Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

« Iran: The 7 Lessons of the Supreme Leader's Address | Main | Obama is Osama? It's All in the Eyes »
Saturday
Jun202009

Twittering Iran: What the "New Media" Means for Politics, Protest, and Democracy

The Latest from Iran (20 June): Will The Rally Go Ahead?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

TWITTER IRANThere has been a lot of ink spilled in recent days, particularly with "traditional" broadcasters unable to operate, over the significance of media like Twitter and Facebook for the demonstrations over the Iranian elections. Most of this, as we have noted, has been a fatuous, superficial "Twitter is fantastic" or "Twitter is overrated" reaction.

An American colleague, however, has pointed us to a thoughtful analysis by Professor Henry Giroux of Canada's McMaster University, published originally in CounterPunch: "The uprising in Iran not only requires a new conception of politics, education, and society; it also raises significant questions about the new media and its centrality to democracy."

The Iranian Uprisings and the Challenge of the New Media


As the uprisings in Iran illustrate, the new electronic technologies and social networks they have produced have transformed both the landscape of media production and reception, and the ability of state power to define the borders and boundaries of what constitutes the very nature of political engagement. Indeed, politics itself has been increasingly redefined by a screen culture and newly emergent public spaces of education and resistance embraced by students and other young people.1

For example, nearly 75 percent of Iranians now own cell phones and are quite savvy in utilizing them.2 Screen culture and its attendant electronic technologies have created a return to a politics in which many young people in Iran are not only forcefully asserting the power to act and express their criticisms and support of Mir Hussein Moussavi but also willing to risk their lives in the face of attacks by thugs and state sponsored vigilante groups. Texts and images calling for “Death to the dictator” circulate in a wild zone of representation on the Internet, YouTube, and among Facebook and Twitter users, giving rise to a chorus of dissent and collective resistance that places many young people in danger and at the forefront of a massive political uprising. Increasingly reports are emerging in the press and other media outlets of a number of protesters being attacked or killed by government forces. In the face of massive arrests by the police and threats of execution from some government officials, public protest continues even, as Nazila Fathi reports in the New York Times, the government works “on many fronts to shield the outside world’s view of the unrest, banning coverage of the demonstrations, arresting journalists, threatening bloggers and trying to block Web sites like Facebook and Twitter, which have become vital outlets for information about the rising confrontation here.”3

It is impossible to comprehend the political nature of the existing protests in Iran (and recently in Moldova) without recognizing the centrality of the new visual media and new modes of social networking. Not only have these new mass-and image-based media—camcorders, cellular camera-phones, satellite television, digital recorders, and the Internet, to name a few—enacted a structural transformation of everyday life by fusing sophisticated electronic technologies with a ubiquitous screen culture; they have revolutionized the relationship between the specificity of an event and its public display by making events accessible almost instantly to a global audience. The Internet, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have reconstituted, especially among young people, how social relationships are constructed and how communication is produced, mediated, and received. They have also ushered in a new regime of visual imagery in which screen culture creates spectacular events just as much as they record them. Under such circumstances, state power becomes more porous and less controlled and its instability becomes evident as the Iranian government points to the United States and Canada for producing “deviant news sites.” As if such charges can compete with images uploaded on YouTube of a young man bleeding to death as a result of an assault by government forces, his white shirt stained with blood, and bystanders holding his hand while he died.4 Or for that matter suppress images of militia members along with other identifying information about the police and other thugs attacking the protesters. The Internet and the new media outlets in this context provide new public sites of visibility for an unprecedented look into the workings of both state sponsored violence, massive unrest, and a politics of massive resistance that simply cannot be controlled by traditional forces of repression.

The pedagogical force of culture is now writ large within circuits of global transmission that defy the military power of the state while simultaneously reinforcing the state’s reliance on military power to respond to the external threat and to control its own citizens. In Iran, the state sponsored war against democracy, with its requisite pedagogy of fear dominating every conceivable media outlet, creates the conditions for transforming a fundamentalist state into a more dangerous authoritarian state. Meanwhile, insurgents use digital video cameras to defy official power, cell phones to recruit members to battle occupying forces, and Twitter messages to challenge the doctrines of fear, militarism, and censorship. The endless flashing of screen culture not only confronts those in and outside of Iran with the reality of state sponsored violence and corruption but also with the spread of new social networks of power and resistance among young people as an emerging condition of contemporary politics in Iran. Text messaging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the Internet have given rise to a reservoir of political energy that posits a new relationship between the new media technologies, politics and public life. These new media technologies and Websites have proved a powerful force in resisting dominant channels of censorship and militarism. But they have done more in that they have allowed an emerging generation of young people and students in Iran to narrate their political views, convictions, and voices through a screen culture that opposes the one-dimensional cultural apparatuses of certainty while rewriting the space of politics through new social networking sites and public spheres.

