Tuesday, June 23, 2009:
In Iran the protests and riots have dramatically subsided. The West and the protesters believed that communicating news by twitter.com and taking pictures with cell phones would be able to take the place of a revolutionary cadre and the dissemination of actual ideas.
The revolt forgot that it is not the ability to communicate or the form of communication that is used that is important. In revolution, one must communicate revolutionary ideas; by twitter, by mouth, by paper or however. IT IS THE CONTENT OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT IS IMPORTANT, NOT THE FORM. The revolt seems to have believed that simply by describing the situation in short sentences, as twitter makes necessary, that they could bring down a totalitarian apparatus.
Like so many naive young people, the Iranians were enamored by their technology, believing it to be the source of their power. No. The source of their power was their ideas. The lack of it was the lack of the same.
The irony is that the form of communication used, twitter, is a pathectically self-limiting technology forcing language and therefore ideas into an uninspiring witch's brew of barely literate contortions of language. What young people fail to realize is that the internet is far more a source of disinformation than of information, much less real wisdom or knowledge.
The fact that so many have chosen twitter as their primary means of communication says something about their lack of respect for the content of their communication.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Glad you finally updated, John! Not surprisingly, can't say I agree with you. I don't think the people in the streets are seeking "revolution." That's the wishful thinking the west is imposing on them. What they want is to believe that the system, as it is, will be fair to them. It's much closer to the U.S. civil rights movement than, say, to the Ghandi movement in India. The latter meant to overthrow colonial rule, the former simply demanded full citizenship for black Americans (ditto the Soweto uprisings in South Africa.)
Therefore, what the people in Iran need from the outside world is not a debate over ideas, but rather our attention, and witness to their struggle. The point of the marches is the marches, and the coverage, and making it inescapable for the regime to see that the world is watching.
I do agree Twitter truncates language in a most unhelpful way, tho. :)
I tend to think that like in any revolt "the people" are not all of one mind.
And if you agreed with me on twitter you agreed with a major thrust of my argument. :)
We tend to choose the communications forms that suit us, for better or worse. At the risk of sounding elitist, it is sad to see twitter so popular, just my opinion.
Thanks for the comment,
John
Hey, I randomly found your blog and I'm glad I did. Very interesting! I'm a conservative blogger in Chicago (rjmoeller.com). Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment