put just as real pressure for change.
(I’m Bunk btw)
Hey Asi – thanks for this. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.
I feel it necessary to point out though, that nowhere do I ‘dismiss’ these things. I explore them. I’m also not judging anyone. Passing judgement would be a technical impossibility as I have not reached any conclusion. And lastly that not do I once say wearing a digital badge is meaningless. I merely question its meaning*, which feels like a healthy thing to do.
Sorry to appear defensive, but it’s a delicate issue and I’ve been very careful not to judge. I guess there is naturally a negative subtext when one ‘questions’ something – so I accept it may have come across this way. I continue to believe that everything should be questioned, always.
Lastly, my hodgepodge of a post also muddies things by tackling the issue from three different standpoints, but without distinguishing them:
*Meaning, as far as I’m concerned is mostly personal. This is where the exploration is philosophical. I am exploring my own feelings about the act and my relationship to it. I would love to hear from people that feel differently, so thanks for commenting.
The second standpoint is cultural. I’m not saying the Iran campaign is ‘no different’ to a ‘Which character from the Wire are you?’ badge. I’m acknowledging that they both exist in a similar space and whether we like it or not, one can and almost certainly will influence the cultural meaning and context of the other.
And the final viewpoint is a marketing one. From this point of view, I agree (and in fact wrote above) that it can surely only be a good thing to harness the power of the masses – especially if some of them are unlikely to make a deeper commitment.
Hope that clears up the way I tackled this. I totally acknowledge that I’m a bit of a bumbling blogger. I don’t write clean, crisp arguments (very often) I just explore ideas and see what comes out the other end ;)
Hey Andy,
Oh i apologies if my words came out too harsh, it was late at night ;-) you know I love debating with you my friend…
re personal, this is for a long conversation over good whiskey… I’d argue that there is no such thing as personal, it’s all cultural/social. even when you solitary converse, ponder, philosophise with yourself your insight emerges not through individual rational deduction, but instead through the dialogical interaction http://is.gd/1e0uV
re cultural, I think that every social object, on and offline, live in the same space. Both the wire and Iran live in the pub, in the office, in the guardian and on twitter…
keep bumbling man!
oh and one last point…this all reminds me of Clay Shirky’s words”
“The moment we’re living through, the moment our historical generation is living through, is the largest increase in expressive capability in human history.”
‘naff rumbling now..
Thanks mate. Sorry, I just hate the idea that I might sound that way.
Your point on there being no such thing as personal made me smile. That definitely is a chat that needs alcohol. ;)