Skip to main content

New media and old manifestations

Claude Fischer, professor of sociology | June 27, 2013

It appears that Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the protesters clogging up the downtowns of Turkish cities who are agitating against him agree on something. Erdogan recently decried “a menace that is called Twitter . . . . The best examples of lies can be found there. To me, social media is the worst menace to society.” Meanwhile, many of the protesters also see the social media as having unlocked the forces of popular uprising. (Notice the women on each side of the flag-carrier in the picture.)



Everywhere we read and hear the claim that smartphones and social media have ushered in a new era of protest and revolution, enabling people to mobilize crowds locally and to arouse the discontented in other cities and even other countries. This theme was common during the Occupy chatter, too. History, just about everyone says, has turned a (virtual) corner.

People, let’s get a grip – and I don’t mean on your smartphone; I mean on history.

Twentieth-Century “flash mobs”

Let’s go back to 1968, decades before the World Wide Web. As anyone who lived through it (I raise my hand) or read about it knows, it was a year of widespread youth protest in much of the western world and some Soviet bloc countries, too: Prague Spring; May 1968 in Paris (still a touchstone for the French); Grant Park riots at the Democratic Convention; and much more. And protesters in each place knew about one another and were inspired by one another. Todd Gitlin’s book The Whole World is Watching reminds us that the world was — and people copied.

The 1960s was also an era of black urban “riots” or “rebellions” (pick your term by your politics). The violence came in waves, rapidly diffusing from one place to another. It was often a matter of hours between reports of an outbreak and then reports of one in another city. One study shows that people in smaller cities who saw on television outbreaks in larger cities were prompted to act themselves.

Just before this period of  urban disorder was the era of nonviolent civil rights protests. These demonstrations also came in waves of imitation. Although the Civil Rights Movement was highly organized through colleges and churches, where and when specific sit-ins occurred reflected in great part the news media. One study concludes, “Blacks, predominantly college students, initiated sit-ins because they were inspired by previous sit-ins in other cities. Information about events elsewhere came primarily from news[paper] reports. . . . Potential protesters became more optimistic about the prospect of success simply because so many others were initiating sit-ins.”

Nineteenth-Century “flash mobs”

And then there is 1848. Wikipedia tells the story straightforwardly: “The European Revolutions of 1848, known in some countries as the Spring of Nations, Springtime of the Peoples or the Year of Revolution, were a series of political upheavals throughout Europe in 1848. It remains the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history. . . . ” In a recent comparison of the Arab Spring protests to the 1848 “Springtime of the Peoples” uprisings, Kurt Weyland talks about the “tsunami” 165 years ago:



revolution spread immediately, right after the principal spark: the overthrow of France’s “Citizen King” Louis Philippe on February 24. Within three days, contention erupted on the Rhine in Mannheim, quickly reached Cologne, Leipzig, and Stuttgart (March 3), then Munich (March 6), Vienna and Berlin (March 13), and Copenhagen (March 20). . . . In April, the impulse arrived in the Americas and ended up fanning the flames of a smoldering rebellion in Northeastern Brazil, stimulating liberal reformism in Colombia, prompting the formation of a secretive Society of Equality in Chile, and helping to inspire the US women’s movement for the Seneca Falls Convention.

Weyland points out the obvious: “the 1848 revolutions spread just as fast as the [Arab Spring] protests, long before 24/7 TV news, Twitter, and Facebook.”

And for good measure, let’s not forget that the American Revolution was mobilized across the colonies in relatively rapid order by mail, by ship-born news, and by the talk in taverns (see earlier post.)


Have the internet and smartphone changed nothing about popular uprisings? Of course, they must have. But as yet we do not know how they have made mobilization and diffusion different than in the television era, or in the telegraph era for that matter. As we await the research, let’s hold off on the millennial declarations. Oh, and PM Erdogan might seek another explanation for his woes.

Cross-posted from Claude Fischer’s blog, Made in America: Notes on American life from American history.

Comments to “New media and old manifestations

  1. Discussions of the media are still dominated by the conventions of the ‘quality’ press in the second half of the 20th century, based on objectivity, balance, and a clear separation between news, opinion and advertising. So, for example, it is considered highly inappropriate for a newspaper to run stories designed to push the commercial interests or political ambitions of its proprietor, let alone to print deliberate lies motivated by such commercial or political goals. These conventions have typically applied with even greater force to broadcast media, which have historically relied on the free grant of access to limited electronic spectrum. IMHO 🙂

  2. Media has become a tool for entertainment, not just in the sense of Hollywood, but also the news itself; however, things are not so simple these days as we are progressing technologically at a rate that is extreme.

    So, let the powers at be do the thinking, they have the information and sometimes it needs to be safe.

  3. I’ve been pointing out for a while now that if I’m really upset about a current issue in the news I can both tweet about it _and_ update my Facebook status. Take that, powers-that-be!

    Recall also one of my favorite lines from the sitcom Taxi when Reverend Jim answers his colleague from the garage as to why he spent so much money on a new home entertainment system by explaining,

    “Don’t you see, Alex?
    The best thing about television is that
    if something really important happens,
    anywhere in the world,
    anytime of the day or night,
    you can always change the channel.”

    The internet and the smartphone have expanded the range of distractions that we can get upset about, and then move on to the next. The triumph of entertainment is further assured.

Comments are closed.