The Awakening Voice

The Giugni and Pastor articles both seem to address the question long/short-term effects on movements and activists. The comments and observations are based on the emergence of social movement’s social media channel. Yet, social movements before the internet have always flourished because of or in spite of funding, not commitment. The difference seems to be the nature of personal intensity and commitment. Before the internet, the “true believer”. Those of us with some personal perspective remember the civil rights and women’s movements as social movements without the internet. They were motivated or propelled by the “true believer”. Indeed, Marco Giugni comments on the personal consequences of social movement activism.

When I lived in Washington, DC (20 years), I became involved in the women’s movement as a member of the US Commission on Civil Rights. It was comprised almost entirely of “true believers” as was the Commission. In one case, I was providing Federal support to the litigation team undertaking the UniRoyal case. I eventually met the chief complainants, the aggrieved parties. While all were very much, “true believers” each commented on the arduous nature of the journey. Thus, at least in my experience, I can understand and accept Marco Giugni’s insight.

Recently, however, one senior Middle Eastern Ambassador, commenting on Syria, provided a somewhat troubling insight. He thought that the effectiveness of the internet in the Middle East was largely due to its rapid development and deployment. As authoritarian regimes learn how to control public speech, it’s “cutting edge” character might become less attractive. Indeed, this may already be happening in many places, including China and Russia. Even the UK has arrested those who used the internet to promote social protest!

Pastor’s article brings to mind the importance of group affiliation. He considers the many elements of organizing: transaction meetings, Individual shifts (transformations), civic engagements, etc. As you all know it is possible to map some of those affiliations in order to develop an understanding of the power of organizing and/or engagement. Thus, the ability to develop alliances — other groups and fund sources — becomes key to organizational success. Pastor covers a number of the data metrics which we have already discussed and seem so very relevant to his call for data metrics.

While Pastor’s call for organizing metrics is important, so too is evaluation: “Build the Movement Metric Toolbox.” Finding meaning in the data has been tried in many venues and can help understand the broader context of the data metrics. His reference to Frame Analysis is familiar territory and an example of movement analysis. I would look forward to a discussion of the merits of analytic/statistical tools. Indeed, there are many tools from which to choose.

One area of organizing that I have personally experienced is union organizing. Every union has a professional cadre of organizers who are super managers of union actions. At the request of the Communication Workers of America, I designed and installed their first Web host for organizing. It was so provocative that I assumed that it would always be subject to destructive hacking. Hence, I established it as a free-standing, non-connected host. It was comprised of a large Olivetti Mini Computer and a Cisco PIX — NAT firewall. In fact, there were three systems that were operating in parallel. When one went down — frequently — the second or third would be its replacement. Of course, we were always able to track the hacker(s). At the time, the prime hacker was AT&T since CWA was AT&T’s primary labor supplier. Since CWA members were deployed throughout AT&T, world-wide, it was very easy to identify the source — like “sleeping” with the enemy. Eventually, it became a playful game of hide and seek.

Based on what we had learned about AT&T’s very effective and somewhat invisible hacking, CWA developed an apprenticeship program on cyber security and incorporated its findings as yet another module in its apprenticeship training network — which I installed. Of course, AT&T staff were barred from attending. These two systems were and continue to be the primary organizing tools used by CWA. It is the only union that achieved “EDU” domain (TLD) status for its site. I remember when I visited Network Solutions offices in Virginia. No RL customer had ever visited, rather submitted domain requests via eMail. Network Solutions was the only DNS registry in the early 1980s. Office staff were shocked to see someone in their customer waiting room. When they indicated that NSF policy dictated that EDU domains were restricted to 4 year, degree-granting, accredited bodies, I asked them to read the bright yellow lettering on the 20 network engineers working in their offices: CWA surrounded by the crest of the American Federation of Labor (AFofL).

In summary, I think that we can look to union organizing to better understand a long-term organization that uses much the same methods for a smaller and well focused population of union members. The point is that each union has a very professional organizing department that is usually the largest component of the union.

Until the 1980s when CWA moved organizing to the digital domain of the internet, its tactics were just as effective without the internet. It now has a presence in most developed and some under developed countries.

Thus, we might want consider expanding Pastor’s observations to include union organizing and consider how the collected data metrics can be evaluated to best advantage from methodological and statistical perspectives

Media Reflection

After reading Boler and some of the past blog posts, I thought that a short reflection might at least help me understand some distinctions between my own experience and those already covered. Meg Boler’s experience with Tim Russert and subsequent concerns about media dominance, bring to mind a distinction between speaker or listener. In most cases, there are always more listeners than speakers. Indeed, Boler’s experience with Russert is, possibly, where two “speakers” or points of view collide. Essentially, the broader perspective is “empowered” individual free speech. I am mindful that Boler isn’t exactly a nameless face in the internet “crowd”. Moreover, the delivery and tone might also have an effect. However, we all have some experience of what constitutes “free” speech; and, that is exactly what Boler was doing no matter her delivery or informed “tone”. Russert, on the other hand, was more of a spokesperson by virtue of position and subject. Clearly, Russert didn’t feel obliged to listen. I’ve often been impressed with the fact that free speech does not require active listening and can as actively be disregarded. However, it’s a bit harder to ignore the speaker when it is the voice of the multitude. While Boler wasn’t the multitude, she was expressing a common perspective.

