Since the onset of the rise of major communicative technologies, our society has been in an ongoing process of transformation. The precursors of today’s technologies were the invention of the printing press and movable type, the telegraph and telephone, the ability to record music and movies, and the ability to broadcast. Although all of these inventions changed society in some manner, what separates these forms of media from the ‘new’ media of today (ie: blogging, YouTube, Flickr, etc) is that today’s media allows for “many-to-many” conversations that encourage individuals from all around the world to communicate, rather than a “one-to-many” (TV, radio), or “two-way” (telephone) form of communication (Shirky 2008). As such, our society has been dramatically transformed from a culture of passive receivers to one of active producers, with Shawn Ahmed at the forefront in utilizing these new forms of social media for the attainment of a better society, and moreover, a better world.
Until recently, I have firmly believed that a change in the infrastructure of a society, in this case a change in technology, resulted in a change in a society’s social structure and super structure. Although I still believe this to be true (in most cases), I now realize that there is another step involved: the said change must also affect the behavior of the society. Thus, it is the adoption of this new behavior, as influenced by the new technology, that results in a change in society (Banister 2004, Deuze 2006, Meyrowitz 1985, Shirky 2008). In the case of new media, individuals have adopted a new behavior with regards to communicating with one another, and that, in turn, is currently affecting our culture at an unprecedented level.
Rather than sitting back and receiving endless amounts of information and being inundated with images, individuals have begun to “react to, participate in, and even alter a story as it is unfolding” (Shirky 2008:7). Simply put, the former audience is no longer an audience at all, but instead is involved in the production and ‘management’ of information, actively participating at all levels (Banister 2004, Burgess and Green 2009, Hirst and Harrison 2007, Leadbeater 2009, Palfrey and Gasser 2008, Rheingold 2003, Shirky 2008, Wright 2008) as enabled by the new mediascape. One explanation for this amount of participation is that “greater interactivity and direct participation on the Net means that both senders and receivers assume greater accountability for their actions, and see themselves in charge of setting the agenda” (Hirst and Harrison 2007:354).
Another important explanation is that even amidst our mediated lives, we desire a deep sense of community and human contact (Banister 2004, Meyrowitz 1985, Palfrey and Gasser 2008, Shirky 2008). That being said, what better way to feel connected to one another than to be able cross temporal and spatial divides that still physically restrain us from one another? With the many options to connect with each other, as presented by social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, LinkedIn, and more recently ChatRoulette (among others), crossing these barriers and feeling globally connected has never been easier (Adams and Adey 2008, Meyrowitz 1985, Rheingold 2003, Shirky 2008, Tapscott 1998).
But merely connecting does not inspire us to be producers of information, nor does it prove to be fulfilling the deep desire for human contact that we crave. It is in this aspect that new media have dramatically altered our behavior.
Whereas Neil Postman argued that due to the increase and betterment of communicative technologies people were becoming entrapped in a “great loop of impotence” (Postman 1985:69), the new media of today have provided a way in which people can “exercise a collective will” (Banister 2004:120) in an environment where “most of the barriers to group action have collapsed,” (Shirky 2008:22) so we are “free to explore new ways of gathering together and getting things done (2008:22).
By far, one of the largest trends in the literature was that given the highly participatory nature of our current mediascape (being able to easily share, cooperate, coordinate, and communicate), individuals are able to quickly and easily organize without organizations in support of various “causes,” and empower others to collectively act (Adams and Adey 2008, Banister 2004, Gitlin 2001, Leadbeater 2009, Negroponte 1995, Palfrey and Gasser 2008, Rheingold 2003, Shirky 2008, Tapscott 1998, Tapscott and Williams 2006). Thus, a new and powerful form of gathering—both in the virtual and “real” world has emerged.
However, even amidst the ease of gathering and coordinating collective action, it is important to note that many, like Postman, remain skeptical as to if the new media available will prove beneficial to the world, or if it will just result in impotence, similar to what Postman claimed about our (now) ‘old’ media. Todd Gitlin clearly expresses this sentiment when he claims that “a worldwide community of the somewhat knowledgeable coexists with devastation. Aware of its distance from the theater of suffering, involved in its noninvolvement, the community of knowing makes itself at home in a world where it is normal that some are slaughtered while others watch pictures of their slaughter” (Gitlin 2001:172).
Although this may seem like what could have occurred, in reality it isn’t what is occurring. Instead, people are getting involved, and in new, different, and exciting ways…ways that are tailored to fit within the framework of our new mediascape. Based upon all of the literature I have read, I realized that no one had cited examples similar to what Shawn and The Uncultured Project have done. Namely, everyone failed to mention how social media is being utilized on a global scale by bringing different online communities together, and then bringing the online communities together with those living in abject poverty in a personal and direct way (which is only enabled by new media).
See how great this is? Due to new media, Shawn was able to blog, post videos on YouTube and pictures on Flickr, tweet, and essentially share his message and experiences with the world. But more than that, new media enabled him to begin a new form of giving in which the giver and receiver could see and interact with one another. This more direct and personal way of giving was appealing to many across the globe, resulting in over 20 countries being represented by donations.
Shawn realized that due to rise of ubiquitous media our society now connects differently than before. And because this connection is more apparent, he was able to tap into a new way of “connecting” the rich and poor, thus enabling transparent giving to be more effective than the traditional ‘send in your money and we’ll make sure it goes to a good cause’ mode.
By carefully researching The Uncultured Project, I hope to demonstrate to the skeptics that new media is changing the world, and for the better. I understand that there will always be individuals who will negatively take advantage of new media in order to achieve unsatisfactory ends, but the number of users who are using new media for the good of humanity will always trump those with foul intentions.
We are currently living in a time where we are more connected than ever before, but only a very small fraction of our society realizes this. I have full confidence that as we continue living in an age of ubiquitous media (and soon ‘invisible’ media), the inherent love for our fellow human beings will once again be recognized, and we will finally move away from our impotence and towards a period where we begin really caring for and seeing others.
“Our social tools are turning love into a renewable building material. When people care enough, they can come together and accomplish things of a scope and longevity that were previously impossible; they can do big things for love.” –Clay Shirky
Adams, Kate and Melissa Adey
2008 Social Collaboration: Joining Forces on the Digital Frontier. Whitepaper.
Banister, Jim
2004 Word of Mouse: The New Age of Networked Media. Chicago: Agate Books.
Burgess, Jean and Joshua Green
2009 YouTube’s Social Network: The extending boundaries of a major phenomenon for millions. InterMedia 37(5):24-29.
Deuze, Mark
2006 Participation, Remediation, Bricolage: Considering Principle Components of a Digital Culture. The Information Society (22): 63, 75.
Gitlin, Todd
2001 Media Unlimited: How the Torrent of Images and Sounds Overwhelms Our Lives. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Hirst, Martin and John Harrison
2007 Communication and New Media: From Broadcast to Narrowcast. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leadbeater, Charles
2009 We-Think: Mass Innovation, Not Mass Production. London: Profile Books.
Meyrowitz, Joshua
1985 No Sense of Place. New York: Oxford University Press.
Negroponte, Nicholas
1995 Being Digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Palfrey, John and Urs Gasser
2008 Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books.
Postman, Neil
1985 Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: The Penguin Group.
Rheingold, Howard
2003 Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing.
Shirky, Clay
2008 Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: The Penguin Group.
Tapscott, Don and A. D. Williams
2006 Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Tapscott, Don
1998 Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Wright, Terence
2009 Visual Impact: Culture and the Meaning of Images. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
