FC: How anti-Iraq war protesters employed technology, from NYT
Pace Gina and others... I think the article below provides some extremely useful insight into the role that the Internet played, is playing and will play in the variety of political transformations that are taking place. The demonstrations were, we should note, occuring on day 1.5 of a war that hadn't yet happened and yet according to CNN who referred us to their website for confirmation, there were significant "anti" activities in some 603 (not sure where the 3 came from) communities across the globe. Some observations: * pre-Internet, we would probably not have known (certainly not in a timely fashion) about 90% of those activities as they occurred mostly in places where AP/Reuters and the traditional national/international media never tread * pre-Internet, almost certainly 90% of those activities might never have happened since the people in those communities would not have expected that their activities in Peoria and Penticton would register on any sort of international demo chart and thus they would have been invisible to all but the direct participants * pre-Internet, at day 1.5 of a war that hadn't happened yet, the turnout would have been in the thousands rather than the millions and would have represented the success of organizing efforts among the league of the committed (the usual cast of fringe political parties and a few politically active unions) rather than the infinitely larger and much more diverse (and ultimately much more powerful) league of the conscious and concerned. I think the results that Gina presented are an indication of the limitations of attempting to study phenomena which are emergent, systemic and tranformative with purely (and dare I say, narrowly) empirical methodology and tools that are meant to study phenomena that are incremental and particularistic. Best, Mike Gurstein -----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:58:29 -0800 (PST) From: "Jennifer 8. Lee" <[spamproofed]@nytimes.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/weekinreview/23JLEE.html
CRITICAL MASS How Protesters Mobilized So Many and So Nimbly By JENNIFER 8. LEE
WASHINGTON Before the global protests against war in Iraq last weekend, organizers were already making conference calls and passing out fliers for their next set of demonstrations, including one scheduled for next Saturday, outside the White House.
But then, the worldwide protests drew millions of people onto the streets, from San Francisco to London, and the Bush administration hit some diplomatic roadblocks. Sensing delay in White House momentum, the organizers themselves paused and decided to make a strategic move, delaying the demonstrations from March 1 until March 15. They spread the news the old-fashioned way, through alternative radio stations and word of mouth, and the instantaneous way, through Web sites and e-mail messages.
Organizing a protest is fundamentally about logistics: where do people meet, how do they get on a bus, who will order portable toilets. Obviously, the Internet, like fax machines and copiers, has made the tasks easier. Before last weekend's protests, for example, people registered online for buses to New York. And a mass e-mail notice was sent out to New York protesters, informing them about public bathrooms in Midtown Manhattan and giving them a number to call in case of arrest.
But the Internet has become more than a mere organizing tool; it has changed protests in a more fundamental way, by allowing mobilization to emerge from free-wheeling amorphous groups, rather than top-down hierarchical ones.
In the 60's, the anti-Vietnam War movement grew gradually. "It took four and a half years to multiply the size of the Vietnam protests twentyfold," said Todd Gitlin, a sociology professor at Columbia University and longtime liberal activist.
The first nationwide antiwar march in 1965 attracted about 25,000 people. By 1969, the protests had grown to half a million. But increasing the numbers required weeks and months of planning, using snail mail, phone calls and fliers.
"This time the same thing has happened in six months," Mr. Gitlin said. Even though momentum behind the demonstrations didn't grow until a month ago, after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations, more than 800,000 people turned out in 150 rallies in the United States last weekend, from 100 in Davenport, Iowa, to an estimated 350,000 in New York City. In Europe, more than 1.5 million protested.
The protests had no single identified leader and no central headquarters. Social theorists have a name for these types of decentralized networks: heterarchies. In contrast to hierarchies, with top-down structures, heterarchies are made up of previously isolated groups that can connect to one another and coordinate.