I had a similar experience last week when I engaged with Nawaf Obaid a spokesperson for the Saudi Information Ministry and Senior Fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research & Islamic Studies.

I suggested that the Saudi government did not “encourage” or welcome free exchange in the internet blogesphere. His reaction was swift and angry; but, it was only momentary. Four other Saudi citizens agreed and challenged his assessment. It was interesting to observe the difference between my tone and theirs.

While I didn’t consider my response particularly confrontational, there was a difference both in tone and position. They were believable. I could be disregarded as “ill informed”. The four Saudi citizens were credible and trying very hard to be polite, yet authoritative.

Subsequent, non-Saudi speakers were challenged as being ill informed or out of touch. That’s easy when non-Saudi’s are excluded from full participation. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s preference to actively embrace his political opponents.

Thus, the environments of discussion can and frequently do become confrontational. What happens next is important. In the hacker domain, it seems that we frequently see an attempt to “punish” by an attack on the infrastructure — i.e., denial of service attacks, server hacks, “leaks”, etc. This ability to punish is enabled by technical tools not normally used by individual speakers. Then, these attempts seem to go beyond “free speech” where the ability to exact “punishment” is frequently not deemed to be “protected” speech. The same is true of verbal heckling and audio protest.

Thus, the position of the pulpit becomes important; and, the ability to make pronouncements is, itself, powerful and threatening. Clearly, Boler makes this exact point in her explanation of media dominance. How to overcome such dominance is at issue and can become disruptive to the process of free exchange.

The mass rallies during the periods of “Arab Spring” in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria are examples of massive responses. Here free speech seems to be an expression of group audio “voting”, becoming a revolution — viz. Gustave LeBon and Sampedro. In all cases, these confrontations are often difficult for the participants on both sides. After working in the public sector for many years, I’ve been in many confrontations as the government’s spokesperson. None are pleasant. All exchanges are important and necessary.

At least in the USA, we have developed an idea for what comes after “free speech”. We have already discussed the obligations of the government to listen and act accordingly: Administrative Procedures Act and Title VI (Civil Rights Act); and, the equal protection provision of the Constitution. I’m glad to be a part of that environment — as a US Citizen. The Saudi citizens at the Harvard meeting felt that their only choice was to leave their own country to enable their voice! There was one grim outcome from the meeting, however.

The Saudi spokesperson, Nawaf Obaid, speaking to Iranian members of the audience indicated that Saudi Arabia would acquire nuclear capacity if Iran continued its nuclear program. Indeed, Saudi’s acquisition would be for the purposes of nuclear weapons as would its other middle eastern allies. That threat seemed to trump all others. It further demonstrated how frightening such confrontations cam become. It makes living in Massachusetts seem like a real blessing!

Boler: Digital Media & Democracy

The connection between media and opinion is a familiar theme in most societies. Whether it begets democracy is explored in Boler’s call for scholarship in her type of digital advocacy: Digital Media and Democracy. She begins by introducing the discussion in familiar territory: 2003 Iraqi invasion and the quality of the US media coverage. The discussion of media signs, symbols, and gesture is the domain of semiotics. Her examples concerning Iraq are compelling, yet incomplete. Her unexpected argument with Tim Russert and other media notables is interesting and somewhat cathartic.

The reader is introduced to the concept of digital advocacy with the expectation that there are somewhat well-defined boundaries. In the case of her example of the global warming debate, at least one position is discounted as fundamentally incorrect. The same is true with the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) appeals made in advance of the re-invasion of Iraq in 2003. Underlying these examples, is the notion of a discussion forum that includes the activist and the opposition. The discussions are not always as clearly defined, however.

The underlying point that emerges is that the “truth” is not always obvious, but desirable. The task of getting at the “truth” is the objective of journalism and advocacy organizations. Journalists, according to Boler, play a special role in cyber activism. Indeed, the media, itself is a type of advocacy forum from which “truth” can emerge.

In the case of the 2003 Iraqi invasion, we now know that the original assurances from the press and the collective, allied powers was simply a fabrication. We’re never left to understand the motivation or objective of such a grand deception, however. Indeed, many have criticized the messengers rather than the system that “produced” what we now know to be epic misjudgment. Boiler is helpful to understand this as a process of what McKenzie Wark defines as part of the “media vector”: ambiguous determinism, precise ambiguity.

The pre-war WMD discussion was like Wark’s “grasp for facts” in the face of elusive “electric mobility” of media. We were all quite convinced, absolutely assured that we knew the “truth”. As we all remember, there was the rapid almost frenzied search for the actual WMDs which never materialized.  The component that was equally important was Saddam’s inability to back down and admit that his threats were unsupported and false. In fact, we also trusted his rhetoric. It’s vaguely similar to the discussion about North Korean missiles and Iranian enrichment. Neither is really technically able to carry such a program to successful conclusion. Yet, we believe them! We are all equally mesmerized by the threat of a preemptive air strike by a nation that does not have the equipment or capability to be successful! It reenacts the Boler scenario based on the same semiotic elements that she explains and “discusses” in her edited discussion of this approach.