A spectacular flood of images produced by a subversive network of technologies that open up a cinematic politics of collective resistance and social justice now overrides Iran’s official narratives of repression, totalitarianism, and orthodoxy–unleashing the wrath of a generation that hungers for a life in which matters of dignity, agency, and hope are aligned with democratic institutions that make them possible. Death and suffering are now inscribed in an order of politics and power that can no longer hide in the shadows, pretending that there are no cracks in its body politic, or suppress the voices of a younger generation emboldened by their own courage and dreams of a more democratic future.

In this remarkable historical moment, a sea of courageous young people in Iran, are leading the way in instructing an older generation about a new form of politics in which mass and image-based media have become a distinctly powerful pedagogical force, reconfiguring the very nature of politics, cultural production, engagement, and resistance. Under such circumstances, this young generation of Iranian students, educators, artists, and citizens are developing a new set of theoretical tools and modes of collective resistance in which the educational force of the new media both records and challenges representations of state, police, and militia violence while becoming part of a broader struggle for democracy itself.

Any critical attempt to engage the courageous uprisings in Iran must take place within a broader notion of how the new media and electronic technologies can be used less as entertainment than as a tool of insurgency and opposition to state power. State power no longer has a hold on information, at least not the way it did before the emergence of the new media with its ability to reconfigure public exchange and social relations while constituting a new sphere of politics. The new media technologies are being used in Iran in ways that redefine the very conditions that make politics possible. Public spaces emerge in which data and technologies are employed to bypass government censors. The public and the private inform each other as personal discontent is translated into broader social issues. Global publics of opposition emerge through electronic circuits of power offering up wider spheres of exchange, dialogue, and resistance. For example, protesters from all over the world are producing proxy servers, “making their own computers available to Iranians,” and fuelling worldwide outrage and protests by uploading on YouTube live videos exposing the “brutality of the regime’s crackdown.”5

Demonstrations of solidarity are emerging between the Iranian diasporia and students and other protesters within Iran as information, technological resources, and skills are exchanged through the Internet, cell phones, and other technologies and sites. The alienation felt by many young people in an utterly repressive and fundamentalist society is exacerbated within a government- and media-produced culture of fear, suggesting that the terror they face at home and abroad cannot be fought without surrendering one’s sense of agency and social justice to a militarized state. And yet, as the technology of the media expands so do the sites for critical education, resistance, and collective struggle.

The uprising in Iran not only requires a new conception of politics, education, and society; it also raises significant questions about the new media and its centrality to democracy. Image-based technologies have redefined the relationship between the ethical, political, and aesthetic. While “the proximity is perhaps discomforting to some, ... it is also the condition of any serious intervention”6 into what it means to connect cultural politics to matters of political and social responsibility. The rise of the new media and the conditions that have produced it do not sound the death knell of democracy as some have argued, but demand that we “begin to rethink democracy from within these conditions.”7 These brave Iranian youth are providing the world with a lesson in how the rest of us might construct a cultural politics based on social relations that enable individuals and social groups to rethink the crucial nature of what it means to know, engage civic courage, and assume a measure of social responsibility in a media-saturated global sphere. They are working out in real time what it means to address how these new technologies might foster a democratic cultural politics that challenges religious fundamentalism, state censorship, militarism, and the cult of certainty. Such a collective project requires a politics that is in the process of being invented, one that has to be attentive to the new realities of power, global social movements, and the promise of a planetary democracy. Whatever the outcome, the magnificent and brave uprising by the young people of Iran illustrates that they have legitimated once again a new register of both opposition and politics. What is at stake, in part, is a mode of resistance and educational practice that is redefining in the heat of the battle the ideologies and skills needed to critically understand the new visual and visualizing technologies not simply as new modes of communication, but as weapons in the struggle for expanding and deepening the ideals and possibilities of democratic public life and the supportive cultures vital to democracy’s survival.