Because no central decision-making authority exists, protests can be localized and can appeal to new groups and individuals who don't live in areas where social protest information would typically reach. For example, Mothers Acting Up was started two years ago by four women around a kitchen table in Boulder, Colo., a liberal college town. But with their Internet site, www.mothersactingup.org, they have been able to reach 600 like-minded members across the country, many of whom participated in marches last week.
Technology also spreads word of rallies to countries where free expression is limited. In Singapore, where the government does not allow demonstrations at the American Embassy, cellphone text messages went out, exhorting recipients to gather at the embassy anyway. The text messages, which work like mass e-mail messaging to mobile devices, attracted at least a half-dozen placard-carrying demonstrators at the gates at the appointed time. The police rounded them up for questioning.
"Whenever a new communications technology lowers the threshold for groups to act collectively, new kinds of institutions emerge," said Howard Rheingold, the author of "Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution," which documents self-organizing and leaderless movements. "We are seeing the combination of network communications and social networks."
His book tells the story of how cellphone text messaging helped bring down Joseph Estrada, the Philippine president who was ousted after protests in 2001 over corruption. Text messaging advertised instant rallies, encouraged people to protest by wearing black and provided updates on the impeachment trial.
(In the same way, cellphone messaging is potentially alarming for the Chinese government. Officials do not have centralized control over the network and therefore cannot censor it, the way they do the Internet.)
E-mail lists have allowed individuals to create groups that defy geography and time. Thousands of people have joined hundreds of antiwar lists, and diverse streams of messages fly back and forth quickly, vastly different from the information flow in hierarchies. Since the beginning of the year, 300 messages have been posted on a popular antiwar list in Sydney, Australia, that has almost 900 members. The notes range from solicitations for donations to United Nations updates to appeals for local volunteers.
This is mass mobilization, but also nimble mobilization. Protesting a war that hasn't begun requires a constant eye on the calendar of government action. And the movement's flexibility maximizes its impact, organizers say. A protest date can easily be moved, timed to affect the latest diplomatic maneuver.
"We are trying to stay a step ahead of the administration by our planning," said Damu Smith, chairman of Black Voices for Peace, one of hundreds of groups involved in last week's demonstrations. And staying ahead of the game "is absolutely strategically central in our ability to be effective in what we are doing."
Military theorists are fond of saying that future warfare will revolve around social and communication networks. Antiwar groups have found that this is true for their work as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be the devil's advocate (or at least a media historian) is what we are describing a difference in kind or in scale? Most of us on air-l are probably aware of the use of the phone (landline, then mobile) and fax for organizing...and I recall reading about examples of the use of audio cassettes and letters for organizing (though obviously on a different timeline). So as I see it there are three fairly obvious things the internet brings that are different than media before it in this regard: One is the internet's relative instantaneity, another its reach to so many people, and another is the inherent "copy-ability" of internet communication (e.g., the ease of forwarding, posting). Which of these matters most, or are they all equal? And what I'd like to know more than that: Is there something else, something about the internet as a medium, that makes it more than a faster/broader medium in comparison to what has come before it? Thanks, Sj At 6:28 AM -0500 2/23/03, Michael Gurstein wrote:
Pace Gina and others... I think the article below provides some extremely useful insight into the role that the Internet played, is playing and will play in the variety of political transformations that are taking place.
The demonstrations were, we should note, occuring on day 1.5 of a war that hadn't yet happened and yet according to CNN who referred us to their website for confirmation, there were significant "anti" activities in some 603 (not sure where the 3 came from) communities across the globe.
Some observations: * pre-Internet, we would probably not have known (certainly not in a timely fashion) about 90% of those activities as they occurred mostly in places where AP/Reuters and the traditional national/international media never tread * pre-Internet, almost certainly 90% of those activities might never have happened since the people in those communities would not have expected that their activities in Peoria and Penticton would register on any sort of international demo chart and thus they would have been invisible to all but the direct participants * pre-Internet, at day 1.5 of a war that hadn't happened yet, the turnout would have been in the thousands rather than the millions and would have represented the success of organizing efforts among the league of the committed (the usual cast of fringe political parties and a few politically active unions) rather than the infinitely larger and much more diverse (and ultimately much more powerful) league of the conscious and concerned.