Fortunately, Boler appears to be somewhat realistic to include the intentional manipulation of the media by the proverbial “Spin Doctor”. Fred Luntz is a good example of the issue lobbyist and spinmeister”. In reality, all recognize the power of media influence. Despite our yearning for the truth, the facts appear to be beside the point where the “media is more powerful than any bomb” according to Amy Goodman. Yet, Boler’s consideration of media as a form of digital democracy, fails to take a broader look at environments in which democracy is difficult.

Recent discussions by Saudi Government officials at Harvard clarify that anyone participating in on-line discussions adapts to the aims of the kingdom and the religious leadership. Such on-line discussions and digital media do not encourage factual independence. Rather, there is a collective illusion in which everyone engaging in on-line exchanges participates. Thus, women’s rights are important, but religious and tribal leadership have an understood limit to such discussions. Indeed, enforcement appears to be self-imposed. Most of the Saudi attendees at the Harvard meeting indicated that their only choice was to leave the country in order to continue an unrestricted discussion. When I suggested that the government does not encourage free and unrestricted forums, the respondent rejected my suggestion as “uninformed”. Fortunately, the six Saudi citizens in attendance did not agree and provided their own examples.

Thus, we must consider Boler’s perspective as uniquely situated in democratic environments. Yet not every democratic setting is the same. Indeed, the very ideas expressed “democratically” may not be authentic or true. However, in most of these sites, the media has taken on an activist role to push the boundaries of discussion and to offer an alternative channel that may not be as restrained.

In fact, Boler addresses the notion of “Viral” discussions that redefine the public discussion and, possibly, empower unrestrained discussion. We have seen this throughout the Middle East in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Yet in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait, such viral discussions were moderated or suppressed, actively. In fact, these are “closed” societies which do not encourage outside discussion or debate. In fact, Boler’s discussion is useful to explore how free discussion can be empowered and protected from “media conglomerates”.

However commendable the discussion, not everyone holds the same views. Thus, media conglomerates will always exist and may dominate discussions. Yet Boiler’s edition helps to provide useful examples of these environments and enabling methods to promote free discussions. What we realize, however, is that not every discussion is “free” and that “facts” are not always obvious. Indeed, democracy is always more difficult than it seems.

Insurgent Technology

The current issue of 2600: Hacker Quarterly (Spring 2012, 58), carries an article (by Piyter Hurd) that links the Occupy movement and related hacking conventions to efforts that some might consider more subversive than enabling. Certainly, this is not unexpected, however one-sided. Of some interest is a reference to an apparent general action on 1 May 2012 (strikeeverywhere.net/call). The language and general tenor of the appeal is interesting:

“While a grand gesture, this May can be seen as one of many gestures running in parallel, tearing at the seams of all limitation and authoritarian forms…The potentiality is everywhere for using this knowledge and wielding new technological foundations to dismantle old limits and to make…new environments that resist control and reinforce the ethos of play and possibility…”.

Clearly, this may be a new effort to capture the aims of Occupy with those of more insurgent elements of the hacker community. Indeed, we have seen this effort before, and will again. It not only evidences a lack of understanding about Occupy objectives, but opens the movement to another type of undeserved criticism as an insurgent movement. The focus of the article appears to be domestically based, but the appeal is broad enough to include other countries, considering its frequent references to WikiLeaks. The introduction of Gustav Landauer is indicative of a troubling theme and one of its primary advocate, Julian Assange: “…We are the state and we shall continue to be the State until we have created the institutions that form a real community and society of men.” This type of language fits the State Department’s Internet Freedom initiative. However, it may not exactly fit neatly into the American political environment. I guess when we’re using internet insurgent technologies in the name of democracy aborad, it’s “OK”.

When I was a development officer at the Commerce Dept., I came across a group that not only did not recognize the US Government, but also was arming insurgent groups in the USA! It was frightening to evenone in the agency; and, no one seemed to know how to respond. Their effort to illegally transfer funds from the Office of Public Debt nearly worked. I’ll never know why they considered me a confident! However, their user ID and passwords did work for transfers from at least one major Federal account! That is, it worked until I asked PBD to shut down access. The group went quickly from Insurgent to Domestic Terrorist.

However, the language of this latest 2600 article is a familiar theme from my exchange. I worry that the association could be damaging to Occupy objectives! Perhaps a rebuttal?

The magazine, 2600: Hacker Quarterly has, in the past, been the subject of various federal enforcement efforts; and, it regularly features letters from incarcerated persons who have been convicted of cyber crime. Fortunately, the magazine is protected; and, it will probably escape SOPA, PIPA, ACTA liability because it is basically print media. However, it is sometimes frightening to think that free speech is monitored even in the USA! Were this Iran, Russia, China, etc. we might not be surprised.

In the interim, it is important to be sure that we are mindful of this effort to “capture” Occupy to accomplish a broader mandate which some might find troubling, offensive, or even illegal with the advent of new legislation that attempts to erode free speech! This is, however, the first article that has targeted Occupy.

