This is a new series by LoyarBurok – “LoyarBorak”. Selected issues will be discussed by a chosen number of panelists. It aims to provide a more informal, bite-sized presentation of ideas and thoughts.

In this first LoyarBorak, which comes in two parts, the question is on the effectiveness of Twitter in social action. It is inspired by a piece written by Malcolm Gladwell for The New Yorker.

Syazwina Saw has prepared a response (prefacing each section in italics), which will be used as a base for this LoyarBorak. Adrian Chew, Edmund Bon Tai Soon, Marcus van Geyzel and Syahredzan Johan share their feelings on the subject with Syazwina having the final say. Please feel free to continue the borak session in the comments section below.

SOCIAL MEDIA IN CONTEXT

With the advent of social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, the challenge for software developers it seems has become to produce the most penetrable and user-friendly device with which to share one’s entire life with the world. Suddenly, life experiences and great musings are condensed into 140 characters or less. Only the most avid blog-writers remain – for the masses, quick, live and ADHD is the way to go. Is it any surprise that the Hollywood community has embraced Twitter whole-heartedly?

Iran’s 2009 federal elections brought the Twitterverse into an entirely new playing field. Amid claims of tampered votes and election results, Tehran exploded into a wave of protests as supporters of the opposition led by Mousavi took to the streets in waves. All other means of communication blocked, citizens of Iran took to Twitter. And suddenly, it became more than just Ashton Kutcher getting a million mosquito nets to fight malaria, or Miley Cyrus sending lovenotes to Perez Hilton – it became a Movement. Twitter had become a Thing.

Twitter has since become a reputable primary source for many; a place to scour for quotes, a scary insight into the minds of politicians and celebrities, and most importantly, ordinary folk. Along with that, major news networks have started reporting tweets, and brought along with it this claim of Twitter and Facebook being agents of change, triggers for revolutions.

Adrian:

Twitter and Facebook, in the context of digital activism are fairly useless on their own. They are merely new mediums of communication that have somehow provided a quantum leap in the efficacy of information dissemination, much like how Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press led to the printing revolution and the democratisation of knowledge.

But the true agents of change aren’t printing machines or social networking applications. It’s always been people. People are the real catalysts for revolutions. At most, Twitter lowers the barrier to activism – making it easier for information to reach the masses and for people to decide how active they want to be in support of a cause.

Edmund:

Let us remind ourselves of the context in which Gladwell wrote the piece by asking a few questions.

Firstly, why did he caution us about the limitations of social media in galvanising people towards high-risk activity?

Secondly, was he – (i) describing the use of social media tools (and I accept that they have revolutionised the way people have become involved in issues) and explaining the Twitter phenomenon in relation to different types of activity; (ii) analysing the impact of Twitter (i.e. what it can or cannot do) and correcting misguided perceptions of it; or (iii) predicting its future use?

He was writing to warn us that we have today overstated the effectiveness of social media tools, and that we have become too comfortable. Thinking that in expressing our thoughts online we have, so to speak, “done our part” has made us complacent about organising and mobilising communities. That is how we should view Gladwell’s piece.

I preface my borak to say what Facebook and Twitter are and have achieved before going on to say what they are not. They are now indispensable channels of communication. Hark back to the days when we were excited about the fax machine. We could send and receive documents instantaneously. E-tools (i.e. e-mails and e-groups) then transmitted information even faster. Increased speed, better delivery mechanisms, and more voices, conversations and stories at the shortest amount of time. Do not doubt that I embrace these as given facts.

But is that it? No. It is said, and I agree that, e-tools have democratised the way we communicate with those in power, generated armies of people motivated to work on various causes and encouraged self-activism. However, e-tools did not by themselves cause these things to happen. They were used strategically, and well, by organisations and initiatives in tandem with other tools.

Marcus:

A discussion on the meaning of “social media” could, in itself, take up an entire article. Suffice to say here that the key element which distinguishes social media from “traditional” media is, perhaps obviously, the interactive element (compare Twitter to a newspaper, for example).

My initial reaction to Gladwell’s piece was that he was stating the obvious. He basically took the views of a minority (that Twitter can spawn revolutions) and used it as stick with which to beat the entire medium. Twitter is a communication channel. Like the printed word, telephones, the internet, mobiles, SMSes, and blogs.

The effectiveness of a tool is entirely dependent on its users.