I think the results that Gina presented are an indication of the limitations of attempting to study phenomena which are emergent, systemic and tranformative with purely (and dare I say, narrowly) empirical methodology and tools that are meant to study phenomena that are incremental and particularistic.
Best,
Mike Gurstein
the other side of this also strikes me as interesting/compelling, and worthy of study: in that digital leaves tracks [tracks which are generally unprotected by both technology and law], and in that laws of all sorts protect phone, mail, and personal exchanges [the old ways of organizing were, in many instances, "protected" or at least covered over by civil liberties] . . . the real "difference" may be the extent to which new [digital] and ostensibly "secret" and "subversive" activities may be even more open to surveillance and prosecution. On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 08:45 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
To be the devil's advocate (or at least a media historian) is what we are describing a difference in kind or in scale? Most of us on air-l are probably aware of the use of the phone (landline, then mobile) and fax for organizing...and I recall reading about examples of the use of audio cassettes and letters for organizing (though obviously on a different timeline). So as I see it there are three fairly obvious things the internet brings that are different than media before it in this regard: One is the internet's relative instantaneity, another its reach to so many people, and another is the inherent "copy-ability" of internet communication (e.g., the ease of forwarding, posting). Which of these matters most, or are they all equal? And what I'd like to know more than that: Is there something else, something about the internet as a medium, that makes it more than a faster/broader medium in comparison to what has come before it?
Thanks, Sj
At 6:28 AM -0500 2/23/03, Michael Gurstein wrote:
Pace Gina and others... I think the article below provides some extremely useful insight into the role that the Internet played, is playing and will play in the variety of political transformations that are taking place.
The demonstrations were, we should note, occuring on day 1.5 of a war that hadn't yet happened and yet according to CNN who referred us to their website for confirmation, there were significant "anti" activities in some 603 (not sure where the 3 came from) communities across the globe.
Some observations: * pre-Internet, we would probably not have known (certainly not in a timely fashion) about 90% of those activities as they occurred mostly in places where AP/Reuters and the traditional national/international media never tread * pre-Internet, almost certainly 90% of those activities might never have happened since the people in those communities would not have expected that their activities in Peoria and Penticton would register on any sort of international demo chart and thus they would have been invisible to all but the direct participants * pre-Internet, at day 1.5 of a war that hadn't happened yet, the turnout would have been in the thousands rather than the millions and would have represented the success of organizing efforts among the league of the committed (the usual cast of fringe political parties and a few politically active unions) rather than the infinitely larger and much more diverse (and ultimately much more powerful) league of the conscious and concerned.
I think the results that Gina presented are an indication of the limitations of attempting to study phenomena which are emergent, systemic and tranformative with purely (and dare I say, narrowly) empirical methodology and tools that are meant to study phenomena that are incremental and particularistic.
