Rich (New) Media Poor Activism Debates on Activism Movements in New Media

Öz

The convergence of the Internet and the media has enormously transformed the way in which the communication and interaction potential not only of the people, but also of the machines with their surroundings, and expanded their forms of participation. While the new media, which is the result of this convergence, has come to the forefront with its functional benefits as a catalyst such as information searching, expressing ideas, socializing and entertainment, its transformational role on media literacy and communication behaviours should also not be overlooked. Today, it is not difficult to predict that this transformational role will have much wider effects considering that people from every generation are heavy new media users and that even offline world interactions are virtual. In this study, we thought that it is vital to investigate how the activism ability of humans that made them the subject of their era will be transformed with the new media and what the effects will be, especially in the 

light of ideological theories. Therefore, by studying the effects of the new media within the scope of activism, we tried to present the new media-activism relations, new types of digital activism, differences between these types and discussions under different perspectives. In this study, which tries to shed light on the effect of online cyber activism on real-life activism, firstly cyber activism types were gathered under a typology and then discussions on these types were tried to be presented with the interpretations of two different fronts. The discussions between ‘media carta’ approach, which sees the new media as the new tool of democratization and points out to its success on recent international examples, and ‘slacktivism’ approach claiming that cyber activism creates a sense of misunderstanding and undermines real-life activism were interpreted. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Activism,internet,new media,cyber activism,criticism

Yeni Medyada Aktivizm Hareketleri Üzerine Zengin Medya Kısır Aktivizm Tartışmaları

Öz

İnternet ve medya yakınsaması yalnızca insanların değil makinelerin de çevreleriyle olan iletişim ve etkileşim kurma potansiyelini önemli ölçüde dönüştürmüş ve katılım biçimlerini genişletmiştir. Bazı yakınsamaların sonucu olan yeni medyanın bir katalizör olarak, bilgi arama, fikirleri ifade etme, sosyalleşme ve eğlence gibi fonksiyonel faydaları öne çıksa da medya okuryazarlığı ve iletişim davranışları üzerindeki dönüştürücü rolü gözden kaçmamalıdır. Günümüzde farklı yaşlardan kişilerin, yoğun bir şekilde yeni medya kullanıcısı olduğu ve çevrimdışı dünya etkileşimlerinin de sanal olabildiği göze alındığında bu dönüştürücü rolün çok daha geniş etkilere sahip olacağını tahmin etmek mümkündür. Bu çalışmada, özellikle ideoloji kuramları ışığında, kişileri, döneminin öznesi yapan aktivizm yeteneğinin günümüzde yeni medyayla nasıl bir dönüşüm geçirdiği ve etkilerinin ne olduğu yönündeki araştırmanın büyük önem taşıdığı düşünülmektedir. Dolayısıyla yeni medyanın etkilerini aktivizm çerçevesinden inceleyerek, yeni medya-aktivizm ilişkisi, yeni dijital aktivizm türleri, bu türler arasındaki farklılıklar ve tartışmalar, farklı bakış açıları altında sunulmaya çalışılmıştır. Çevrimiçi siber aktivizmin gerçek yaşam aktivizmi üzerindeki etkisine ışık tutmaya çalışan bu çalışmada, öncelikle siber aktivizm türleri bir tipoloji altında toplanmış daha sonra bu türler üzerindeki tartışmalar iki farklı cephenin yorumlarıyla sunulmaya çalışılmıştır. Yeni medyayı demokratikleştirmenin yeni aracı olarak görüp uluslararası güncel örneklerdeki başarısını işaret eden ‘medya carta’ anlayışı ile siber aktivizmin yanlış bir fark yaratma duygusu yaratıp gerçek yaşam aktivizmini baltaladığını iddia eden ‘slacktivizm’ anlayışı arasındaki tartışmalar yorumlanarak ele alınmıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aktivizm,internet,yeni medya,siber aktivizm,eleştiri

Kaynakça

1. Adorno, T. (2002). The culture industry reconsidered, In T. Adorno & J. Bernstein (Eds.), The culture industry: Selected esays on mass culture, (pp. 98-106). London, UK: Routledge
2. Anderson, L. (2011). Demystifying the Arab Spring. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ articles/67693/lisaanderson/demystifying-the-arab-spring
3. Arquilla, J. & Ronfeldt, D. (1996). The Advent of Netwar. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_ reports/MR789.html
4. Arquilla, J. & Ronfeldt, D. (2001). Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382.html
5. Ayers, M. D. & Maccaughey, M. (2003). Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice. New York, USA: Routledge.
6. Ayres, J. M. (1999). From the streets to the internet: The cyber-diffusion of contention. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 132-143.
7. Azab, N. A. (2012). The role of the internet in shaping the political process in Egypt. International Journal of E-Politics, 3(2), 31-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jep.2012040103.
8. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of human behavior (pp. 71-81). New York, USA: Academic Press.

