In recent weeks social media has been in full force around the protests in Hong Kong and the fires raging through the Amazon. The images of an infinite human chain in one of the world’s most developed cities while a violent force of nature rips through one of the world’s most ancient parts are profound as a result of the expression displayed across the digital platforms that, for many, are the first point of access to a story. Events like these reminds us of the undeniable influence that social media has on the reporting and ensuing discussion surrounding events with potentially global implications and consequences. For many, after viewing that first post and its continuous status updates, they are suddenly overcome with a sense of duty to advocate for swift course of action to alleviate any likelihood of devastating, irreparable outcomes. Social media makes it convenient for many to become voices of change and the activism that starts within this realm is an efficient first step initiative to promote the need for resolution. However, activism that starts here can become trapped in an emotional echo chamber that makes little time for us to understand proper discourse and the race to post as much about an issue for maximum attention asks us to question its overall accuracy and legitimacy as well as who it ultimately benefits. While the issues connected to the Amazon and Hong Kong warrant consideration in terms of collective political, social and economic responsibility when debated within the digital world they are hindered under more confined conditions where the issue itself can become lost in translation when understood through emotionally driven assertions and assumptions. The ensuing activism in this space that is really an extension of an established movement, is merely the product of a culture that, although influenced by real world events, is driven by designed intervention.
Activism is not a new phenomenon as the nature of advocacy and protests are historically rooted into the fabric of society. It’s a mechanism to drive and alter social conditions for the purpose of achieving progress or stability. Protests have taken different forms across the ages and are granted a legacy in their attachments to historical movements that have changed the conditions for society’s most pressing civil concerns that are tied to notions class, race, nation, gender among others. When we think of protest, it is more than just a grand sit in, march or clash but grounded in an expression of defiance, a plea not for the needs of the individual but of a collective. It is an assertion that aims to challenge a supposed flaw limiting society thus it is inherently an expression of discontent. Historic protests can be as subtle as that of Huda Sha’arawi who, in 1923, protested Egypt’s “backward” Harem system and its restrictions on the movements of women, by removing her veil in public. Then there was Emperor Haile Selassie who stood before the League of Nations in 1936 and upon detailing the harrowing account of the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, asked the assembled nations, in questioning their actions to prevent conflict and achieve global peace, “What reply shall I have to take back to my people?”. Then there’s Gandhi’s Salt March, one of the first major non-violent demonstrations of resistance to the British Raj and the March on Washington lead by Martin Luther King Jr. It is interesting to consider each of the mentioned actor’s respective historical context in that they lived in a world without Facebook or Twitter so the means to build a following and establish influence to put their cause into momentum would’ve flourished under conditions different to those now. The exposure was only guaranteed on certain platforms to members of esteemed, high ranking positions but in saying that, they still possessed a substantial degree of authority over the issues they were bringing attention to in the way that they wanted. Contemporary activism has this trait to it as well in presenting it but in terms of attached authority, there is no one voice or face of a movement anymore; just followers and proponents.
An image posted to twitter Thursday was that of graffiti sprawled on the walls of a public transport hub in Hong Kong that reads, “If Hong Kong burns, the World burns”. Social media gives an instantaneous snapshot of the world that is only a click away, any time of the day as all one has to do is type in a single word in a search engine and in an instant, they are bombarded with a seemingly infinite inventory of content. The convenient accessibility of social media makes it easier to get involved and contribute to a cause and it’s because of this that it’s an irresistible avenue to be used by activists. Statements or proclamations of resistance are only a click away whereas historically it took a more strategic effort to organize a protest while messages can be published quicker leaving little chance for them to be shut down or erased while providing some a sense of security and anonymity from levels of authority. Furthermore, once something is posted on social media, the persistent circulation means that it will become part of a wider inventory of activism. Social media platforms are designed as sharing spaces but can conveniently act as places to exercise certain authorities that manipulate discourse to appease an agenda suitable to certain emotional leanings rather than legitimate philosophical ones. Often in the form of an image or headline, when they come with alarmist tones that strike emotional chords, they can spring us into the action of outrage rather than proactive engagement. Social media sets conditions that cement a series of narratives that dictate general discourse which not only shifts the perception we have of the world but the relationships that define it. The pervading themes are that of preserving who we are and what is key to our survival and whether that be ecological or political, it asserts the need of our stability as a species ensures our sustainability. However, these are narratives of duty with a hyper-empathetic tone that plea more about the need for external action or intervention based on satisfying short-term, momentary episodes of anxiety with long-term guilt attachments if we didn’t “contribute” or “act” in some way. As a result, the nature of its discourse is about what an event should be, how it should be represented rather than what it is and what solutions should be put in place.