Best,
Mike Gurstein
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
Edward Lee Lamoureux, Ph. D. Interim Director, Multimedia Program and New Media Center Associate Professor, Speech Communication 1501 W. Bradley Bradley University Peoria IL 61625 309-677-2378 Editor, Journal of Communication and Religion
The novelty of Internet lies in all that Steve suggests, and a little more. Why, for example should not a change in scale (that is speed and outreach) result in a change in kind? After all, one cold virus is easily faught, whereas several may result in a real bad cold, that may develop into pneumonia... To add a qualitative difference: the opportunity to save messages (not only to copy them for forwarding) is also important. This is so much more easy than saving papers (have a look at your desk). Also, search for messages is easier than search for papers. Therefore, the ideas on those papers may be more penetrating, since you may see them more often. Again: quantity brings quality. However, I still hold that the opportunity to spread messages over the world fast and to a great number of people is decisive not only for a quantitative but also for a qualitative change. You certainly see characteristics of a cat in a tiger, but I am sure you wouldn't like to take the tiger on your lap. Further, the old knowledge that you may reach people you do not know through the Internet really IS a qualitative change. Of all people in the air-list I only know Steve Jones and Malin Sveningsson personally. To further support my argument, I can tell you that I have been e-communicating since 1976 or so. By then there were very few people online, and I could not see any difference from phoning or writing ordinary letters. Now, however, I would like to say that we have reached the "critical mass" people use to talk about. The source of this metaphor is another example of how quantity brings quality. All the best, Yvonne
To be the devil's advocate (or at least a media historian) is what we are describing a difference in kind or in scale? Most of us on air-l are probably aware of the use of the phone (landline, then mobile) and fax for organizing...and I recall reading about examples of the use of audio cassettes and letters for organizing (though obviously on a different timeline). So as I see it there are three fairly obvious things the internet brings that are different than media before it in this regard: One is the internet's relative instantaneity, another its reach to so many people, and another is the inherent "copy-ability" of internet communication (e.g., the ease of forwarding, posting). Which of these matters most, or are they all equal? And what I'd like to know more than that: Is there something else, something about the internet as a medium, that makes it more than a faster/broader medium in comparison to what has come before it?
Thanks, Sj
-- Yvonne Wærn, Professor em, PhD. Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University SE 581 83 Linköping
Steve mentioned three factors that can arguably be viewed as different than media before it: relative instantaneity, its reach to so many people, its inherent "copy-ability." Yvonne Waern added two more: its ability to be easily saved (or archived) and its searchability. i'll add a few more. 1) its still relatively decentralized nature allows for less gatekeepers and arguably a more diverse spectrum of voices and opinions. (no, i'm no cyberutopian but i do think the current information landscape is more diverse than before.) 2) unlike traditional news where we get what we're given (we can only subscribe or buy newspapers that are shipped to our town or city; we can only watch television channels that are bundled by our local providers), we can proactively access what we want (with a few caveats: we need the necessary equipment and training, we need to know the language used on the site or have access to really good translation software, and we often need to subscribe for a fee or register). 3) then there's the classic many-to-many, reader-writer aspect we've been talking about for years -- yes, many past communication technologies, including those mentioned by steve, have elements of this but what other medium has the whole shebang and is used by so many? david
As a follow up of this discussion, I wonder if anybody has got any sources to point to as to the organization of anti-war demonstrations via the internet? I could not find anything before David's first invitation to check out his Seattle demonstration pictures. Thanks in advance! Yvonne
Steve mentioned three factors that can arguably be viewed as different than media before it: relative instantaneity, its reach to so many people, its inherent "copy-ability." Yvonne Waern added two more: its ability to be easily saved (or archived) and its searchability.
i'll add a few more. 1) its still relatively decentralized nature allows for less gatekeepers and arguably a more diverse spectrum of voices and opinions. (no, i'm no cyberutopian but i do think the current information landscape is more diverse than before.) 2) unlike traditional news where we get what we're given (we can only subscribe or buy newspapers that are shipped to our town or city; we can only watch television channels that are bundled by our local providers), we can proactively access what we want (with a few caveats: we need the necessary equipment and training, we need to know the language used on the site or have access to really good translation software, and we often need to subscribe for a fee or register). 3) then there's the classic many-to-many, reader-writer aspect we've been talking about for years -- yes, many past communication technologies, including those mentioned by steve, have elements of this but what other medium has the whole shebang and is used by so many? david
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
-- Yvonne Wærn, Professor em, PhD. Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University SE 581 83 Linköping
Here's some of what you asked for, and a bit more: (organizations that are very active on the net) http://www.internationalanswer.org/ http://www.notinourname.net/ (info page about some of the groups around the globe) http://www.antiwar.com/peaceactions.html (The Virtual March) http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/ (some discussion lists) studentsnowar@yahoogroups.com professors_for_peace@yahoogroups.com NYCstudents4peace@yahoogroups.com NYTeachAgainsttheWar@topica.com (a petition that longs to be an ad) http://cows.ctsg.com/ (academic sources re: the Gulf War) http://www.geocities.com/gulfprotestsbib/index.html -Robert On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Yvonne Waern wrote:
As a follow up of this discussion, I wonder if anybody has got any sources to point to as to the organization of anti-war demonstrations via the internet?