New Doctrines

With much discussion about social media, analysis from experienced commentators might be helpful. Dr. Henry Kissinger’s recent OpEd in the Wash. Post offers an interesting perspective. Here’s the URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-doctrine-of-intervention/2012/03/30/gIQAcZL6lS_story.html

Kissinger focuses on recent discussions of events loosely attributed to “Arab Spring” and analysis of the impact of social media in the context of the various country-related environments. His perspective, garnered from years of experience in the Middle East should give us pause to re-evaluate our recent discussions.

One of my personal interests is to try to connect the impact of social comment, through social media on the immediacy of events: what are the immediate vs. the long-term implications or consequences. I have often tried to consider the legitimacy of the state and the “collective” views of social commentators no matter the venue — i.e., electronic, print, etc. Notwithstanding, the size and enormity of the events, how many opinions add up to a grant of legitimacy or illegitimacy? When do thousands of protesters have a “right” or “duty” to engage in regime change by force of words or arms?

In the mix, is the notion of time and impact. As some of us can remember, Vietnam was the first conflict that had a major public effect brought about by visual/news media. Despite, our impact assessment, it was not as immediate as the current social media conveys. Moreover, we must consider whether the underlying process is “democratic” or something else.

Kissinger observes: “The confluence of many disparate grievances avowing general slogans is not yet a democratic outcome.”

The nature of the delivery begs the question of well considered outcomes and well intentioned participants. This is certainly the case in Syria. Kissinger’s reaction is interesting:

“We must take care lest, in an era of shortened attention spans, revolutions turn, for the outside world, into a transitory Internet experience — watched intently for a few key moments, then tuned out once the main event is deemed over. The revolution will have to be judged by its destination, not its origin; its outcome, not its proclamations.”

Each of you has your own perspective on whether we have a duty in the arena of domestic — i.e., “occupy” — or world events — i.e., “occupy” elsewhere. We also should consider whether the intentions of the prime actors are genuine or not. Even before Vietnam we had  supported the “wrong” element(s). Indeed, we had been influenced by own own opinions rather than the facts — assuming that the “facts” are knowable. Underlying these very public debates in the social media is the notion of outcomes which are usually unpredictable.

Kissinger observes, “The pattern now emerging, if it fails to establish an appropriate relationship to its proclaimed goals, risks being inherently unstable from inception, which could submerge the values it proclaimed.”

Although Kissinger is focusing on the current Middle Eastern environment, the advice is certainly insightful and useful for any similar situation/conflict.

The underlying principle of “democracy” is a familiar thread that runs through all of these discussions, including Kissinger’s observations.

“Within the framework of these general limits, U.S. policy has significant scope for creativity in promoting humanitarian and democratic values.”

Yet some readers may wince at his next comment, that, “The United States should be prepared to deal with democratically elected Islamist governments, ” given the uncertain implications or outcomes since the US is hardly in a “power” position in the region.

Underlying his observation is a theme of uncertain outcomes and the various motivations surrounding events. In our class, we have examined other, unrelated events — i.e., “occupy” — that attempt to leverage public opinion using the same social media channels that have also been employed during Arab Spring. What Kissinger does not directly examine is our ability to know whether these efforts are “genuine” and/or democratically motivated — i.e., arising out of general consensus — i.e., democratically derived. As you know, I have been involved in several areas where the parties have attempted to “artificially” manipulate the media and artificially create an alternate reality or illusion.

In another current class at Harvard, “Arab Spring”, we have heard many comments from the press and social movement leaders that there is some presumption or worry about insider subversion of the message by Islamic fundamentalist quarters. This has a similar ring to past events when the US was engaged in Haiti (1915). Recalled by Niall Ferguson in his book “Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire” is the conversation between the US Commander of Expeditionary (Invasion) forces and the then British Ambassador (UK):

UK: What if Haitians don’t want Democracy?
US: We’ll just have to kill a few until they accept democracy!

In my last meeting with Khaled Shewaish (KS), then Ambassador from Iraq on the eve of “Desert Storm”, we had a similar exchange:

dp: “Khaled, you’ll need to be prepared in case the US cuts electricity to the embassy here, as Saddam did in Kuwait.”

KS: (angrily, shouting, and pounding his desk) — “There is no Kuwait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

dp: Khaled, Computers don’t work without electricity. By the way, I think that the press has shown us all that there are about 300,000 men in green uniforms with bombs and guns on Iraq’s southern border that have a different opinion. You need to be prepared!”

Government’s Social Meddling

Yesterday’s conference at Harvard/Berkman suggested that humor or ridicule could be used as part of a social movement’s narrative or “story”. Although no examples were presented, everyone seemed to agree that a making “fun” of an opponent or position could be effective. I am aware of two occasions where this happened from an unlikely sponsor.

As part of the US Government’s “dialog” with Saddam Hussein, it produced a considerable amount of news feeds through such outlets as Voice of America and other media. Apart from the “western” news feeds, other elements of the US Government produced custom feeds to technology devices in Iraq. Such devices as telex terminals, FAX machine, telephone message systems, eMail accounts, RTTY, military secure communication, private WANs, etc. were bombarded with custom messages. In most cases the messages (in Arabic), poked fun at Saddam, personally. Visual content was in the form of cartoons, text messages were caustic jokes, and many were disinformation. In one case, a message included an order to Saddam’s Swiss bank (including account number, telephone numbers, names, etc.) to transfer several hundred pounds of gold bullion bars from the bank of Iraq to his personal account. All of the messages were fairly short, presumably they could be read quickly and destroyed. However, these messages were delivered to all communications simultaneously. It had the effect of a denial of service attack, with a dash of humor. During this period of time, the telecommunications ministry frequently changed account numbers and only activated some accounts at specific hours. However, media accounts of all types conform to international standards. Thus, it was possible to poll all the “vacant” or unassigned numbers. When these accounts became activated, they received a message. During this period of time, international record carriers (IRCs) did not have the technology to propagate such traffic directly. Instead, the US Government appears to have used a series of unaffiliated accounts through little used back channels of communication — normally used as redundant lines. Moreover, few providers in the USA had the technology to produce messages in Arabic. Then, only ASCII was available. It seems that similar programs were conducted “against” North Korea, Sudan, Syria. Some of these governments complained to the foreign press and a few obscure articles appeared abroad. When I was visiting the ITU in Switzerland, Iraqi embassy and technical staff were visiting trying to track down the source of this traffic.

Novosti Press Agency (Russia) routinely practiced disinformation programs through its media outlets and through direct delivery like the US. It’s foreign offices were involved in coordinating with movement contacts to feed them customized information. Much of the information was provided in Cyrillic. I remember receiving a call from Daniel Ortega who asked me to send him such traffic in Spanish. The press offices were part of the Embassy and not subject to traditional restrictions as all workers had diplomatic immunity. Movement coordinators were regularly present in Novosti’s world-wide offices to coordinate news feeds and coordinate on delivery matters. In these cases, Novosti had a world wide staff of about 35k employees stationed in Moscow and abroad. It delivered the news via satellite, through its own encrypted Ku band (geosynchronous) systems, and via all other channels — Telex, Fax, WAN systems, data links, undersea cable, electronic mail (AT&T/MCI/RCA WorldComm). It’s Moscow headquarters was a vast building with many corridors that stretched for 1 mile. Keep in mind that Novosti was only one of the official news media of the Government. It’s role was to release the “official” news of the Government as well as other matters. One of its little known functions was to feed party information and news to the world-wide network of “official” communist party members, who were linked to movement coordinators in most countries, including the USA. Novosti distributed politically inspired computer games that poked fun at US/SALT negotiators and US diplomatic efforts. It included humor pages in all of its 25 world-wide news media outlets and its direct publications in most countries. In the USA, one of these publications was Soviet Life, later Russian Life. All components of the “news” were manipulated to present the Soviet Perspective. Custom news feeds for “friendly” media outlets had their own political and editorial managers. The majority of cold war peace activists in most countries had some direct or indirect (clandestine) contact with Novosti including financial support. Today, Novosti is still operating. You can see its offices on Google Earth — near Park Culturi subway station. Its involvement with movements has probably not changed. Humor is a part of all Russian newspapers and magazines.

 

Power of Narrative and Identity

The Berkman workshops today have paid considerable attention to the role of narrative and group identity. I was happy to have read Castells, “Power of Identity” and Benford’s work on Framing Processes and Social Movements. Every commentator shared and reinforced views on importance of these and other movement processes. Although there were many variations, here are some of the key “explanatory factors”.

In general, there was some attention to the possibility that the various social movements, especially in the middle east might be connected. Though there were many elements of commonality or diffusion, many spent the time to identify distinctions rather than a common organizing factor that explicitly linked protests in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and the Yemen. The common theme was one of public “indignation.”  Indeed, the term was commonly used by most participation.

Indeed, some time and attention was given to a theme that social movements were somehow leftist oriented. Indeed, this notion was combined with the observation that movements at least in the Middle East appeared to be motivated more by political objectives than economic circumstances. Authoritarian vs. totalitarian regimes were discussed. Finally, one media expert thought that it — the media — had a tendency to gentrify the movements and their adherents in out of ignorance or some conscious intent to diminish its importance.

Some discussion concerned issues of authenticity. Apparently, many participants knew of or had experienced those who use movements open communication channels as a way to spread false information.

A common element of that ran though most discussions concerned framing. Indeed, several speakers had identified at least three frame elements that appeared to apply to many or most movements. A key distinguishing factor concerns underlying narratives and/or motivating examples that motivate or inspire collective action. Without these themes or stories, movements appear to loose energy. Indeed, one speaker thought that examining groups that had not been able to survive and eventually died or did not persist outside of their locale. Indeed some thought that the absence/presence of stories might be motivating and even tactical.

Some discussion on emerging technologies surfaced both in the technical tools arenas as well as in the social interaction sense. Some thought that young participants preferred to text rather than meet in person — something I’ve noted within my own family. Along different lines, there was encouragement to look and compare old vs. new technologies. For example, physical vs. electronic, media dominance — trans media mobilization — and differences between media types.

The notion of culture, while indirectly addressed, was not a common element. Moreover, the common use of English in foreign language environments was noted.

Two overall comments: global injustice — i.e., act-up — and notions of “success” and failure. How we distill a sense of progress was important.

Challenges:

The future depends on the internet.

Democracy is an endless meeting

This was a very long meeting that seemed to cover most of the key issues that are common to movements here and abroad. One item that did not seem to surface is how governments have used movements, unwittingly, to manipulate the “message”. It was part of the authenticity discussion, but not addressed directly since no one had that direct experience.

