Malcolm Gladwell’s piece on “Why the Revolution will not be Tweeted” makes me mad. There are a lot of issues, but the most troubling for me was his insistence that activist movements have to be hierarchically organized to be successful. He drew an absolute distinction between weak tie/disorganized/low-risk/online activism and strong tie/hierarchical/high-risk/location-based activism. A lot of things went through my head: Online activism is more inclusive! It raises visibility and reaches people who can’t be where all the action is! It gives many people the opportunity to contribute their ideas and experience to a movement!
And even beyond that, it’s not like online and location-based activism have to be mutually exclusive…look at our readings on #notyourasiansidekick and the “Consent is Sexy” campaign! These two movements combined both forms of activism and reached a lot more people (in terms of both participants and audience) than they would have with location-based activism alone. Online activism is awesome and powerful! Non-hierarchical organization is a beautiful thing! Huzzah!
But then the feminist blogosphere imploded on itself, and my entire worldview crumbled.
Back in the halcyon days of 2011, Emily Nussbaum wrote a piece about how the blogosphere had reignited feminist activism, citing such reasons as lack of editors/authority, an inherent imbalance and playfulness, and a refreshing dose of fury caused by the instantaneous nature of web publishing. This piece reflects how I had been thinking about online feminism: as a safe place that united people, allowed for debate and mutual construction of knowledge, and did it all in a format that implicitly critiqued mainstream hegemonic structures.
Alas. I was so wrong. And probably the reason I could be so wrong was because the feminist blogosphere was a safe, comfortable space for me, as an educated white woman, in ways that it wasn’t for other people.
A little bit about the implosion itself: Michelle Goldberg explains that the impetus was the publication of a report, #FemFuture: Online Revolution. The report was based on a meeting of activists held at Barnard College and it discussed the need for funding for online feminist activists. It resulted in vicious backlash that sparked a larger conversation about online feminism. There are some great responses to Goldberg’s piece at Bitch, Prison Culture, Al Jazeera, and Slate.
I was definitely looking through rose-colored glasses when I saw a feminist blogosphere that gained strength from shared power. In reality, there are many power relationships at work. First, there are leaders in online feminism, so it is certainly not a completely non-hierarchical place. Second, it seems like a major tipping point for the current implosion was this meeting and the subsequent report that came out of Barnard College, a privileged academic institution. It’s interesting that this discussion and report about getting financial support for online feminists had to occur within the walls of the ivory tower. And third, much of the backlash is over the privilege assumed by white feminists. This is hardly a new debate; it’s been a part of feminist discussion for decades. In fact, it’s what Audre Lorde addresses in our reading from way back in Week 1. But all of these power dynamics are inherent in the feminist blogosphere, and all of them are important.
Does this mean it’s impossible to truly share power in an online activist space? It’s not like that was even the goal of the feminist blogosphere(s), it’s just an effect of the online medium that many people can contribute–and still leaders emerge, powerful academic institutions intervene, and social inequalities cloud relationships. And because of all that, at least in the case of #FemFutures, the message is obscured. Again, alas.
Here’s the other thing that bothers me: if the “Twitter wars” are truly as “toxic” as Goldberg says, it seems to me like we’re needlessly reproducing aggressions. Feminist spaces can’t/shouldn’t be completely safe, but there’s no need to mirror mainstream bullying behavior when we could be engaging in constructive critique and dialogue. To me, the #solidarityisforwhitewomen Twitter discussion is productive, but comparing a modern-day feminist activist to a nineteenth century woman who was both a suffragist and a super hardcore racist crosses the line. When that kind of talk becomes widespread, it’s a definite impediment to positive change, within activist communities or in society as a whole. And I’m certainly not saying that women are/should be gentle or non-confrontational. I am saying that compassion is powerful and listening is productive.
But the reason the “Twitter Wars” are happening is because some feminists feel like they’re not being heard, and they are right to feel that way. There’s a whole history of feminists reproducing racial hegemony, arguing, and trashing each other. Perhaps online activism mirrors location-based activism in ways that Gladwell never imagined…and perhaps I had too much hope in social media to decenter power…
As you’re starting to look into an activist/social justice blogosphere to follow for the rest of the semester, keep this example in mind. No matter what you choose, some of these issues will be constants: a multiplicity of voices and opinions, a contentious subject that inspires passionate debates, and sometimes just a good, old-fashioned Twitter fight.