I could not find anything before David's first invitation to check out his Seattle demonstration pictures.
Thanks in advance! Yvonne
Steve mentioned three factors that can arguably be viewed as different than media before it: relative instantaneity, its reach to so many people, its inherent "copy-ability." Yvonne Waern added two more: its ability to be easily saved (or archived) and its searchability.
i'll add a few more. 1) its still relatively decentralized nature allows for less gatekeepers and arguably a more diverse spectrum of voices and opinions. (no, i'm no cyberutopian but i do think the current information landscape is more diverse than before.) 2) unlike traditional news where we get what we're given (we can only subscribe or buy newspapers that are shipped to our town or city; we can only watch television channels that are bundled by our local providers), we can proactively access what we want (with a few caveats: we need the necessary equipment and training, we need to know the language used on the site or have access to really good translation software, and we often need to subscribe for a fee or register). 3) then there's the classic many-to-many, reader-writer aspect we've been talking about for years -- yes, many past communication technologies, including those mentioned by steve, have elements of this but what other medium has the whole shebang and is used by so many? david
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
-- Yvonne W�rn, Professor em, PhD. Department of Communication Studies, Link�ping University SE 581 83 Link�ping
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
Two sites that I am familiar with are: http://www.moveon.org http://www.winwithoutwar.org I am on MoveOn.org's mailing list, and they regularly inform people about concrete actions taking place, and urging people to take specific actions, both individually and as a group. A creative online action that they are organizing this Wednesday (Feb. 26) is a "Virtual March on Washington". They are organizing people to call their representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate; a different constituent to call each of the 535 of them each minute for the whole day. The online registration process along with the mail list announcements allow an action within a period of time that simply could not have been taken without the use of the internet. Notably, a message today announced that they had already fully scheduled phone calls to be made for all states except for a handful of states with the smallest populations. Layton Montgomery layton@alum.mit.edu PhD Candidate Centre for Research Policy University of Wollongong AUSTRALIA Yvonne Waern wrote:
As a follow up of this discussion, I wonder if anybody has got any sources to point to as to the organization of anti-war demonstrations via the internet?
I could not find anything before David's first invitation to check out his Seattle demonstration pictures.
Thanks in advance! Yvonne
http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile - Exchange IMs with Messenger friends on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile phone.
Here's an opinion article re: Internet and mobilization: http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29627 -robert
I forgot the most important argument: Internet is of course NOTHING without human beings USING it. Internet is an artefact that mediates between the human subject and our objects (that may be various things). As a mediator it changes the activity as a whole. This comes from activity theory, very useful, I find. All the best, Yvonne
To be the devil's advocate (or at least a media historian) is what we are describing a difference in kind or in scale? Most of us on air-l are probably aware of the use of the phone (landline, then mobile) and fax for organizing...and I recall reading about examples of the use of audio cassettes and letters for organizing (though obviously on a different timeline). So as I see it there are three fairly obvious things the internet brings that are different than media before it in this regard: One is the internet's relative instantaneity, another its reach to so many people, and another is the inherent "copy-ability" of internet communication (e.g., the ease of forwarding, posting). Which of these matters most, or are they all equal? And what I'd like to know more than that: Is there something else, something about the internet as a medium, that makes it more than a faster/broader medium in comparison to what has come before it?
Thanks, Sj
-- Yvonne Wærn, Professor em, PhD. Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University SE 581 83 Linköping
participants (7)
-
david silver -
Ed Lamoureux -
Layton Montgomery -
Michael Gurstein -
robert m. tynes -
Steve Jones -
Yvonne Waern