As these students and young people have demonstrated, it would be a mistake to simply align the new media exclusively with the forces of domination and commercialism as many do in the United Sates–with what Allen Feldman calls “total spectrum violence.” The Iranian uprising with its recognition of the image as a key force of social power makes clear that cultural politics is now constituted by a plurality of sites of resistance and social struggle, offering up new ways for young people to conceptualize how the media might be used to create alternative public spheres that enable them to claim their own voices and challenge the dominant forces of oppression. Theorists such as Thomas Keenan, Mark Poster, Douglas Kellner, and Jacques Derrida are right in suggesting that the new electronic technologies and media publics “remove restrictions on the horizon of possible communications” and, in doing so, suggest new possibilities for engaging the new media as a democratic force both for critique and for positive intervention and change. The ongoing struggle in Iran, if examined closely, provides some resources for rethinking how the political is connected to particular understandings of the social; how distinctive modes of address are used to marshal specific and often dangerous narratives, memories, and histories; and how certain pedagogical practices are employed in mobilizing a range of affective investments around images of trauma, suffering, and collective struggles. The images and messages coming out of Iran both demonstrate the courage of this generation of young people and others while also signifying new possibilities for redefining a global democratic politics. What the dictatorship in Iran is witnessing is not simply generational discontent or the power of networking and communication sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube but a much more dangerous lesson in which democracy implies an experience in which power is shared, dialogue is connected to involvement in the public sphere, hope means imagining the unimaginable, and collective action portends the outlines of a new understanding of power, freedom, and democracy.

NOTES

1. I take up the issue of screen culture and the challenge of the new media in Henry A. Giroux, Beyond the Spectacle of Terrorism: Global Uncertainty and the Challenge of the New Media (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2006).

2. I want to thank Tony Kashani for these figures.

3. Nazila Fathi, “Protesters Defy Iranian Efforts to Cloak Unrest,” New York Times (June 18, 2009), p. A1.

4. Brian Stelter and Brad Stone, “Stark Images of the Turmoil in Iran, Uploaded to the World on the Internet,” New York Times (June 18, 2009), p. A14.

5. Ibid., Stelter and Stone, “Stark Images of the Turmoil in Iran,” p. A14.

6. Thomas Keenan, “Mobilizing Shame,” South Atlantic Quarterly 103, no. 2/3 (2004), p. 447. Keenan explores the relationship between ethics and responsibility in even greater detail in his Fables of Responsibility (Stanford: Stanford University Press,1997).

7. Jacques Derrida cited in Michael Peters, “The Promise of Politics and Pedagogy in Derrida,” Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies (in press).

8. . Allen Feldman, “On the Actuarial Gaze: From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib,” Cultural Studies 19, no. 2 (March 2005), p. 212.

9 . Jürgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. Thomas McCarthy (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1987), p. 390.

Reader Comments (4)

I'm far, far from convinced...

"State power no longer has a hold on information, at least not the way it did before the emergence of the new media with its ability to reconfigure public exchange and social relations while constituting a new sphere of politics. "

This is the sort of comment I find infuriating. There were revolutions before 'new media', one in Iran in '79 that followed a similar pattern without ‘new’ media. I seem to recall a key member of that revolution sending tapes to Iran from France to be annotated and distributed amongst supporters. So, I'll ask the question not answered in this article, what is the causal evidence of the effect of 'new media'? Unless one could argue that in ’79 the new media was the recordable audio cassette.

"Under such circumstances, this young generation of Iranian students, educators, artists, and citizens are developing a new set of theoretical tools and modes of collective resistance in which the educational force of the new media both records and challenges representations of state, police, and militia violence while becoming part of a broader struggle for democracy itself."

What does this actually mean? What new theoretical tools, what are they and how do they work? What causal process do they produce? How are they different?

"For example, protesters from all over the world are producing proxy servers, “making their own computers available to Iranians,” and fuelling worldwide outrage and protests by uploading on YouTube live videos exposing the “brutality of the regime’s crackdown.”

