once upon a time

...ginger read some things

...... and did some assignments

On On the Origins of Social Movements

In this article, Jo Freeman sets out a good argument about how activist movements and organizations have typically formed in the mid to late 20^th century. She identifies a series of conditions that have been present in the formulation of various movements, namely: 1. some kind of a network for disseminating and sharing information; 2. a willingness, within that network, to be used for the purposes of a given movement; 3. some kind of a catalyst for change or dissent; 4. organization within the mass of participants in the movement. Freeman, after setting down these conditions, goes on to apply them to four different (but interconnected) movements. Freeman's conditions seem sounds in the context of organizing real life movements. However, her argument leads to questions about the viability of organizing on the internet, and how cyber dissent differs from the physical.

The internet, by its very nature, is a great big network. It's perfect for sharing viewpoints and turning the private into something public. It should stand to reason, then, that the internet is a perfect place for activists, or those organizing movements, to network. However, whether she knew it or not at the time of writing, Jo Freeman addresses this issue in On the Origins of Social Movements. She states, when discussing student movements, that “campuses were too large and disconnected for incipient movement leaders to find each other.” This, I would argue is the main problem with the internet, although in the case of the internet, the scale is many times larger. However, things seem to happen on the internet, despite its size. Where Freeman's networks were things like churches, universities, and trade unions, the new networks are more apt to be blogs, message boards, or social networking utilities. Like their older counterparts, these new networks gather together people with similar interests in the otherwise fractured social climate of cyberspace. The existence of specialized pockets on the internet means that Freeman's first condition can be met.

It stands to reason that if we take the internet to be a network that meets Freeman's first criterion, it is then admirably suited to the second. The internet is profoundly malleable. Its biggest downfall (too much diversity) is also its biggest asset. There is a corner of the internet for any social movement. It's just a matter of organizing and marketing. At this point in time, and in the future if the internet remains neutral, it may just be the most malleable medium we have. Web 2.0 makes the internet even more flexible, and the sheer amount of individuals on the internet means that there is always an audience, somewhere.

Finding a crisis is easy. With news available twenty four hours a day, and with the citizen journalism offered by the internet, no crisis goes unnoticed. Crises are not in short supply.

In the same way that blogs, message boards and social networking services create niches on the internet, they also make organizing easier. Once a peer group is found, potentially via one of these utilities, communication can be easier than ever. However, a potential problem with actually trying to organize on the internet is that people can be less cohesive in cyberspace. Also, we could question whether or not authorities respect movements born on the internet.

Positive examples of movements spawned on the internet do exist. The grassroots uprising, for example, that caused a new copyright bill not to be tabled in Canada's house of commons before the end of 2007. This was a movement that started on blogs (michaelgeist.ca, to name one), expanded to social networking utilities (the Fair Copyright for Canada group on facebook), and finally spilled into the real world with a demonstration at the constituency office of the Minister of Industry. All of this before traditional media managed to pick up the story. This is a prime example of how the internet can be used to form movements, in accordance with Jo Freeman's criteria.

Some questions regarding organizing in cyberspace vs. realspace

• Might there be trouble seeing the forest for the trees? It may be easier to communicate on the internet, but first you need to find people to communicate with.
• Freeman's examples rely on fairly stable forms of community. The world has gotten more transitory since then, especially on the internet.
• Is beneficial legislation (which happened for both the women's movement and the welfare folks) harder to get in the internet age?
• There's something for everyone on the internet. conversely, this means that there's less unity. according to Freeman, a successful movement requires cohesion, unity, and a certain amount of centralization. Could the lack of unity on the internet be problematic?
• Which is more effective, the message board or the meeting hall (or church)?
• Do those in power even really believe in the internet, or does internet action have to reach into the real world to be successful? (think: demonstration at Jim Prentice constituency office over CDMCA, as organized on facebook) (or conversely, IBM picket in secondlife)
• Can people truly be well organized when they have no physical organization?
• News is now personal. the mass media has been essentially neutered. do groups now need to work harder to get their messages out?
• Is it easier to be illegal on the internet? Does that change the nature of activism? Does anonymity degrade ideals?