Syahredzan:

I think all of us here are regular Twitteratis (tweeps? twits?) so we certainly vouch for the addictiveness of this social media tool. Twitter has opened up new avenues of interaction, the exchanging ideas and propagating one’s thoughts. Interacting with someone you’ve never met, with a celebrity or a politician or someone thousands of miles away.

If nothing, Twitter has changed how we communicate to each other.

Syazwina:

I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s attacking Twitter itself – I mean, the man has an account. I like to think he’s targetting his audience (and also his more common detractors): the largely-white, upper-middle-class bourgeoisie. They’re the same ones who adopted the Iranian protests as their own “fight”, got all caught up in politics removed from its context; the ones who keep saying, again and again, that Twitter is crucial to activism. Even reputable mass media has taken to Twitter for quotes and, God help us all, “news”.

Twitter’s overrated by the media and sometimes the Twitterati, and it’s not hard to see why Gladwell wants to beat it with a stick, if only to knock some sense into our heads.

THE MEANING OF “ACTIVISM”

Gladwell seems to dispute the efficacy of Twitter as a tool for activism, dismissing it by regaling a tale of a Wall Street broker who got his phone back from a young teenage girl and comparing it to the internet-less impact of the civil rights movement in 1960s America. Social activists are miffed by his claim that Twitter is seen to have “reinvented social activism”; they say he’s missed the point or that he’s too quick to judge.

Adrian:

It’s just fancy footwork by Gladwell in describing the effectiveness of activism as based on “strong ties” versus “weak ties” or “high-risk” versus “low-risk”. His models are overly simplistic. I tried to reconcile these models with two recent local happenings: the “1M Malaysians Reject 100-storey Mega Tower” Facebook campaign and the use of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (MCMC Act) to quash online freedom of expression.

Admit it, thanks to digital activism, almost everyone has an opinion now about the Warisan Merdeka project – whether for or against. Despite its success in getting the Government to pause and rethink its plans, this form of activism would still fall under Gladwell’s “low-risk” and “weak-ties” model. The increased frequency of the Government’s resort to the MCMC Act to prosecute these “armchair activists” for merely being “annoying” also shows that “weak ties” don?t necessarily equate with “low risk”.

Edmund:

Gladwell’s crux proposition is that “we seem to have forgotten what activism is”. In using case studies, one usually takes extreme examples to drive home the point and Gladwell adopted “high-risk activism” to enunciate his. It leaves us the challenge of defining and re-defining activism. Is speech intensely expressed on Facebook and Twitter activism? If we accept that activism includes writing online to the editor a letter of disgust or petitioning online the release of a prisoner, then practically everyone is involved in activism (which is a positive).

But I think it would have been much clearer to replace the word “activism” with “mobilisation” or “organisation” or “a movement”. Winning people over to speak to power, and then to shift the balance of power away from the establishment requires numbers who are committed to the cause and to the core.

Today, we think mobilising is sending an e-mail to an e-group, creating a Facebook event or tweeting a call-out per se. It is not. You may get a group of people regularly coming for meetings, events and protests based on your shout-outs but this would not be sustainable. Ask how many total strangers communicating on the internet would come out to protest against the Menara Warisan Merdeka or coalesce into a civil society group opposing the development?

I take the romanticised idea that mobilisation is an art of which expression is only one component, and organising movements cannot be done online via IP addresses.

Marcus:

It is quite telling that Gladwell’s examples of “real” activism are from the 1960s-70s. Times have changed. A lot. Using those illustrations to swat away the significance of social media is akin to someone in the 1970s saying that rallies, printed material and the telephone were useless because activists in the 1920s didn’t use them.

Amusingly, Gladwell writes: “Innovators tend to be solipsists. They often want to cram every stray fact and experience into their new model.” I wonder whether he wrote this tongue-in-cheek, as that is exactly the kind of thing his critics accuse him of. There is no doubt that Gladwell is one of the most intelligent and innovative thinkers of our time, but it also has to be conceded that he conveniently chooses facts and illustrations which best suit his theories.

Syahredzan:

I think the word “activism” itself needs a re-think. If activism is defined by the actions of civil rights activists in 1960s America, then Gladwell may be right.

But these days one does not need to leave one’s laptop to be an activist (defined by Dictionary.com as “an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause”).

