A social space that provided the liberty to discuss politics, literature and culture outside the scrutiny of the state was recognised as a “coffee house” in the 18th century. A cup of coffee, apart from being a delicacy, arranged a space of collective reflection over the functioning of the state. It became a democratic platform that vested its power in the common masses to freely participate in political debates. The arguments, discussions and opinions originating in the “coffee house” led to the formation of a public sphere that challenged the domination of the status quo.
The “coffee house” that exist today lack the political commitment of the 18th-century “coffee house”. With the advent of consumerism, our focus has shifted from the “political” to the “popular”. This alteration has dumbed down the reasoning ability of the masses, hence reducing them to “unthinking individuals”. Emerging from this age of the “popular”, social media provides us with a new understanding of the “public”. The 21st-century social media echoes the hope of the “coffee house” which was to formulate a large-scale collective action.
With its easy accessibility and impartial atmosphere, social media can be viewed as a renovated version of the “coffee house”. It is a space of social gathering where people come together to discuss issues ranging from the bliss of their domestic lives to the disturbing aspects of grim politics. The democratic platform of social media offers us an opportunity to engage in public speech, question the normative and voice our opinions.
ADVERTISEMENT
Sociologists Eliher Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld affirmed that the conversation on social media materialises in two steps. The opinions are firstly broadcast by the media, which are then diffused by the common masses. The second step is where the hope lies. The large-scale circulation of a particular opinion leads to a collective understanding of that notion. This mutual consciousness further leads to the formation of a public opinion which confronts the normative ideal of the authorities. During this process, if the strength of the “collective” overpowers the legitimacy of the authorities, a revolution can be forged.
Having looked at the political potential of social media, it is important to acknowledge that social media is not able to bring about the same mass mobilisation as the “coffee houses” of the 18th century did. The answer to this lies in the practices of consumerism, censorship and sensationalism which consume a large portion of social media. These tools serve as obstacles in the process of fostering “collective awareness”.
The words and pictures of the content we post on social media might be ours but we are not granted ownership of the entire post. Our posts can be easily censored, manipulated or removed if they do not meet the demands of the social platform. These hurdles reduce the potentiality of social media to initiate a mass movement.
ADVERTISEMENT
Despite these impediments, one cannot ignore the political power that the democratic platform of social media provides us with. Starting from today, if every consumer of social media begins to contribute to the creation of a “shared awareness” by altering his usage of social media from being “personal” to “collective”, a hope for a mass movement against the injustices of the power institutions can be anticipated in the coming future.
sharmamuskan289@gmail.com