Project Proposal

CMS.361/861

Project: Susan G. Komen vs. Occupy

David Palés

Project Proposal: The Breast Cancer “cure” has re-invented itself into a movement, not unlike “Occupy”. Recent events have politicized the activities of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. Political influence with Republican/Tea Party affiliation have attempted to hijack or redirect the Komen Foundation to support anti-abortion objectives during the foundation’s normal activities supporting breast cancer “Cure” research operation. This analysis focuses on the discrete time frame in 2012 during which anti-abortion advocates attempted to obtain support or alliance with the “cure” advocates and the Komen foundation. This period directly coincides with press coverage of Occupy and the related public debate in the media. In both cases, the time frames and outcomes were significant.

Research Question: Pro-choice and Anti-abortion advocates engaged in a vicarious conflict for a very brief period in 2012 through a surrogate, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. This dramatic organizational shift in direction will be examined and the “movement” characteristics will be compared to “Occupy”.

The resulting media coverage and a major public outcry demonstrated  1) shifts in alliances,  and 2) group identity alteration in public sentiment and group affiliation. This debate environment differed dramatically from the traditional polemics between pro and anti-advocates. Accordingly, it gives us a unique and confided insight into underlying group dynamics and process. Komen had not been used as a surrogate. Moreover, the change in identity was seen as significant. The outcome of this very brief and intense debate was somewhat unexpected and created new and stronger alliances on both sides for the foundation. A similar external change effort also altered the dynamics of reference for Occupy. I expect to uncover the political dynamics of the discussion, key battle plans, and the new alliances that caused the Komen Foundation to retract its “new” position. I will also examine the changes in rhetoric that affected public sentiment for Occupy’s ability to continue its physical occupations and for the external groups to meet their objectives.

This brief inquiry will examine and identify the traditional frames of reference and how they differed – Komen vs. Occupy. In one case, Komen’s frames of reference and existence were threatened by an attempted change in identity and group affiliations from within the organization. In the case of Occupy, external elements were attempting to alter the Occupy mode of operations without denying free speech. The two examples are similar and present some insight into the power such groups exert, their ability to change/be changed, and the dynamics of those two, similar, but different processes. In both cases, the alterations were attempted in a very brief period, almost overlapping. Thus, it presents us with an ability not only to compare the results, but also to examine the communication processes at work. One of my personal interests is to examine how to apply framing process and media scraping as inquiry tools.

Methodology: The key arguments by pro and anti-abortion advocates surfaced in the press and the public media. We are able to capture the key terms of reference directly from media sources and digital feeds where available. We will also examine Occupy at an identical time frame when the public debate and terms of reference changed to permit its ejection from a more physical occupation. Given the similar time frames it will be possible to do an almost dynamic comparison between media sources. The framing processes of the two movements will be examined and compared using the Benford/Snow structure.

Technology Tools: media capture technology will be employed to capture or “scrape” key media arguments and language from both movements at similar time frames. In the process, we hope to examine other technologies or political techniques that may have been introduced during the two public debate periods. Language and terminology from the same media sources will be compared for the two different outcomes.

Work Process

March 14^th:        Project proposal, class presentation with preliminary sources

March 15^th:        Incorporation of class suggestion/observations

March 21^st:        Present survey instrument to examine the linguistic similarities/dissimilarities

March 26+:        Surveys conducted

April 4:                Compile survey preliminaries and results of media language comparisons, findings

April 11^th:           Revisions

May 16^th:            Final draft

Book Review: The Power of Identity (Manuel Castells)

The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture Volume II:
The Power of Identity
By: Manuel Castells