9. Barzun, J. (1959) House of Intellect, New York, USA: Harper. Beckett, C. & Ball, J. (2011). WikiLeaks. Cambridge, UK: Wiley.
10. Bennett, L. (2003). New Media Power: The Internet and Global Activism. In N. Couldry & J. Curran (Eds.), Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World (pp. 17-37). London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
11. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739-768.
12. Buechler, S. M. (1995). New social movement theories. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 441-464. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00447.x
13. Caren, N. (2007). Political Process Theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosp041
14. Carty, V., & Onyett, J. (2006). Protest, cyberactivism and new social movements: The reemergence of the peace movement post 9/11. Social Movement Studies, 5(3), 229-249.
15. Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Castells, M. (2010). End of millennium, the information age. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell . Chardin, P. (1959) Phenomenon of Man. New York, USA: Harper.
16. Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means? First Monday, 16(2). Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/article/view/3336/2767
17. Corning, A. F., & Myers, D. J. (2002). Individual orientation toward engagement in social action. Political Psychology, 23(4), 703-729. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2002). The concept of flow. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
18. Della Porta, D., & Kriesi, H. (1999). Social movements in a globalizing world: An introduction. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Della Porta, D., & Mosca, L. (2007). In movimento: “Contamination” in action and the Italian global justice movement. A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 7(1), 1-27.
20. Delmas, C. (2018). Is Hacktivism the New Civil Disobedience? Dans Raisons Politiques, 69(1), 63-81.
21. DiGrazia, J. (2014). Individual protest participation in the United States: Conventional and unconventional activism. Social Science Quarterly, 95(1), 111-131.
22. Donguines, A. (2014). Ice bucket challenge rules ex-plained: How challenge helps ALS, Lou Gehrig’s disease charities? Retrieved from https://www.christianpost.com/news/ice-bucket-challenge-rules-explained-how-does-ithelp-als-charities-125361
23. Duncombe, S. (2008). Notes from underground: Zines and the politics of alternative culture. Oregon, USA: Microcosm Publishing.
24. Edelman, M. (2001). Social movements: Changing paradigms and forms of politics. Annual review of Anthropology, 30, 285-317.
25. Eltantawy, N., & Wiest, J. B. (2011). Social media in the Egyptian revolution: Reconsidering resource mobilization theory. International Journal of Communication, 5, 1207-1224.
26. Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media: A critical introduction. London, UK: Sage. Gladwell, M. (2010, September 27). Small change. The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/ magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell
27. Gramsci, A. (1997). Hapishane Defterleri (A. Cemgil, Trans.). İstanbul, Turkey: Belge Yayınları.
28. Habermas, Jürgen, (2003). İnsan Doğasının Geleceği (K. H. Öktem, Trans.) İstanbul, Turkey: Everest Yayınları. Ho, M.-S. (2010). Understanding the trajectory of social movements in Taiwan. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 39(3), 3-22.
29. Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. (2002). Dialectic of englightenment: Philosophical fragments (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press.
30. Huntington, S. P. (1993). The thirdwave: Democratization in the late 20th century. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
31. Kim, Y., & Chen, H.-T. (2015). Discussion network heterogeneity matters: Examining a moderated mediation model of social media use and civic engagement. International Journal of Communication, 9, 2344-2365.
32. Kristofferson, K., White, K., & Peloza, J. (2014). The nature of slacktivism: How the social observability of an initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial action. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1149-1166. https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/674137.
33. Lasn, Kalle (1999). Media Carta, Journal of Social Justice, 11(1), 121-124.
34. Lee, Y. H., & Hsieh, G. (2013). Does slacktivism hurt activism? The effects of moral balancing and consistency in online activism. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings (pp. 811-820). https:// dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470770
35. Lemert, C. (2011). Durkheim’ın Hayaletleri (F. B. Aydar, Trans.). İstanbul, Turkey: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları.
36. Manovich, L. (2002). The language of new media, Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
37. Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man. Boston, USA: Beacon. Marcuse, H. (1965). The individual in the great society. In A. Feenberg and W. Leiss (Eds.), The essential Marcuse: Selected writings of philosopher and social critic Herbert Marcuse (pp. 3-12). Boston, USA: Beacon.
38. Marcuse, H. (1969). An essay on liberation. Boston, USA: Beacon.
39. McLuhan, M. (2007). Gutenberg Galaksisi (G. Ç. Güven, Trans.), İstanbul, Turkey: YKY. McPhilips, F. (2006). Internet Activism: Towards A Framework for Emergent Democracy, Retrieved from http://www. iadisportal.org/digital-library/internet-activism-towards-a-framework-for-emergent-democracy.
40. Meikle, G. (2014). Social media, visibility, and activism: The kony2012 campaign. In M. Ratto & M. Boler (Eds.), DIY Citzenship: Critical Making and Social Media. London, UK: MIT Press.
41. Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: the dark side of internet freedom. NewYork, USA: Public Affairs.
42. Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups, second printing with new preface and appendix. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
43. Platon (1996) Diyaloglar (S. Eyüboğlu & A. Cemgil, Trans.) İstanbul, Turkey: Remzi Kitabevi.
44. Poe, M. (2014). İletişim Tarihi (U. Y. Kaya, Trans.), İstanbul, Turkey: Islık Yayınları.
45. Postill, J. (2012). Digital politics and political engagement. In H. A. Horst & D. Miller (Eds.), Digital Anthropology. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers.
46. Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, R. (2014). Towards cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the use of social media and other information technologies for political activism and social movements. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 365-378. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.016
47. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age. Communication Research, 32(5), 531-565. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209
48. Tarrow, S. G. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49. Thompson, W. E., Hickey, J. V., & Thompson, M. L. (2016). Society in focus: An introduction to sociology. London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
50. Tüfekçi, Z. & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: observations from Tahrir square. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 63-379. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01629.x
51. Valenzuela, S., Arriagada, A., & Scherman, A. (2012). The social media basis of youth protest behavior: The case of Chile. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 299-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01635.x.
52. Vesnic-Alujevic, L. (2012). Political participation and web 2.0 in Europe: A case study of Facebook. Public Relations Review, 38, 466-470.
53. Whelan, J. (2011). Online Activism: Insighta to Guide Social Movement Electronic Communication. Retrieved from http://thechangeagency.org.