This is the kind of comment we just can’t make conclusions about yet. Yes, this is happening, but there are also journalists and campaigners in Iran sending wire messages around the word, So, again how do we know 'new' media is the causal factor and that is this just not a new technology version of old (human) processes. For example...

"... as the technology of the media expands so do the sites for critical education, resistance, and collective struggle.... They are working out in real time what it means to address how these new technologies might foster a democratic cultural politics that challenges religious fundamentalism, state censorship, militarism, and the cult of certainty."

True as well, but none of this automatically illustrates a new causal force or political process. Again, this has happened for hundreds of years. The Levellers got this point and acted on it as well. So, what's new? it’s still the written word, the spoken word or the visual image.

"Whatever the outcome, the magnificent and brave uprising by the young people of Iran illustrates that they have legitimated once again a new register of both opposition and politics"

Again, what’s NEW? Of course this specific struggle is of the moment, but what's so new and unusual about the educated technologically savvy youth pushing for reform?

So, overall I see this as another article that confuses the new technology for a new process. The tech is new but the processes, both causal, ideological and political, are the same. In this case we are seeing a political campaign (perhaps even a revolutionary one) using ‘subversive’ media and ways of distributing messages that the dominant elites cannot control. What’s so new about that? This is something elites always find hard to control by the time people want to get rid of them as their controlling structures are so monolithic as to be inflexible to new arguments. In fact this is usually one of the reasons people want to get rid of them! But, bar the technology how it is employed seems no different to me than past ‘bottom up’ revolutions.

Overall, I’d have been far more convinced by all this if it had actually illustrated what distinguished these events from other political protests and revolutionary action. Is this happening more quickly? Does it have a better chance of success? Is it engaging with different sources of ‘unrest’? How well is it including other potential campaigns for change? Are the arguments more normatively challenging?

As someone who is interested in technology I’m interested in the idea this is a 'new media' revolution but we'll need a deeper exploration that this article, especially as it hasn’t engaged with any of the points made by places such as the Columbia Journalism Review.

Oh, and if one really wants to be post-structural about this, one could suggest CJR would be influenced by its 'old' media history (so would not see twitter et al as casually important) but Counterpunch is much more inclined to see new media as the causal factor. Score draw!

June 20, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJonny r

H.G. fails to factor in the ability of state apparatus to control and manipulate new technologies with constantly up-dated modes of manipulation. There is no dearth of technologically empowered young people in the USA, Europe, or Israel. A fact that in itself serves as terrible self-indictment of these cultures. Yet, the agility of state apparatuses neutralizes the new technological potential idealized by H.G., or exploit it for purposes of the state, e.g., Israel's successful "persuasion" of the BBC and Google to censor graphic images of atrocities committed by the Israeli forces in Gaza last Christmas. All that we might deduce from the current situation in Iran might be that the state is behind the curve when it comes to controlling new technologies, unlike the USA, Canada, EU, and Israel.

June 20, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterOtis

Otis,

"All that we might deduce from the current situation in Iran might be that the state is behind the curve when it comes to controlling new technologies, unlike the USA, Canada, EU, and Israel."

I have to agree with that.

Plus, for me what is interesting - reflected in what you say - is the political motivation and force behind twitter et al. And, the problematic thing about it is that states and all organizations can use it. What I found most troubling about the above piece is that makes a very lazy equasion along the lines of 'web 2.0 = new political discourse, traditional media = old fashioned elite'.

You're right, the Iranian regime is ehind the curve, but many others are not. And, infact, as a result these social networks can be more damaging to political discourse and engagement because too often commentaries assume that because they are 'new media' they are outside the old models, and sometimes we have no idea at all what is driving the 'tweets' or facebook pages.

Then there is the chinese whispers effect. I remember a recent incident in which the Historian David Kaiser was attributed to comments equating the Obama admin with the Nazis! He obviously didn't, but the chinese whisper stuck and he has to continually deny it on his blog.

Mots of the time at the moment a lot of this seems like new clothes on old actors, see: the Obama campaign. And I still see no evidence of any enhancement of political discourse, just more 'noise'.

June 20, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJonny r

And here's a piece from today's W Post by academics who have studied blogging in Iran that point's out the limitations of not just Twitter but the Internet in general, including some of the points identified above.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061901598_2.html?sid=ST2009061902364

June 21, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterCanuckistan

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>