The Power of Identity is an interesting and complex effort to develop a new understanding of how groups and individuals are interrelated through various mediums of communication. The suggestion of the title and the three volumes is indicative of the complexity and thoroughness of his examination. The three volumes employ analytic examinations from sociology, anthropology, and political science. The trilogy is comprised of, The Rise of Network Society (1996), The Power of Identity (1967), The End of Millennium (1998). The three are the result of his earlier research threads from the 1990s, The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture.
The enormity of his examination of network culture and its impact/manipulation on/by society has become a recognized cybernetic theoretician and philosopher. The fundamental concept that runs throughout Volume II is the dichotomy between the “self” and the power of the search for meaning within society: “The rise of the network society and the growing power of identity are the intertwined social processes that jointly define globalization, geopolitics, and social transformation.” Volume II explains how those processes differ within and between societies and cultures in the twenty-first century. Castells examines the similarities and differences in order to under the umbrella of “identity.”
In Castell’s process of examination, we can clearly understand that nothing is left behind. Indeed, territoriality – i.e., origins – remains. We identify ourselves territorially by village, state, and/or nation through every medium of communication. The inherent need for self-identification/affiliation is inherently unifying and/or disintegrative. He uses an example that is personally familiar in Belgium where I lived.
The inherent tension in Belgium between Wallonie and Flemish is ever present and disruptive. Belgium itself is comprised of numerous communes. I lived in two. One, Wezembeek-Oppem was highly Wallonie where Dutch was the exclusive and official language. I moved to Tervuren where the primary medium was French and, frequently, English. Castells correctly observes that the two communities “cannot resolve the differences resulting from their historical marriage of convenience” where every public school requires and uses Dutch as its medium of communication even though French is as common.
In the USA, we all remember the divisive nature in Canada in the province of Quebec which remains unresolved. I was moved to amusement in Normandy when the train station attendant demanded that I speak to her only in French! When I lived in Thailand, Chinese merchants paid exorbitant taxes for anything that was not printed in Thai even though the majority of the population spoke fluent Chinese – Mandarin! Thus, in every case, individuals identified themselves by language and society in a manner that exactly parallels Castell’s observations.
What Castells adds in adds to our understanding is the importance that language and other cultural elements contribute to our concept of identity and affiliation. It is the process of affiliation that Castells adds that defines the importance and strength of the bond(s) of identity. He devotes considerable attention and care to clarify how that happens in society in a manner that we unconsciously or consciously recognize as defining: religion, nationality, geography, family, ethnicity. Social movements to the extent that they define or attempt to define social issues can become inheritors of the implicit strength of these societal bonds.
These bonds and the social movements which attempt to represent social issues within such the framework of such bonds are more often than not indicative of thought and behavior. Castells gives us clues and indicators of how we might identify social movements within the social context of identity. For example, the recent rise of Arab religious fundamentalism is a distinguishing polemic that defines behavioral and political boundaries between and among groups that defines the strength of the bonds and the group identity. Castells gives us a masterful insight into the development of religious fundamentalism and how it exacts unquestioned loyalty and blind religious devotion to scriptural (Koranic) interpretation that may not be as direct. Thus, some Arab religious fundamentalist social movement members are compelled by the strict ideas of the social movement. Castells indicates that such strict adherents, Arab fundamentalists can easily use violence to enforce adherence.
While Castells is examining the contemporary history of such groups, there are historical similarities to historical Jewish and Christian practices. Thus, strict fundamentalism is not exclusively found in the Arab community; and, Castells gives us some insight into the broad nature of fundamentalism extending to the period of the Christian crusades. Thus, there are many historical examples. Castells core issue is with the very nature of fundamentalism as an identity reference and its consequences.
Through Castells’ analysis we understand all groups in the context of communication and the medium of language. Spanish history is one, but not the only, historical area discussed. The Catalan national identity is distilled from our understanding of the collective Spanish culture. This level of self and group identity strong enough to result in civil guarantees granted by Spain in 1932 approving a statute of autonomy re-stating liberties, self-government and cultural/linguistic autonomy to Catalunya. The inherent social movement distinctions of Catalunya and Basques, according to Castells, was an powerful trigger for the Spanish civil war of 1936-1939. We are reminded of the similarity to the American historic struggle of our own indigenous groups of American Natives and our contemporary controversy over historic Mexican cross border migrations through their (i.e., Mexican and Indian) historic homelands now a part of the United States.
Castells point is to explain the importance of identity and group affiliation in the context of geography and ethnicity. He provides us with numerous examples and detailed explanations for Germany, France, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, Nigeria, Indonesia and numerous other countries. His most powerful observation in this context is that citizenship does not equate with nationality, at least exclusive nationality. What Castells adds to our understanding is an ability to identify these group affiliations, allegiances, identities, memberships in the information age through the medium of communication and language. He makes the suggestion that, “language…is a fundamental attribute of self-recognition, and…establishment of an invisible national boundary less arbitrary than territoriality, and less exclusive than ethnicity.” It is a core principle of his “Power of Identity”.
As we all now know, we can identify these identities through a variety of communication vehicle. At its core, language is the most basic element of Castell’s networked society. According to Wade Davis in The Wayfinders, language is humanity’s earliest invention and it is why ancient wisdom matters in the modern world. Davis further amplifies Castells in a discussion of many linguistic traditions as the distinguishing factor of identity in the ancient world.
Castells treatment of numerous examples of his principles of identity spans our contemporary understanding of social movements. He identifies Zapatistas as the “First Informational Guerrilla Movement.” Lest we forget that Emiliano Zapata, Dr. Ernesto “Che” Guevara, and José Doroteo Arango Arámbula (aka Poncho Villa) all used the media and language to organize their respective social movements. Indeed, José Arámbula never traveled without the press and front page coverage in all the US news media. Indeed, I still have my father’s military records when he acted as Gen. Pershing’s Spanish translator during the US Army Horse Cavalry’s effort to capture José Arámbula along the Texas-Mexican border. Arámbula, after all, didn’t need Twitter. He had the front page of every major newspaper.
A number of militia and “patriotic” groups are further examples of Castell’s principles: National Rifle Association, John Birch Society, KKK, Posse Comitatus, etc. are further examples of highly defined and radical groups that used the power of identity to attempt radical change in the United States. I encountered several such groups when I was a career Federal employee from political action (i.e., NOW, la Raza, etc.) to radical groups (Hanafi Muslims, Sunni Islamists, etc.). Castells’ treatment of such groups is extensive covering groups in Japan (i.e., Aum Shinrikyo), to al-Qaeda. Such ethno/religious groups are discussed along with radical anti-globalization and radical environmental movements within the context of Castells’ identity framework.
The power of identity is pervasive and Castells shows how it can cover an even broader group of social movements, family and sexuality (i.e., sexual preference) facilitated by the networked society using the power of the internet. In this context we are able to understand that things do change and within the nature of inter-group rivalry.
According to Castells and most other sociologists, Patriarchalism is one of the fundamental structures of contemporary society. It is important to also make note of matriarchal societies found in American native tribal groups. Inherent in the patriarchal group framework is the subjugation and repression of women and the changes in the workplace motivated by economic realities that have eroded or replaced the male dominated societies found world-wide.
Despite Castells discussion, such practices remain in less developed societies in Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Thus, we are left with the conclusion that sometimes Wade Davis’ “Ancient Wisdom” isn’t always “better” wisdom. Castells comparison of family statistics is largely dominated by references in more developed environments. However, less developed environments continue to exhibit a reluctance to change and continue “business as usual.”
Yet Castells is prophetic in his observation of the power of economic forces to facilitate change. This is considerably important regarding the employment of women who now dominate the workforce. The incorporation of women in the workplace is not without hardship. In the USA, statutory enactment to protect women demonstrates the strength of social pressures to continue group practices that have become unacceptable: sexual and wage discrimination. Indeed, discriminatory actions based on group identity is now illegal at least in the USA. Yet it still supports Castell’s model of identity even if illegal and unacceptable.
Generally, Castells treatment of the power of identity across time, ethnicity, and nationality is powerful. He concludes with observations regarding the identity of the State and the role of government. We are left with Castell’s vision of the nation-state in a Marxian framework where the power of commerce frequently replaces that of the state. International governance and multi-lateralism are seen as necessary and outgrowth’s of the state’s role in society. We only need to look at Somalia as an example of a failed state, where the power of identity recognizes no national boundaries – powerful confirmation of Castells’ models of identity.
Castells’ concluding chapter addresses the nature of social change in the information society. He makes the chilling observation that, “the dissolution of shared identities…tantamount to the dissolution of society…may be the state of affairs in our time.” Castells gives us a vision of the future and, possibly, his next book,

