This Tuesday, I will be making a presentation about the use of Twitter throughout the Iranian Election Protests and the value of Twitter as a tactic to sustain contentious activity.  You are welcome to check out my Presentation and come to the Mobile Applications and Social Media Conference (http://mobsoc.org/) on January 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM at Harvey Bright Building on the Texas A&M- College Station campus in room 131.

Mead’s theory of symbolic interaction is based off the assumption that the social structure is developed at both the individual level and societal level.  Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical orientation focusing on how society is a product of shared communication and understanding among self-conscious individuals engaged in cooperative undertakings.  Symbolic interactionism looks at the meaning behind social action.  Mead is described a social behaviorist.  He did not believe that behavior is determined, but society does affect behavior.  Stimuli and the environment are reflected upon before behavior occurs, therefore, unobserved activity is crucial to understand human behavior.  Mead believed that one must understand how impulses that become desires affect social action.

Social evolution forces the environment to become dependent on the organisms around it (Mead 1977:xxii).  Mead believed that humans construct their social environment and have the ability to create their own social realities.  There is a dialectic process that occurs between individuals and society.  Individuals are both influenced by and influence the world around them.

Mead was critical of behavioralism.  Behavioralism is the study of an individual’s experience that is observable by others (Mead 1977:116).  He disagreed with the positivistic approach of behavioralism.  Mead believed that mental behavior cannot be reduced to non-mental behavior (Mead 1977:125).  Behavior is not based upon instinct and cannot be determined strictly by external forces.    Mead writes: “Delayed reaction is necessary to intelligent conduct” (1977:177).  Humans must reflect upon social stimuli (Ashley and Orenstein 2005:406).  It is through the Mind that impulses become guided.

Self reflection occurs within the Mind.  The Mind is an abstract organizing entity that seeks a justified relationship between individuals and their environment (Mead 1977:72).  Internalization through the use of the Minds is the chief mode of interaction (Mead 1977:228).  Human perception is a selective response to stimuli where stimuli are interpreted in reference to the Self (Mead 1977:xxv).  Consciousness is selective, which allows novelty in society (Mead 1977:65).

The gesture marks the beginning of a social act (Mead 1977:155).  Gestures that bring rise to a common idea are significant symbols (Mead 1977:157).  Individuals are able to predict the intent of others because of significant symbols.  Thinking in and of itself requires the use of symbols (Mead 1977:211).  Symbols become significant symbols when they take on identical meaning for ourselves and others (Mead 1977:xxvi).  Significant symbols makes the Mind possible; without them, reflection could not occur.
Reflection occurs within the individual, but it becomes public through social acts (Mead 1977:80).  The Mind is formed through social interaction.  It is inseparable from the social process (Mead 1977:195).  Stimuli only have meaning through the human experience (Mead 1977:3).  The Mind is able to find meaning through a subject/object relationship (Mead 1977:192).  Individuals are subjects in the respect that they constitute their own behavior.  They are objects in the sense that they take into account the meaning behind significant symbols that are prevalent in society when acting.  Meaning continuously adjusts based on the relationship between individuals and their surroundings (Mead 1977:167).  Through self-reflection, individuals analyze the intent of others (Mead 1977:128).

The Self is connected to the Mind and they emerge together.  Social development and individual development occur together (Ashley and Orenstein 2005:403).  The personality is the reflection of the Mind but the Mind is the abstract part of the individual, where as the Self is observable.  The total Self emerges out of the dialectic interactions between the I and the Me.  Mead writes “The ‘I’ is the response of the organism to the attitudes of the other, the ‘me’ is the organized set of attitudes of others which on himself assumes” (Mead 1989:94).   Social control occurs when the Me is expressed over the I (Mead 1977:239).  The I represents the innate, impulsive part of the individual, where as the Me represents the socialized part of the individual.

Personality or the total Self emerges from socialization (Mead 1977:226). The development of the Self requires one to take the role of the other (Mead 1977:xxvii).  Mead states, “The child has no definite character, no definite personality” (1977:223).  The Self must emerge from a socialization process (Mead 1977:226).  The emergence of the Self develops through three stages: the preparatory stage, the play stage, and the game stage.  The preparatory stage is a stage in childhood development where the child imitates others meaninglessly.  They take the role of the other, but the do not understand what it means.  During the play stage, children act out roles but the roles are unstable and the children do not have a unitary standpoint from which to view themselves.  The play stage introduces the generalized other and helps them develop a generalized attitude.  Mead writes: “The organized community or social group which gives to the individual his unity of self can be called ‘the generalized other.’  The attitude of the generalized other is the attitude of the whole community” (1977:218).  The generalized other is a form of social control which gives rise to common conceptions (Mead 1977:219).  The final stage leading to the emergence of the Self is the game stage.  Throughout this stage, roles are given meaning.  Children take certain roles and they understand that there are different roles for each person.  During the game stage, children are able to organize the Mind.

