This weekend, I went to see the movie "Argo". It tells the true story of the CIA operation that got six U.S. State Department workers out of Iran in the wake of the 1979 take over of the embassy in Tehran. Though the movie is predominantly about the execution of the operation and the cooperation -- or sometimes lack thereof -- between the U.S. government departments involved in trying to resolve this diplomatic and national sovereignty nightmare, it also subtly highlighted the use of media technology by both the Americans and the Iranian revolutionaries.
What particularly struck me were the scenes depicting the Iranian students' use of live television and radio broadcasts to both to alert the world to their views and demands and to keep the movement alive. It was a clear of example of "activists... historically [relying] on media outlets for purposes of mobilization, validation and scope enlargement." ("The Whole Online World is Watching"; Harp, Bachmann, and Guo, International Journal of Communication 6 (2012): 301). Above is an ABC news report from Nov. 11, 1979, just six days after the hostages were taken. Though not from the students' perspective, it does show how they would utilize the media attention they had garnered from their initial act to perpetuate their movement. Like the Egyptian activists of 2011, those who took over the U.S. Embassy were utilizing all the latest media technologies(particularly the growing satellite networks of news broadcasters) at their disposal to reach the entire world with their demands.
Merlyna Lim argued about 21st century Egypt that "[social] media were not the only or even the principal source of information of political mobilization", and the same can be said of the Iranian Revolution (Lim, "Clicks, Cabs, and Coffee Houses", Journal of Communication, 62 (2012): 244). The media were just the brokers of connections between groups that were already fired up over the perceived injustice of the U.S. granting asylum to the Shah after what he had done to their country, and the means to globalize (possibly unintentionally) a domestic movement (Lim, 244). We should all be impressed they managed to keep fervor for the situation alive for 444 days without having a Facebook, Twitter, Blog or texting campaign.
As I stated in class, a network doesn't have to be formulated around the Internet. People have been forming networks for thousands of years; it's what we do to expand our capabilities. But what the Iranian Revolution and the more contemporary Egyptian revolution highlight is that technology has accelerated networking and subsequent political activism. Whether it be through TV news broadcasts or through Facebook, media are just another means to connect to networks that will extend our voices and our ideas, helping those who wish to utilize them for political ends achieve their goals in a shorter time frame with wider involvement.
Dianna,
ReplyDeleteI also went to see "Argo" this weekend and I was equally as impressed with the way the Iranians used media to present their demands to the U.S. as well as keeping their revolution alive for such a long time period. One could even argue how the U.S. media kept the event going strong, as problems in Afghanistan had the capability to diminish some of the attention and spotlight of the hostage situation. The stories, the yellow ribbons, and the hope continued. I think that best exemplifies a network and as you stated did exist without twitter and Facebook. I wonder if the mission would have transpired the way it did if twitter and Facebook would have been in use then? The ability to communicate and send pictures and quick messages may have altered the mission of Argo, and the fate of the hostages? In this case, the lack of technology could have been the ultimate savior? Curious to hear what you think about this?
Caitlin: Thank you for your comment! Honestly, I found it difficult to form a response to your question about technology and its role in the "Argo" mission.
DeleteMy initial reaction to this question is yes, I do feel that this type of mission would probably not have been successful had a whole slew of Iranians been communicating through Facebook. As I mentioned in my original post, these technologies shorten the process of sending/receiving messages. If someone had snapped a picture of Tony Mendez at the airport and posted it on Facebook, more than just the government would have been alerted to his presence in country, and therefore more people could have been spurred to action against him. He probably would not have had three days to get the workers out.
However, I must point out the importance of context for both the Iranian and Egyptian revolutions. As Lim states in her article, it is more than just technology that impacts activism, but also the history, politics, and culture of a nation. Therefore, it is hard to speculate what would have happened to the "Argo" mission if only the technology was altered. It is better to answer your hypothetical with a generalization: people will use what technology they have available (Iranian students using satellite broadcasts), but how they use it will depend on the situation in which they find themselves. We would have to comb through every aspect of Iran in 1979/1980 to find out exactly how a different technology could have affected both the hostage situation itself and the later extraction of the six embassy workers.
In her post, Dianna rightly points how "the more contemporary Egyptian revolution highlight[s]...that technology has accelerated networking and subsequent political activism." In addition to using TV, radio, and later internet technologies to build a movement, the activists in Lim's analysis of the Egyptian revolution were able to leverage weak ties to further their cause. As Lim documents, "Leaders such as Waleed Rashed, the co-founder of the April 6th Youth Movement, said that he started ‘‘informing’’ taxi drivers about the #Jan25th protest as early as 15 January" because he was keenly aware that "they couldn’t stop themselves talking about what they’d overheard" (Lim, "Clicks, Cabs, and Coffee Houses", Journal of Communication, 62 (2012): 243).
ReplyDeleteAlthough strangers, cab drivers came to function as "hubs" through which information was delivered and shared about the #Jan25th protest. Granovetter's theory of weak ties serves as a powerful reminder that all around us, revolutions with little 'r's occur regularly, as Stowe Boyd muses here: http://stoweboyd.com/post/1198637305/weak-ties-and-revolutions-with-a-little-r.
“Networks pre-date the introduction of electronic networking technologies, but before these technologies were available, hierarchies trumped networks in their ability to mobilize resources around particular projects.” (Amelia H. Arsenault, Networks: Emerging Frameworks for Analysis, Page 17) I think this speaks to your point Diana, and the point we discussed in prior blog posts, that the technology we use today is changing the speed at with we communicate via networks, and it’s also changing the effects that networks have in terms of social power and action. This speaks to Mary Jo’s point regarding revolutions with a little ‘r’. Within Mary Jo’s link, Stowe Boyd presents Malcom Gladwell’s notion that “… the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coördinate, and give voice to their concerns.” Now, political hierarchies are not a factor in mobilizing efforts for a purpose, rather the power to mobilize and affect action can happen on a grassroots level, from the ground up.
ReplyDelete