I really appreciated Georgia10’s thoughtful response to my op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor about Millennials and online activism. Her thoughts, and many of the comments, correctly give credit to the amazing power of the internet to inspire and aggregate the energy and passion of individuals young and old. As I sit here writing this, knowing that hundreds if not more people will instantly read it when I click a button without any need for some mainstream editor to approve or disapprove of my ideas, it’s hard not to be reminded of how the internet is changing the entire political landscape.
That said, I want to respond to Georgia10 and others, clarify a few points --- and push a bit harder on some.
First of all, don’t you think comparing me to Thomas Friedman is a low blow? I mean, ouch! Thomas Friedman called Generation X the "Quiet Americans", downplaying that young folks today are incredibly vocal and active --- and, in the line that I suppose is drawing comparisons, wrote, "They don’t take to the streets much — in part, I suspect, because they do a lot of their political venting online." Here, Friedman is holding young activists of today to the standard of his generation, which is inappropriate, ahistorical and naïve.
I, on the other hand, am not some baby boomer reflexively criticizing the youngsters with some "When I was you’re age..." pontificating. I am a just-turned-30-something myself, reflecting on how my generation has come to see online engagement as equal with or even superior to off-line movement building --- not the movement building of the 60s only, but movement building in general.
The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait called the netroots "the most significant mass movement in US politics since the rise of the Christian right." This is what I disagree with --- not that young people aren’t engaging online, not that online activism isn’t an important tool for mobilizing folks of all ages for political change, but the idea that the netroots and online activism BY ITSELF is a movement for change. I think it’s only possible to believe this if (a) our idea of change is modest to middling as opposed to fundamental reform; (b) we ignore or overlook the lack of inclusion and equal participation in online spaces; and/or (c) we fundamentally misunderstand the nature of entrenched power and what is required to transform it.
Let me elaborate on each point.
A. I want transformational, radical change. Do you?
Without question, internet activism has been a powerful tool in engaging folks around important but ultimately modest reform agendas. It’s a particularly powerful form of protest around egregious actions by the government or private sector. From wire tapping to the "terrorist fist jab", online tools can be used to fire people up and channel their response. But inequality and racial injustice and corporate imperialism and other hallmarks of our modern society require dramatic, structural reforms --- and while the puppet-master powers of the universe might give in to increased financial monitoring in the wake of Enron or increased carbon caps in the wake of Al Gore, let’s be honest: the fundamental built-in inequalities of capitalism and democracy as currently practiced in our country will not be resolved easily. It will require a mass movement of people invested together in an alternative building enough power and influence among each other and with a growing segment of the American public which then shifts everything from who runs for office (radically raising the bar from what we consider a "progressive" candidate today) to themes in Hollywood and mainstream press to standard operating principles of economic theory and business.
I don’t think this will happen on the internet alone. I think we should think of the internet, and blogs specifically, as the modern movement media --- the 21st century realization of Marcus Garvey’s dream. It’s an information and dissemination tool, and certainly a mobilization tool (folks pointing out the role of text messaging in the immigrant rights movement are spot on, for instance). BUT my point is that online alone will not get us to that movement. Why not?
B. Internet spaces are not comprised of nor build the power of the communities that must be at the center of a movement for change.
The notion of community organizing is built on self-interest --- defined by Saul Alinksy and others as the midway point between selfishness and selflessness, reflecting an understanding of the almost Bentham-like idea that it’s in my self-interest to help you if I understand that it helps me.
Speaking as an upper-middle class white woman who grew up benefiting from the inequalities of our society, my pure self-interest in restructuring our economic, social and political systems to be more equitable is generally pretty small. In absolute terms, were poor people and people of color to have more power and access in our society, I would have less. Now, on some level I might claim "enlightened self-interest" in that I’ve come to see how I’m also on the losing end of an imbalanced society in terms of the psychic damage and physical division/isolation, which allows the powers-that-be to motivate us based on fear and violence....) But let’s be real, what keeps the unequal structures of our nation in place is not only those at the top but those of us in the middle who are just as invested in the status quo and have enough power and privilege to maintain the system, or at the very least no motivation to rupture it.
The point is (and not to ruffle any feathers again with a 60s analogy) white allies were critical in the Civil Rights Movement, but it was the vision and leadership of African Americans standing up to oppression and inhumanity and inequality that transformed society. Because they were the ones most with the most to gain and the least to lose.
And I hope this doesn’t come as a shock to anyone, but the internet and blogosphere specifically are not exactly the most integrated spaces in America, let alone arenas driven by the leadership of low-income people and communities of color. Most bloggers and most blog readers are white men with solidly middle-to-upper-middle class incomes. Lest we forget that many front page bloggers make much more than the average American household (as do I, by the way).
Arguably, the rise of internet activism coincided with the structural inequality of our country finally hitting the middle class to the point where folks who were content with the status quo finally needed an outlet to re-assert themselves in politics and culture. In this formulation, the internet and blogosphere are mainly tools for the already-empowered to get more information and amplify and aggregate their existing power and influence. A more cynical person might argue that, in this context, internet activism simply becomes another layer of the existing power structure --- where now, for instance, it's not only the mainstream media we have to complain about mirroring structural patterns of bias, etc., it's a charge that now also applies to blogs and internet activist groups.
Of course there are entities like Color of Change, Racialicious and Race Wire working to address this --- alongside a network of bloggers of color --- but for instance, the fact that in this supposedly new democratic online space bloggers of color were driven to create "Brownhouse" in response to the white male blogger dominated cabal of "Townhouse" is evidence of this point.
It doesn’t mean that white middle class liberal folks are irrelevant to a progressive movement. I’m arguing that they won’t built it alone; and that to have white middle class folks leading a movement supposedly to help poor people of color is a kind of colonialism, frankly, that defeats the purpose. We need white folks and people of color and rich and middle class folks and poor folks in common struggle together. AND especially given the make up of internet spaces, but also because these historic divisions aren’t bridged through well-written blog posts, I’m arguing that such communities of struggle can’t be built online alone.
Finally, on this point it’s worth noting that Millennials are leaps and bounds ahead of older generations in forging multi-cultural relationships, appreciating the nuances of racial injustice and incorporating racial justice politics into their vision. But that comes from lived experience of demographic changes and cross-cultural influences that then spill out onto the web, but aren’t necessarily created there.
C. Power never concedes anything without a struggle.
Gee, this piece is getting long so I’ll be brief here. If we think that online activism is sufficient to bring about the kind of changes described above, then we don’t understand the nature of power we’re up against --- or we don’t understand what is meant by struggle. The internet is mainly an information tool; and if we believe that change happens when those with power (either those of us with citizen power, or the decision makers) get presented with the information to make the right decision, we’re wrong. Drew Westin and others point out that decision making is not just a rational process; but more over in the case of big changes, it’s not just information that stands in our way. It wasn’t information about the problem of slavery that brought the institution to its knees; it was building power and outlets among those most directly affected and willing to stake their lives together for change, along with allies. It wasn’t just a blog post.
In closing...
My piece was taken as an either/or proposition, which I didn’t intend. As I made clear above, online tools are deeply useful as chains of information, connectivity and mobilization. My point is that we have to realize the limitations. And my focus on Millennials stemmed not from "excoriating Millennials as a generation [that is] individualistic, ineffective" (I argued as a generation we're actually quite community oriented, thanks in part to technology) but my fear that those of us who have grown up completely enmeshed in technology will fail to recognize it’s serious limitations as elite-driven and dangerously isolating and individualistic if not contextualized. Blogs and online activism are powerful tools that can be used to spur collective action, but they cannot replace the importance of off-line communities of action. That was my point.
Look forward to reading y’all’s responses.