George Ford

SOC 447
11/24/2015
Ryan Light
Slacktivism or diverse knowledge production;
Benjamin Gleason on #OWS
Benjamin Gleason, in a study of #OWS (Occupy Wall Street) attempts to explain how user
generated knowledge in the forms of tweets effects overall knowledge production regarding Occupy
Wall-Street. While analyzing and categorizing two sets of about 150 tweets from 2011(the sets were
about a year apart) Gleason was most interested in hyperlinks which allowed twitter-users to move
beyond the 400 character limit and instead offer deeper comments and concerns regarding The Occupy
Wall-street Movement. In the end Gleason found that his case study, which he conducted on himself
...exposed [him] to a number of different perspectives about the Occupy movement and that learning
about the movement involved synthesizing multiple perspectives to arrive at a more informed point of
view.(Gleason 2013). The conclusion is hard to deny as Gleason's study is itself evidence that his
research resulted in some type of useful knowledge production. The real question however, is whether
or not his research methods in any way reflect the ways in which most Twitter-users actually acquire
knowledge about social movements and current societal issues. While Gleason's method involved
looking at and often following the hyperlinks of a large volume of tweets, I argue that both the structure
of Twitter and the tendencies of it's users contribute little to the diversification of perspectives and
knowledge actually received by it's users. The use of Twitter as a site of knowledge accumulation in the
limited sphere of academia may be an interesting idea to entertain, but it helps us little in understanding
the effects Twitter has on activists or the general public.
Throughout it's history, activists, academics, governmental agencies and even the general public
have contemplated the potential social media has to radically alter social and political landscapes. The
potential power of user-generated content is huge, and whether they are for it or against it, seemingly
everyone is affected by the changes that user-generated content makes to our social, economic, and
political structures (Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010). Central to this discussion is how Twitter and other
social media affect social movements which have been, and are currently, attempting to challenge
status quo social and political relations. The united states has a long history of social movements
causing major shifts in government policy as well as social attitudes. From populism, abolitionism, and
the woman's suffrage movement to the many movements we have today, U.S. society is always facing
pressure to change from mobilized groups. Perhaps one of the most important movements in the past
decade was the Occupy Wall-street Movement. Activists who were engaged in the activity of Occupy
Wall Street sought to challenge the widespread inequality that has been persistent, and even growing, in
the United States. With all of the nation's gains in the past few years going to just one percent of the
U.S. population, individuals of all types got together to Occupy Zuccatti park in Wall-Street and
many other sites across the nation. While covering the situation many, and especially the mainstream
media, concluded that it was a failure because it didn't lead to direct government action. Is direct
government action all the Occupy Movement sought to gain? Or did it perhaps meet some other, less
tangible goals? Rather than thinking of social media as simply good or bad for social movements, it is
important to consider in what ways social media can and cannot be useful for meeting the various goals
of social movements.
Most who argue that social media may be hindering social activism usually make claims that
have something to do with social media promoting less-than genuine forms of activism; ones which
rarely result in any 'actual' change. Exemplary of this type of thought is an article written by Malcolm
Gladwell which argues that only strong social ties are meaningful for social change because they are
the most likely to result in high-risk activism which is often necessary for political change. Gladwell

claims Fifty years after one of the most extraordinary episodes of social upheaval in
American history [The Civil Rights Movement], we seem to have forgotten what activism is.
(Gladwell 2010). This analysis, of course, must conclude that high-risk activism and social movements
with strong social ties have more or less gone away. Here is a huge problem with Gladwell's argument;
he offers no evidence that this is the case. The Occupy Wallstreet Movement (which occurred shortly
after the writing of Gladwell's piece) proves the contrary in that many protesters were sent to prison,
pepper-sprayed, and badly beaten by police. Many movements, like Occupy, owe a great deal to social
media yet there is no corresponding decline in strong-ties or risky activist actions Perhaps an even
better example is the #BlackLivesMatter protestors who was recently beaten and choked simply for
shouting Black lives matter! At a Donald Trump Rally. BlackLivesMatter openly uses twitter to
coordinate and spread their message, however it would be hard to say they lack the activist spirit that
Gladwell argues is so important. Both of these movements are valid evidence that there is, at this time,
no shortage of individuals who feel directly affected by social issues and are willing to take risks as a
result.
While having little to no effects on activist tactics, social media may have some very important
effects on the creation and diffusion of knowledge regarding social issues and movements. Social
movements often seek not policy solutions, but social acknowledgment that an issue even exists.
'Raising awareness' has it's obvious limitations when dealing with ecological and economic issues,
however it may be very important for some social movements which seek to challenge social
hierarchies. Racial, Gender and Class hierarchies all place certain minority groups in positions where
they are likely to be receive unequal treatment and discrimination which can often result in bodily harm
or even death. These structures are often supported by, but almost never dependent on, popular social
views. By exposing others to diverse knowledge and viewpoints on an issue such as racial inequality,
we can likely alter social attitudes and ultimately remove the major factor in continued prejudice and
discrimination.
The spread of diverse opinions and knowledge may be very effective in altering the social
conditions of the United States, however we will only be able to actually benefit from social media in
this way if user-generated knowledge is actually shown to have spread. Greenberg's case study may
make us optimistic in this regard because his data shows that Twitter contains a large and diverse set of
opinions regarding Occupy Wallstreet. Greenberg's study, unfortunately, doesn't in any way prove that
the majority of Twitter-users engaged in deep readings of potentially attitude-changing content. The
much more likely case, to me, seems to be that Twitter-users (and perhaps all social media users)
generally only consider those opinions that they already agree with. In my experience, neither me nor
my Facebook friends generally engage in content that clearly goes against their predetermined politial
and social ideas. Even if there are a diverse range of opinions on Twitter, there is no reason to believe
they are being read by the target audience. It seems hard to deny that the main social agent of our times
is not 'The Internet' itself, but rather the media and social institutions who form our opinions before
they ever make it to the TwitterSphere. I personally only have two or three friends on Facebook who
make opinionated political posts strongly differing from my views, and I don't engage

deeply in their content, I either smirk at it or make into a good laugh for my
roommates who I already know have beliefs very similar to my.
While spread of new knowledge and cultural beliefs may be the most
important function of social media for activists, we have reason to believe
the status quo is doing a less-than desirable job of spreading usergenerated knowledge. We cannot ask if Twitter is all-together good or bad
for social movements, we can only do more work to figure out what ways
various movements can and cannot benefit from social media. While we
may have a problem of individuals ignoring opinions which differ from

theirs, there is no reason to conclude that Twitter is killing activism.

Works Cited
Gleason, Benjamin. "# Occupy Wall Street: Exploring informal learning about a social movement on
Twitter." American Behavioral Scientist (2013): 0002764213479372.
Gladwell, Malcolm. "Small change." The New Yorker 4.2010 (2010): 42-49.