We all have imaginings of the world and its these views that influence the manner in which we perceive the cause of certain issues as well as devising potential resolutions. It can be argued that activism based in social media assumes a predetermined course of action that guarantees an end result without considering various complexities of the cause itself. These outcomes are merely artificial based on a pre-determined form of change relying itself on a state of affairs that hasn’t been properly defined to begin with and their overall social character is subjective. Resolutions are as complex as the conditions that existed in creating significant conundrums. A resolution doesn’t simply occur by how long one badgers politicians from their laptop or phone to drop legislation or put out a fire. Social media is a world in itself and it has long been established as a heavily curated, if not a solely artificial, space where certain aesthetics are designed and promoted across certain bases. If we were to consider a typical status update, their design is quite simple. A caption designed to evoke a certain reaction but that is the extent of the status – an emotional response. This is because the space caters to the basic and instantaneous of emotional triggers that constantly need to feel reinforced. As the pervading character of social media is about convenience, instant gratification, aesthetic curatorship, it is not surprising that the space they create leaves little room for proper critique. Outrage is understandable when one’s rights are being violated or when parts of the world are falling apart as we helplessly watch from our screens however, activism that begins and flourishes on social media is susceptible to become a distorted expression of discourse that lacks reason. In stating that, as the environment lacks considerable intellectual space coupled with the psychological dependence of select imagery and text, we become prone to consuming whatever information that appeals to our inner activist – a character that is often biased to a chosen agenda. As the fires raged through the Amazon, outrage and desperation from many was by the assertion that it provides the planet with 20% of its oxygen. This was the screen-shot headline above an image
of emerald up in smoke, shared over and over again with the same anxiety-inducing connotations. However, all this did was create and bring attention to an echo-chamber of alarmism because while such statement of the “World’s lungs” will surely frighten anyone the fact is, contrary to this popular belief, experts (geologists, biologists, palaeontologists etc) estimate that the Amazon produces less than 6% of our oxygen (Read Peter Brannen’s article published in The Atlantic 27/08/19). The point is, as Matt Ridley of The Spectator contended, it’s not the event that is inherent to an issue but the “apocalyptic rhetoric” we attach to it without properly investigating its aspects. When certain elements are emphasised over others then they become part of a broader ideological initiative to feed a personal need and reinforce certain beliefs. To bring attention to an issue is the first step to its resolution however if activism and protest are confined to a habit of provocation then we must stop and question whether our action leads to the resolution or longevity of an issue.
Global discourse while undeniably and inevitably diverse has its influenced underpinned by actors of authority. The authority of the issue in how it captures and influences its audience can often be reflected by who shares a story. Social media is full of moralizing idols of influence whose hearts are filled with as many good intentions as the number of followers and likes their profiles procure on a daily basis. However, while a singer, sportsperson, actor or “influencer” by trade has the right to an opinion, they are not fully-fledged experts on issues that are often distinct from their own personal status and profession. Activism with legitimacy is the kind expressed with knowledgeable contention and driven by reason and logic whereas an emotionally charged status update is absent of the basics of economics, politics and science. It’s easy for a highly paid celebrity to pledge funds for a cause and even more convenient to use their social media platforms to encourage the public to “get involved and support the crisis too”. Again, it is a proponent leading a follower when social media driven activism has very subjective leadership – just authority. While showing support, it is a rather bemusing spectacle to extend the expression of outrage when one has no proper connection to a cause. For example, those using the #freehongkong hashtag in their feeds or aligning themselves to a broader solidarity movement seem more attracted to the connotations of a pro-democracy movement. They confuse the glory and legacy of past movements and attach it to contemporary ones even without having a proper understanding of the origins of the situation like the one in Hong Kong. For some, Hong Kong represents an opportunity to express other sentiments. As the protests lead into their third month, the movement has attracted more ideological sentiment across social media when coupled with the US-China trade war and Hong Kong’s broader historical ties to mainland China and the legacies of the British administration.
We all want to contribute to a good cause and social media allows us the opportunity to become part of a greater movement. As humans, we are driven to better our society and look out for those who are challenged by the constraints that limit social agency and wellbeing. It is the sheer charisma and desperation of an event and the ensuing activism that keeps it active online even though many of us are disconnected from the movements of change being voiced in Hong Kong and we’re a world away from the Amazon to properly articulate what sort of change we envision. Even if we were able to, the greatest fight for change would be trying to convince the one who disagrees with you of your stance and the echo in the chamber will mute those outside on the street. Without proper critique of the issue and with an emphasis on emotion, you are really drawing attention to yourself and demanding that your emotional needs be met which is inadvertently distracting people from the inherent issue you’re supposedly advocating for. One must ask before they hit the “share” button on their Facebook page or twitter feed, is their post contributing to a cause or feeding an emotional need? The first thing we all see on Facebook is the enticing tab with the text, “What’s on your mind?” It should be changed to “Insert rant here”.
