what makes us so special?

Over the past few days, the 24-hour news channels, the internet, and NPR all explode with the latest developments in Tehran. For all of the complaining and fear-mongering that we hear about Iran from most of the media, our problem with Iran should not be because it is anti-democratic. Yes, they are a theocracy, but they are a theocracy with elections. Yet, when talking about Iran, we hear words like “authoritarian,” defying international law,” and “fundamentalist.”

But I’m not so sure.

(Of course, my stance on this issue would have considerably more weight if there weren’t violence in the streets of Tehran as I write this.)

Still, as one blogger notes, does the United States have much room to talk? In 2000, the Supreme Court “hastily short-circuited” the recount process in Florida, keeping us from ever knowing who was truly elected president just nine years ago. This is a good point, and it got me thinking: what makes us so special? Why was there not rioting in the streets of New York, Charleston, or Boston when the democratic process got undermined?

There are two ways to go with this. We can either talk about American exceptionalism, or think about it in terms of the postmodernization of American society.

Since I know virtually nothing about the former, and an reflections on the latter require no real textual knowledge at all, let’s explore that one.

I believe that one of the reasons why there was no spontaneous uprising in the wake of the 2000 elections stems from the fact that we have become a nation of watchers. Information is simply too readily available for people these days. Why go outside of your room, office, class, or diner when you can log on and see the action in realtime on your laptop? Why hit the streets in protest when you can sign on to an online petition? I don’t think this is apathy we are talking about, but rather a generation of frustrated people who are still searching for the most effective means of communicating their dissatisfaction with the status quo.(Latin! I think.)

Ironically, while the means of communication are becoming more and more precise and concise (Twitter), its usefulness is still being mapped out. About a month ago, there was a flap about Amazon.com banning books with queer themes from its ranking list, and within hours (I think) there was a call on Twitter for it to “fail” (I think it was @amazonfail, or something like that. I am on Twitter, but I haven’t figured it out yet), which I think means boycott. It traveled far and wide on Twitter, eventually made it to the blogosphere (again, my vocabulary expands for the second time on this post with that word), and eventually to amazon.com, which quickly corrected the mistake, suggesting that this problem was the work of a hacker.

But the amazon.com issue is not the point so much as the means by which it was communicated in its earliest stages, through Twitter. Time will tell as to whether or not Twitter will become more useful than an arena where Shaquille O’Neal, Conan O’Brien, and the Wall Street Journal can write short punchlines or misleading headlines, I suppose. My guess? Not at all. Just like the 24 hour news cycle takes all of the effort out of staying informed (and thus our investment in it), the most popular means by which we discuss and debate our opinions and thoughts on the local and the global is being transmitted most vocally through methods that also require as little effort (and hence, thought) as possible.

Maybe Twitter is going to revolutionize activism; I don’t know. But in the meantime, as the world falls apart around us (and out from under us), it seems that too many people are willing for now to vent their frustrations and protests in witticisms of less than 140 characters.

~ by dystopic on June 15, 2009.