I give you an example – my sister recently changed her Twitter avatar purple in support of anti-LBGT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender) bullying. Sure, it’s not the Woolsworth protest of Greensbro, but can we argue that she’s any less of an activist simply because the statement she chose to make is in cyberspace? Is her online statement effective? I don’t know, but at the very least her followers would know the problem exists and some people may want to do something about it.

Syazwina:

I have to agree with Marcus on Gladwell’s cut-and-paste style of journalism, and yes, he oversimplifies the scenario, and perhaps even the meaning of “activism”. I guess what we should ask is, is our definition of activism actually effective? It brings to mind Robert Fisk’s article just after the Iranian protests, where he commented on the effectiveness of candlelight vigils, saying that if Iranians were truly looking for a revolution via Mousavi, lighting candles in the streets just won’t cut it.

There’s sending a message, and then there’s delivering it. What’s the point of clicking “LIKE” on a Facebook page if the government’s just going to swat your say like a fly?

MOBILISATION v ARMCHAIR ACTIVISM

Gladwell’s article wasn’t addressing the likes of the guy handing out pamphlets in Chow Kit Road or the lady organising free meals for the homeless. He was talking to you and me.

Once upon a time in Malaysia, there was this thing called a university students’ union. It existed for the students, by the students, created from independent campus elections and driven to making students as independent as possible. The campus community felt alive – students had their say, and made sure they did. If dissatisfaction arose, they would protest peacefully to get their point across.

But then, one sad, sad day in 1971, this independent voice was driven to silence by the approval of the University and University Colleges Act in Parliament. And so while campus elections and student unions still existed, their drive and spirit were removed; their vivacity gone. Generations of university students were told that politics were beyond their reach, was the property of politicians, and should not be played with. Later on, they were told that they were “too immature” to fully participate in politics. This, coupled with a mainstream media that did not hide their admiration for the governing powers, created an atmosphere of either ardent trust or distinct apathy.

We are so caught up with our newfound voices that we have forgotten the truth of activism, and of life in general – that for things to actually happen, it takes more than words. Our solidarity, now ensconced in Facebook and Twitter, often does not move beyond it.

We have become armchair activists, online movers and Internet shakers, all of which are paradoxical job descriptions (unless you’re Steve Jobs). No longer do we go door-to-door, when our conscience is so easily coaxed by simply clicking the “LIKE” button. We complain, whine and blog about the world not being a better place from behind the safety and comfort of our laptops, desktops, BlackBerrys and iPhones. Once upon a time, you had to risk imprisonment to effect change. Now it seems enough to just tweet about it.

The line between information and movement has been blurred, and it’s hard to tell if we did it on purpose or because we know no different. My point is, Gladwell had it right. He was talking to the middle-class, Western or West-imitating, internet-savvy bourgeoisie – his target audience – and telling them a thing or two about what it means to stand up for something. To actually stand up, and not at a candlelight vigil.

Adrian:

It’s one thing to retweet news about the UKM4, but quite another to be going out there in full support of the four individuals who are in the middle of this storm, sourcing funds for their court battles, and constantly campaigning for their cause in the media and with sympathetic members of the public.

What I’m trying to say is that Twitter’s great for mobilising those who are not really associated with your movement but strongly motivated by your cause. But again, just because it mobilises support, it doesn’t mean you’ll get people to come out in the open and stand up to injustice. That requires a degree of personal sacrifice not many are willing to give just by reading a tweet.

Edmund:

I will say this. Let us first accept that verbal communication (i.e. speaking to someone on the phone) is quite different from sending the person an e-mail or a tweet. We would be able to hear the person’s voice, gather an impression of the person’s facial expression as well as deal with any concerns immediately. A rapport is built instantly.

Speaking from my limited experience at the Bar (starting out in 1997) when e-tools were not in vogue then, how did we get lawyers to attend an event, litigate a case or hold a demonstration? We had to pick up the phone and speak to them, and then hold a meeting. It was tedious but effective. We communicated. Today, we write on an e-group and try to have online discussions. Sometimes we get no reply, or worse still, because we can’t see the facial expression of the correspondent replying on the other side, we miscommunicate.

Building a network purely by e-group or Twitter is not sustainable in the long run because there is a lack of what I might call, “personable personality”. What I see as dangerous is the present journey of conflation – first, a confusion, then misappropriation and finally, a replacement of “on-the-ground mobilisation” with “e-tools activism”. I don’t blame the younger generation who did not experience the transition to e-tools as there is to them no yardstick for comparison (e.g. the fax machine).