Mead believed that humans are able to control their environment (Mead 1977:30).  Individuals can control the reactions of others by predicting their responses (Mead 1977:96).  Humans are aware of what symbols they portray to others (Mead 1977:37).  By taking the role of the generalized other, they are able to direct others’ reactions based upon their predicted responses.  The Self becomes a subject by taking the role of the other and also becomes an object by creating social action (Mead 1977:95).  It is only through mutual role- taking that coordinated behavior can occur (Ashley and Orenstein 2005:401).

The Self is a process of adaption and interaction that occurs from temporal order (Ashley and Orenstein 2005:405).  Temporal order is the continuously changing considerations for action (Mead 1977:xvii).  Prediction is helpful, but it is never completely accurate: “In a sense we can predict the future, but what we predict is always something less than that which happens” (Mead 1977:105).  The meanings behind significant symbols changes bases upon the environment.  Mead believed that society was revolutionary in the fact that the social structure was continuously changing due to the novelty of social action (Mead 1977:20).  The historical emergence of reality is unpredictable (Ashley and Orenstein 2005:395).  Mead viewed social organization and social structure as open and fluid (Mead 197:xviii).

Individuals reflect the social structure, but they also create society (Mead 1977:235).  According to Mead, social structure is nothing more than common responses (Mead 1989:229).  Human interaction is a conversation of gestures (Zeitlin 2001:427).  Gestures must evoke similar meaning among individuals in order for interaction and society to exist.  It is through organized responses that community becomes possible because without organized responses, the generalized other or significant symbols would not be of any value when trying to predict social action (Mead 1977:254).  Societies develop by adjusting to social interactions and social institutions are just habits of individual interaction (Mead 1977:24-25).

Mead believed that society was held together through symbolic interaction.  Society becomes cohesive through shared understanding.  Shared understanding is available through the use of significant symbols.  Through the use of the significant symbol, individuals have the ability to control the development of society and social interaction, while, at the same time, they are controlled by society and shared social meanings.

Durkheim believed that altruism is the basis of morality.  He was critical of modern society because of the rise of individualism. Durkheim believed that the social structure of society is build upon social facts that cause habitual action (Durkheim 1971:xiv-xi).  In order to understand the core of social action, the function of the social action must be studies (Durkheim 1971:xv).  There is a connection between social acts and the needs of society.  Society cannot exist without the individual.    Individuals cannot exist without society, since civilization and humanity is based upon individuals’ relationships with the world around them (Durkheim 1971:38).

Social facts are collective representations that are both emergent of individuals and coercive of individuals.  They must be viewed by their relationship with the social whole.  Social facts emerge out of an unconscious process due to socialization (Durkheim 1971:36).  Social facts transcend the individual and exist sui generis; they have a meaning of their own that is beyond individual consciousness (Durkheim 1971:16).

A duality exists in society among the sacred and the profane.  The sacred is that which is beyond individuals.  The profane is that which an individual experiences throughout everyday life.  Society sanctifies certain ideals which hold society together because they existed before the individual and will continue to exist after the individual.  Ideals become untouchable and are consecrated (Durkheim 1971:176).  Common ideals allow social cohesion and social solidarity.  Commonalities are what holds society together.

Morality is the central organizing force in society that creates social solidarity.  Morality is both objective and subjective, meaning it influences individual and is influenced by the individual (Durkheim 1989:88).  Due to the subject/object relationship, morality is a historical progression (Giddens 1971:73).  Morality consist of both obligation to the collective whole and desire to uphold the collective whole.    Durkheim admired discipline (Durkheim 1973:xxxix).  He believed that social order occurred through discipline and duty.  “We feel a sui generis pleasure in performing out duty simply because it is our duty” (Durkheim 1989:92).  Respect of a moral authority honors society and evokes feelings of duty, submission and sacrifice which reifies society (Durkheim 1973:170).

Altruism is the basis of morality and society.  Durkheim concludes, “Morality begins with disinterest, with attachment to something other than ourselves” (1973:151) and “Wherever there are societies, there is altruism, because there is solidarity” (1973:83).  Moral action cannot be egoistic because moral action requires self-sacrifice to uphold social solidarity.  Sacrifice is necessary for society to be maintained (Durkheim 1973:163).  Social order depends on moral action of individuals (Ashley and Orenstein 2005:91).  Through moral action and abiding a moral authority, the social solidarity of a society strengthens (Durkheim 1973:1972).

