Social network applications like Facebook allow individuals who are not experts in a given field to become part of an of ongoing dialogue be it of political social or economic importance. For example people can weigh in on special interests such as animal rights or global warming. Or they can join in on complex strategic and militaristic issues such as Israel/Palestine relations or the growing threat presented by a nuclear Iran.
By involving lay people in ever widening complex diplomatic issues they actually serve to activate previously unheard voices that may even have novel ways of framing such issues. Where as there might have normally been only two opposite and strongly adversarial approaches in dealing with the conflict and the proposed solution; social platforms widen the audience and are able to provide a much broader and deeper understanding to those who normally would not even think to challenge the ready made solution which was proposed by the leader of their political party.
I would say the emerging voices which have entered the world-wide debate on such issues might even be better equipped to grasp all of the subtle nuances of the specific problems.
The reason for this is that a newcomer to the issues, such as the billions of previously marginalized people, can now read about the problem as explained by their “friend” on a social network platform. This way they can take only a small risk when they try to add their own voice, comment, or idea to the matter at hand. A previously uninterested or unactivated reader may now feel confident to express their own opionion (as opposed to only experts or political leaders who may be pushing a ready made solution or agenda) these newly included voices can indeed change the landscape of the democratic ideal, by putting forth their own ideas.
By bringing in new voices to a playing field which had been previously dominated only by experts, diplomats and politicians, the social networks have put the previously marginalized “countless masses” forth as a new entity and political leaders might now be forced to explain their ideas, actions, theories, and proposed solutions, in a common no-nonsense approach (as opposed to detailing their agendas only to fully fledged experts) or else risk alienating a substantial part of the political support.
Adding new voices to age old debates could force political leaders to be more truthful and direct in with their explanations of their goals and objectives with regards to the specific issues, militaristic endeavors, and matters of international diplomacy. In other words, the larger number of individuals who become activated to become part of the extended debate, the less likely will it be for a political leader to hide behind the dogma that is commonly perpetuated from either side of a given issue.
Stephen (Aharon Moshe) Sanders
April 27, 2010
This entire essay was originally authored as a response to a question found on: Ideas Project, Question of the Week
No related posts.
What Are People Saying?