“It is in these back alleys of society…that I have sensed the embryos of a new society,
Labored in the fields of history by the power of identity”

As an afterthought, we realize that is now possible to identify and map these identities in real time. Indeed the very use of social media gives us the ability to map group relations in real time in order to anticipate or catalog the “new society” that Castells envisions.

Framing = Propaganda?

This week’s readings, especially Benford/Snow, provide us with a structure to understand the flow of information/communication arising from social movements. Benford & Snow, however, are engaged in an effort to determine whether, a) the basic concepts arise from coherent theory or schema, b) the concept(s) enhances our understanding of social movements; and, the general utility of the concepts or theories. Their conclusion is a qualified, “yes”, but. They provide a brief insight concerning other views, citing literature from the mid 1990s.

Throughout the article and the Framework Institute weak attempt to explain the basics of framing, and the remaining articles, is the theme or implication of the “true believer”. References to the underlying effects of the “message” are present throughout: “making people smarter”, “improving the discourse”, “advancing social change”. The Framework Institute attempts to distinguish the framing approach from, “branding” and “marketing”. Indeed the Institute’s approach appears to be little more than client recruitment, wrapped up in a not for profit, “true believer” format: less expensive for the non-profit community.

In the 1960s to the 1980s, this was simply “advertising” or “propaganda.” Every NYC advertising firm lives/dies on campaign effectiveness. It simply is much more expensive for the non-profit organization. Yet, framing, as a communication concept is understandable and a medium for designing campaigns as explained by Benford/Snow and Framework Institute clients.

The cigarette campaign’s of the 1940s to 1960s, exemplified a counter framework to argue against anti-smoking advocates. As the Framework Institute notes, there are frequently issues outside the framing process: housing, income, health, etc. Cigarette advertising spoke to more than the act of smoking. It created an aura or atmosphere to which smokers could aspire. These campaigns were not developed by “true believers”. Rather, they were conducted to willfully lie to the public. They were propaganda to enhance the image of smokers and actively ignore the fatal health consequences. After such campaigns were banned in the USA, they were continued throughout Asia. Thus, in hindsight, we now conclude that these efforts were undesirable and socially harmful: bad, evil, now illegal. Thus, we see them as socially undesirable on a massive scale: propaganda.

The term, “Propaganda” also embodies the notion of political objectives, as does framing. Given the nature of the campaigns, we now understand that these programs had highly defined political and policy objectives as well. Indeed, they did embody the use of intentionally “false” information. Here, we now know the enormity of the misinformation that these campaigns contained.

What none of the articles address is the polemic nature of such campaigns which have such highly defined boundaries: abortion, education, employment, etc. Given the sometime radical differences, one campaign might consider the “opposition” as a source of misinformation as a way to discredit. We also find such efforts on the part of political campaigns.

The Benford/Snow reference to the term “schema”, may also be understood as a relational reference where process inputs have defined outcomes. Clearly, this is the case with the Idef1X framework for relational data bases advanced by NTIS. Indeed, it gives us a convenient way to map out the relationships in a “schema” format and track process results.

In summary, Benford/Snow provide a convenient framework in which to understand social movement communications. The Frameworks Institute simply wants non-profit business.