It’s as simple as this. On the MyConsti e-group, whenever we have an event (and we have a fairly large number of events), we e-mail out a call for volunteers. Few respond. Sometimes no one does. Those who made the call-out feel demoralised. I ask why. They say there is little interest in the event. I say you can’t say that because you have not really attempted to organise or mobilise a team. You cannot expect to send e-mails seeking volunteers to be sufficient. Make the dreaded phone call, and seek out to meet them. They try doing that and it works.

Movers cannot assume that once the e-mail is sent, I have moved myself and the community. And if no one responds then that is all I can do.

Marcus:

It seems that “armchair activism” is a bad word these days. But should it really be? Does the fact that someone is not willing to take to the streets mean that he doesn’t truly care about a cause?

There are various methods of social activism. Rallies and candlelight vigils are one of them. But so is signing a petition, forwarding an email, creating a Facebook page, or tweeting about it.

Real activism impacts the hearts and minds of the people, which is the real catalyst behind a “revolution” of any sort. The discussion of issues in any media has the potential to generate change. Twitter is such a powerful tool in spreading awareness, quickly.

Different types of activism involves, and affects, different types of people.

Syahredzan:

These days, not many can become full-time activists. Most of us are part-timers, investing time and effort into a cause when we have time and effort to spare. That’s the reality of it. Even if we want to “do something” about it, there are too many considerations weighing on our minds when we want to decide. Will I get caught? Will I go to jail? Will I lose my job?

So while I agree that we can certainly do more, to be truly effective a movement must utilise the strength of each members. Taking the example of my sister, if all she can and willing to do to promote anti-LBGT bullying is by changing her Twitter profile picture, why stop her?

“Purists” may scoff at these forms of activism, seeing them as nothing compared to the “serious” work that they do, but if they are truly passionate about their cause then they should take heed of these “non-traditional” methods of activism.

TWITTER’S ULTIMATE ROLE

Gladwell concludes:

“But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism. … A networked, weak-tie world is good at things like helping Wall Streeters get phones back from teen-age girls.”

Syazwina concludes:

Twitter and Facebook remain what have always been – tools of connection and networking, building common ties more difficult to assemble in reality. Both have been excellent with awareness-building and spreading information. But we are still so dissatisfied because the action has not flowed as steadily as the tweets have. Which is why we’ve been stuck with names like the “UM5″ and the “UKM4″. There used to be a time the digits would be in fours, and were a force to reckon with. True, there are external forces to blame, but if social networking has properly informed us, as we say it has, then the next step comes from within. Words shape our world, but actions give it form.

Adrian:

Perhaps the one thing that is true – and that which Gladwell himself acknowledges – is the efficacy of Twitter and Facebook in arming us with the requisite information and awareness. But even so, no amount of information in the world can make us stand in front of a rolling tank. Would you have taken part in the Bersih demonstrations and brave the water cannons purely because of inspiring tweets?

It takes something more, such as the indignation of injustice, compassion for the oppressed and disgust at discrimination that move us to act. These are the forces that truly inspire and fuel revolutions and movements for change. Not 140-character tweets.

Edmund:

I met Syazwina once at a MyConsti workshop then started communicating via Twitter. Adrian was known to me when he actively moved the MyConsti campaign in Sibu, and we have been in touch on the MyConsti e-group as well as on ground events. Syah was verbose on the KL Bar Young Lawyer Committee’s e-group and we met regularly post-MyConsti’s first meeting in 2009. Marcus and I met through Twitter though I had previously heard of his uniquely European sounding name in the fraternity.

At the lowest common denominator, we are on Twitter but does that make each of us an activist since we tweet regularly on controversial issues? Or MyConsti has strengthened the ties between Syazwina, Syah, Adrian and I to the extent that we are ad idem on a particular issue and will organise ourselves around it?

Try putting 100 people who hardly know each other on an e-group and ask them to carry out an initiative as a form of activism without meeting or organising themselves. Before long you would have in-fighting on the one hand among the vocal ones, and on the other, not a word from the silent members.

