Many questions, few answers
Is starting a Facebook group a new avenue for social activism, or is it just the path of least resistance to voicing one's displeasure? Over the last several weeks during the strike at York University for example, I have read, seen or heard numerous mentions of the creation of Facebook groups by students and parents as a means to vent negative emotions regarding the strike. Is this something we should take seriously, or can we write it off the way we would a newspaper editorial with which we disagree?
That is, where's the line between the medium and the message? Has it been sufficiently blurred by the internet and its user-driven content that there is no more need for people to actually go to a demonstration, now that they can sit in their homes and offices, voicing their opinions with a click of the mouse? Put another way, is Facebook (or other sites like it) an effective way to apply pressure in the public sphere?
In my opinion, people have mistaken Facebook for a social tool, when it is only another medium for disseminating one's message. It can be effective if viewed by enough people, however given the nature of the site, it is likely that one's audience will be composed mainly of like-minded individuals (particularly when you consider these are groups designed for people who all feel the same way: "York students against the strike," etc.). The real issue becomes that upon realising the limited scope of the medium being used, most people are reluctant to take the necessary steps to ensure they are heard. That is to say that there is no popular movement behind Facebook groups, other than some mildly disgruntled people who have computers.
From my perspective, this is yet another example of the prevailing laziness of the Canadian public when faced with something they dislike. This can be attributed to the same trend that has led to ever-lowering voter participation in elections and decreasing engagement with our government. This is coupled with the ever-increasing focus on the individual and what makes him/her happy. No longer are we expected to forego our own personal fulfillment for the sake of the community, or even for the sake of our own children. Simply put, we're taught that buying the latest iPod will bring us happiness, and that civic engagement extends only so far as the marketplace but not to our relationship with our families, our neighbours, our employers, nor our government.
(This is also tied to our changing impressions of the role of the government in our society: increasingly, we expect the government to provide high-quality services, but we do not wish to pay for them through higher taxes. Moreover, we want the government to stay out of our way when it comes to making money, yet we expect there to be a safety net when we fail.)
The underlying problem is, in my view, that these elements are threads in the fabric that forms our democracy. If participation in the public sphere is in question, how robust and reliable is our democracy? Do these problems bespeak the unravelling of our popular system of government, or merely that it is changing with the times? Furthermore, what makes a democracy? Is simply the act of voting on election day enough to underpin a participative system, or does it need to go further than that?
That is, where's the line between the medium and the message? Has it been sufficiently blurred by the internet and its user-driven content that there is no more need for people to actually go to a demonstration, now that they can sit in their homes and offices, voicing their opinions with a click of the mouse? Put another way, is Facebook (or other sites like it) an effective way to apply pressure in the public sphere?
In my opinion, people have mistaken Facebook for a social tool, when it is only another medium for disseminating one's message. It can be effective if viewed by enough people, however given the nature of the site, it is likely that one's audience will be composed mainly of like-minded individuals (particularly when you consider these are groups designed for people who all feel the same way: "York students against the strike," etc.). The real issue becomes that upon realising the limited scope of the medium being used, most people are reluctant to take the necessary steps to ensure they are heard. That is to say that there is no popular movement behind Facebook groups, other than some mildly disgruntled people who have computers.
From my perspective, this is yet another example of the prevailing laziness of the Canadian public when faced with something they dislike. This can be attributed to the same trend that has led to ever-lowering voter participation in elections and decreasing engagement with our government. This is coupled with the ever-increasing focus on the individual and what makes him/her happy. No longer are we expected to forego our own personal fulfillment for the sake of the community, or even for the sake of our own children. Simply put, we're taught that buying the latest iPod will bring us happiness, and that civic engagement extends only so far as the marketplace but not to our relationship with our families, our neighbours, our employers, nor our government.
(This is also tied to our changing impressions of the role of the government in our society: increasingly, we expect the government to provide high-quality services, but we do not wish to pay for them through higher taxes. Moreover, we want the government to stay out of our way when it comes to making money, yet we expect there to be a safety net when we fail.)
The underlying problem is, in my view, that these elements are threads in the fabric that forms our democracy. If participation in the public sphere is in question, how robust and reliable is our democracy? Do these problems bespeak the unravelling of our popular system of government, or merely that it is changing with the times? Furthermore, what makes a democracy? Is simply the act of voting on election day enough to underpin a participative system, or does it need to go further than that?