|
May/June 2006 Editorial Raising Our Voices, By All Means Necessary In early 2006, the government of India found itself the target of an unprecedented protest. Two hundred thousand messages from individual cell phone users decried the result of a high-profile criminal trial. A fashion model, Jessica Lal, had been shot and killed in a crowded public bar in Delhi seven years earlier. The son of a wealthy politician had been charged with the murder and finally brought to trial. Yet despite numerous witnesses to the crime, the court was unwilling to convict him, or any of the eight others accused of aiding him. The “not guilty” verdict shocked the nation. Many people organized vigils, but others turned to technology to speak out. Indian activists encouraged people to send text messages to a media organization to express their outrage at the verdict and the patriarchal attitude that tolerates gender abuse. The massive response was totally unexpected. The case is now on appeal.
Access to cell phones is exploding across the globe, including in developing nations. According to MobileActive.org, a group that tracks the usage of this technology for social activism, there are now close to 100 million users across the African continent, with cell phones outnumbering fixed lines by 100 to 1 in some rural countries. There are political implications, as one South African wrote on a Weblog recently:
Cell phones and e-mail also facilitate mass social activism through so-called “flash mobs” – large gatherings of people who come together in a seemingly spontaneous action. Some credit such communications with an important role in organizing the huge public protests in 2001 that ousted Filipino President Joseph Estrada. Democracy activists in the Ukraine’s 2004 “Orange Revolution” used the tactic to arrange actions under the radar of the repressive state. And this year, youth protests in France against the government’s labor law were supported by regular messages sent to more than 300,000 cell phones by a Web-based blog. Of course, new technology is not the be-all and end-all of progressive change. Indeed, there is still a significant digital divide, which translates across race, geography, and age. A number of readers of Fellowship have contacted our office in response to the news that this issue is being published online, noting unhappily that they do not have Web access. Their work is no less significant for being low-tech. Illustrating the point, millions of people have taken to the streets across the United States in recent weeks to support immigrant rights in what is arguably the country’s most significant progressive movement in a quarter-century. Not since the nuclear freeze campaign in the early 1980s – not even during the run-up to the Iraq war – has our nation seen so many people march publicly to advocate for justice. And while e-mails and blogs and possibly even text messages have helped build momentum for this movement, the forms of “alternative media” that have grown it so rapidly (stunning organizers as much as anyone) have mostly been the good old-fashioned kind. Through community meetings, church sermons, and phone calls between friends, mass rallies in dozens of cities were organically planned. New technologies do not replace personal relationships. They have the power to carry our voices forward, but it is relationships that must sustain our coalitions. MoveOn.org, which is best known for its online political organizing power, recognizes this. The group has encouraged local community-building initiatives through house parties, bake sales, and the like. One could even argue that new technologies have been more of an obstacle than an asset for the progressive movement. In the post-9/11 environment, the state has unprecedented power to frustrate activists seeking to mobilize in public settings. This month, for instance, I walked for 15 blocks on the periphery of a mass immigration rights rally in downtown Manhattan – enticingly close to the gathering, but prevented by police from actually joining it. As at recent anti-war protests, I saw plenty of examples of the police’s technological capacity to divide and conquer – with video cameras and wireless communications abundantly evident – as well as its close collaboration with mainstream media sources that were covering the event. And new information is revealed each month about the government’s secret approval of wiretapping and other surveillance measures. (See also the Sept/Oct 2005 issue of Fellowship, “Monitored.”) But despite the valid concerns about privacy and equal access, as progressive activists we should remain open to new possibilities. In an era of mainstream media consolidation, our need for independent media fueled by these technologies is critical. Read this issue of Fellowship to be inspired by examples of alternative media today – as well as a couple of traditional ones, like quilting! – and then use these resources in your own work for peace and justice.
©2006 Fellowship of Reconciliation
|