Chau Tran

Professor Klein
SBS 300 – Major ProSeminar: Theory
24 February 2019

Principle Theories in Twitter and Tear Gas

The purpose of this essay is to interpret Zeynep Tufekci’s main argument in Twitter and

Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest and thoroughly elaborate the use of

social theories by the author in an attempt to explain to readers about the concepts of her book.

In this essay, various parts of Charles Lemert’s Social Theory: The Multicultural, Global, and

Classic Readings are also referred to with the intention to further illustrate Tufekci’s main claim

and to state interpretations of social theorists’ ideas that are mentioned in Twitter and Tear Gas

as accurately as possible.  

Zeynep Tufekci introduces her readers to the progress and the status of social movements

amidst the advancement of digital technology and social unrest. Her main argument is that online

platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google can play an important role in

contributing to a social movement’s success. However, they can also be targets of hacking,

censoring, and misleading information as an attempt to deceive, distract, and harass social

activists on the platforms, which explains the words “power and fragility” in the title of the book.

Tufekci utilizes and applies thinking from political, social, and economic theories. She also

forms a concept about groundworks from studies of communication, human development, and

psychology to demonstrate substantial examples for her readers to understand them thoroughly.

In Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest, Tufekci places

significant implications on the macroscopic perspective on cultural shifts and how digital

technology contributes to those changes. She mentions Jurgen Habermas, a philosopher and

sociologist who explores the dynamics of public spheres to explain the ever-changing power
relations, social structures, institutions, and technology in society. He is mostly known for his

development of critical theory and communicative rationality theory, which Tufekci uses to

elaborate on her argument in Twitter and Tear Gas. Habermas states that “… a considerably

rationalized lifeworld is one of the initial conditions for modernization processes. It must be

possible to anchor money and power in the lifeworld as media” (Lemert, 2016, p.375). Tufekci

interprets this as politics and the economy playing a role in networked platforms and those

platform’s role in altering the structures of politics and the economy over time. Our lives are so

intertwined with digital technology and we might underestimate the effect that it has on us and

how we are unconsciously changing the world around by being a part of it.

The author also brings up Charles Tilly several times to support her thesis. Charles Tilly

was a sociologist, political scientist, and historian who was mainly known for his writings on the

relationship between politics and society. Regarding his ethically implicated theories, Tilly’s

Future Social Science and the Invisible Elbow describes that “… assertions of social science’s

explanatory power regularly stir passions rarely seen in discussions of astronomy and geology:

they constitute claims to pronounce on the possibility assumptions of religious, moral, and

political doctrines” (Lemert, 2016, p.504). The difference between social science and natural

science is that the former studies humans and social structure, while the later studies the physical

world. The laws of men and society are a complex concept to explain due to their involvement

around man made factors. Tufekci simplifies that “… the best approach is not to seek unified

overarching answers, but to identify and delineate mechanisms and dynamics introduced by

these new technologies and how they entangle with political, social, and cultural forces, with the

aid of empirically grounded conceptual tools” (Tufekci, 2017, p.267). In other words, it is

tempting to go through the path of exploration and discovery, but one might get lost while
seeking for the wrong answers and forget about the real life and its changes as products of the

continuous innovations of technology.

Charles Tilly’s ethically implicated theories tie to Amartya Sen’s theory of capacity.

Amartya Sen is an economist and philosopher who developed the capacity approach. Tufekci

uses this theory to explain why people are inspired by the idea of a happy and fulfilling life and

are determined to create changes in society. Sen’s theory focuses on the concept of human’s

ability to achieve social change. In Asian Values and the West’s Claims to Uniqueness, Sen

discussing the varying values in different society and their development throughout time. When

it comes to the globalization of economics, culture and rights, especially that of digital

technology, Sen states that “skill in computer use and the harvesting of Internet and similar

facilities transforms not only economic possibilities, but also the lives of the people influenced

by such technical change” (Lemert, 2016, p.480).This supports Tufekci’s main argument

regarding the role of technology in social movement. She states that people always strive for “…

opportunities to obtain education and live a healthy life, to be productive, to live well, and to do

things they care about” (Tufekci, 2017, p.192). The author of Twitter and Tear Gas is implying

that this theory ties to the book because it explains how and why people are passionate about

social changes and advocacy. The Arab Spring protest demonstrates the people’s wish for social

justice despite the violent response from the government. Essentially, it is the fact that people are

willing to be harassed, threatened, kidnapped, hurt, and even killed while fighting for their

causes that is important. The author highlights that even though sometimes number does play a

crucial part in social movements, other times, they do not and it is the spirit that attracts many

eyes.
 In Social Theory: The Multicultural, Global, and Classic Readings, the author elaborates

on Anthony Gidden’s reflexive social theory, most often referred to as circular relationships

between cause and effect. The sociologist is known for his theory of structuration and his

comprehensive perspective of modern societies. According to Lemert, the interpretation of

Gidden’s study expresses that “… modernity opens new and different opportunities for human

fulfillment. Moderns may be displaced from local communities, but they are re-embedded in

world culture in ways that can be deliberating” (Lemert, 2016, p.375). This statement is indeed

true, considering how many activists look to online networked communities on Facebook,

Reddit, or Yahoo to start and/or participate in social movements. Tufekci also agrees with

Lemert, further elaborating that “for most of human history, one’s social circle was mostly

confined to family and neighborhood because they were available, easily accessible, and

considered appropriate social connections. Modernization and urbanization have eroded many of

these former barriers” (Tufekci, 2017, p.10). Now that many people have the option to socialize

and communicate on online platforms such as Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter, their circle cycle

can be expanded, and they can become more independent. However, in places where certain

tools of communication are restricted, for example, China where Facebook is banned and North

Korea where access to Internet is restricted, it is difficult for others to be rely on anyone else

other than their families and neighbors. However, China has less restrictions compared to North

Korea. Sina Weibo, the Twitter of China and Youku Tudou, the YouTube of China, even though

heavily monitored by the government, still are hugely popular and efficient.  

Thorstein Veblen is an economist and sociologist who is known for the signaling theory.

Tufekci uses conspicuous consumption, a form of signal theory, to explain why there is such a

great emphasis on materialism in our society. The author simplifies the theory by giving the
example of her students preferring chemically identical lab diamonds over expensive diamonds

because they only needed to give off the impression of possessing something precious, not

necessarily know that they owned something precious. “As individuals, we frequently must

judge the potential outcome of an interaction on the basis of our best reading of the situation”

(Tufekci, 2017, p.201). The author conceptualizes this concept as small number of protestors not

equaling to lesser power, and great number of protestors not equaling to more power. For

example, the 150 people who were protesting the police at Tahrir Square on January 25, 2010

were enough to send the message that the population was dissatisfied with the government and

draw in attention from all over the world.

Zeynep Tufekci uses real-life situations as examples of social theories so that it is less

complicated for readers to understand. I think the author does an excellent job at introducing her

readers to theories and the concept of her book. The author thoroughly explains and

demonstrates the connection between social media and contemporary political activism, along

with theories, to better inform and educate readers on the topic. She succeeds in giving insights

on complicated subjects and delivering the universal message that the long-standing trends in

culture, politics, and civics in many protest movements that have changed with the recent

technological affordances.
 References

Lemert, Charles. Social Theory: The Multicultural, Global, and Classic Readings. Boulder:
Westview Press, 2016.
Tufekci, Zeynep. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New
Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2017