What’s my point? The “personable personality” of the each is lacking. We can’t know, like or understand each other unless we have organised ourselves even if we held the same views on say, democracy. MyConsti would not have been as successful as it has without members organising, meeting, talking, teasing and hanging out together. But I hope for organising expediency, I would be proven wrong. Using e-tools is so much easier!

LoyarBurok’s experiment of bringing together contributors who have weak or absent ties, and organising ourselves into a community of activists will be a serious attempt to debunk my own views of the matter. I welcome the challenge.

Marcus:

Gladwell’s article has its merits (of course it does, he’s Malcolm Gladwell). But his point is overstated; to say that social media is only good for frivolous, weak-tie relationships is unfair. I suspect he did this intentionally, to garner interest, and reactions.

Change does not have to happen through street protests. A series of tweets may impact more minds than a rally or vigil. I know many who see these rallies/vigils as a waste of time, or an irritant – their hearts and minds are certainly not turned towards a cause because of these types of social activism.

In Malaysia, I believe that the internet, blogs, and now Twitter, have undoubtedly revolutionised the nation. Malaysians no longer have to rely on the mainstream media, and as a result, the mainstream media are now reporting more fairly on many issues, because their readers are more discerning and knowledgeable.

As for Twitter, with almost 200 million registered users tweeting 65 million times a day, it is an information stream that cannot be ignored. Twitter may not bring about another Greensboro, but hey, we don’t live in the 1960s anymore.

Syahredzan:

I think this is where my views differ from Syazwina’s – she views tweets and the like as “words” while to me these are forms of “actions”. Activism is the practice or action of being involved in a cause, so if what we tweet serves to further that cause then to me, they are actions and not merely words. In fact, sometimes a tweet or an article could create a bigger and more potent ripple than a street protest.

Remember, the 2008 tsunami would probably not have occurred if not for the role played by blogs and online media, despite the Bersih and Hindraf protests. You have a street protest, the government can simply round up all the protesters under some draconian law or another. But imagine if all of Twitterjaya rallied to a cause, how many doors would they have to break down to detain all of us?

Yes, one “LIKE” on an FB page might not be much, but 200,000 more and you’ve got a government and a GLC both scrambling to stem the tide of discontent.

Syazwina:

I speak as an armchair activist, knowing full and well that I sit at a safe position of privilege. And I don’t think of myself as being a “real” activist – I acknowledge that time, mobility and other responsibilities (and perhaps a certain amount of laziness) have stopped me from going to the streets and breaking down doors. So what do I do? I tweet, retweet, try and spread the word via Facebook status messages.

But I know the limitations of the medium I use – if I’m lucky, I might get one, maybe two people within my network to sit up and take notice. My problem with Twitter is that it’s saturated – we follow each other and fool ourselves into thinking that we’re onto something. And then we go out in the real world and realise there are so many people who still have no clue, so many who rely on mainstream media to understand the world around them, so many who choose apathy over asking questions. Online revolution or no, the majority of the rakyat are untouched by it.

Which is why a tweet, to me, is the least a person can do, and until we Malaysians actually get out there and get things moving, we remain the knowing but silent minority.

Adrian sits in a room somewhere in Sarawak watching a dying river flow. Yellowing books on his shelves and blank sheets of paper on his desk, he continues to write if only to search for his voice, despite stillborn sentences never filling up a page. Follow his journey to becoming a writer on The Reading Monk and @Reading_Monk.

Edmund continues various escape techniques in his attempts to be rid of Lord Bobo’s control and the Bar Council’s influence. He is on a crusade to abolish the institution of marriage and build love movements though he thinks love is an illusion. And so he tweets @edmundbon.

Marcus is a corporate/commercial solicitor in Kuala Lumpur, who tweets @vangeyzel. He believes that the only certainty in life is that everything can be explained by the transperambulation of pseudo-cosmic antimatter.

Syahredzan is a young lawyer and a partner at a legal firm in Kuala Lumpur. He fancies himself to be a political critic and social commentator. In truth, he is just another Malaysian who is far too opinionated. He is passionately patriotic, although not in the conventional flag-waving way. He believes that Malaysia still has a lot of unfulfilled potential if only its people learned to unite rather than divide. @syahredzan is his handle on Twitter.

Syazwina spends her days subediting legal commentary, her nights studying science philosophy, and the time in between tweeting @syazwinasaw. She rants for a better Malaysia, or so she hopes.

*this article was first published in Loyarburok in parts 1 and 2.