The origins of society were based upon mechanical solidarity.  A mechanical society is a homogenous society with strong social cohesion (Durkheim 1973:63).  Mechanical solidarity is based on the similarity or likeness of individuals in terms of their conception of reality of the collective whole, like that of the horde.  All institutions of society tend to overlap and draw from each other.  There is little differentiation among mechanical societies and conformity is required (Durkheim 1973:xxiv).  A clan is an extensive horde where stratification is based on kinship (Durkheim 1973:64).  Where as the horde creates solidarity through likeness, the clans create solidarity through organization (Durkheim 1973:65).  Solidarity and social cohesion of clans rests on personal and social ties (Durkheim 1973:66).  The clan shares collective punishment, collective responsibility and mutual inheritance (Durkheim 1973:65).

In order to maintain social cohesion, a society must have a strong collective conscious.  Mechanical societies have a strong collective conscious. The collective conscious in not just the collection of individual consciousness; it exists sui generis and has properties of its own (Giddens 1971:67).  The collective conscious is the characteristics of a group or society arising from and supporting a unified mental and emotional response to the events of the world.  The collective conscious is created by social interaction. It pre-exists and outlives an individual.  It is felt to be a powerful force that is external to individuals.  The collective conscious is capable of both shaping and constraining social action.  Although the collective conscious is external to the individual, it is seen as something normal and not viewed as repressive.  The collective conscious is the basis of unity in society; it is the moral code.

Collective effervescence is a feeling of stimulation in a crowd of activity.  Collective effervescence reifies the collective conscious (Durkheim 1973:173).  It is through collective effervescence that religion was born (Durkheim 1973:181).  A churinga is an object that appears to have special powers over time.  A churinga develops its powers through sacred rituals.  Rituals unite individuals and awake a feeling of an external force that dominates them (Durkheim 1973:182).  Rituals are able to distinguish the sacred from the profane (Durkheim 1973:187).  Rituals are powerful because they give rise to a collective conscious which overrules the fragmented individual consciousness (Durkheim 1973:xlviii).  Churingas are only used during religious rituals, so they become sacred are seen as the force that causes the emergence of feelings of collective effervescence.

Collective representations are replenished through the use of rituals.  Collective representations are the shared beliefs, values, norms, and ways of thinking that characterize a group.  They allow people to look at particular symbols that represent the collective conscious.  Collective representation only originate when they are embodied in material objects that become symbols.  Symbols represent a common ideal and invoke shared emotions (Durkheim 1973:160).  Upon each churinga was a symbolic totem which represents society (Durkheim 1973:183).  Individuals attribute feeling toward the totem, although it is really society that creates the feeling.  Totems evoke feeling realized by the individual, but they also transcend the individual (Durkheim 1973:185).  According to Durkheim, totemism is the earliest form of religion.  It is through rituals and religion that the sacred and profane become distinct from one another (Ashley and Orenstein 2005:84).

Rituals consists of both latent and manifest functions.  Manifest functions are the apparent functions viewed by individuals in society.  Latent functions are the functions that are not apparent and are hidden.  Sacred rituals provide a moral order for society and strengthens the bonds between members of society.  Although, individuals only recognize the manifest function of rituals, wich is to strengthen the bond between a deity and the individual.  Since latent functions are hidden and are not recognized, they are powerful.  Latent functions guide an individuals consciousness without the individual realizing it.

As social relations increase, society becomes more complex (Durkheim 1973:109).  The transition to organic solidarity occurs as the bulk of society is no longer organized by relations.  The village caused the emergence of organic solidarity and modern society (Durkheim 1973:71).  As society becomes more complex, individual identity becomes permeable creating a loss in social cohesion (Durkheim 1973:74).  Society can no longer be held together by mechanical solidarity which is based upon similarity.  The complication of society also causes individuals to become more dependent on society (Durkheim 1973:112).  Society becomes held together by organic solidarity, where social cohesion is brought upon by interdependence.

Organic solidarity consists of social systems created by the division of labor (Durkheim 1973:69).  According to Durkheim, the division of labor creates the social structure in modern organic societies (1973:79).  The division of labor is the source of social solidarity and foundation of moral order (Durkheim 1973:139).  As the division of labor increases, so does cultural distinction (Durkheim 1973:188) and individualism (Durkheim 1973:140).  Unfortunately, the absence of likeness is a sign of moral failure (Durkheim 1973:134) and specialization does not mark superiority (Durkheim 1973:117).

The division of labor creates social solidarity through the use of interdependence and society contracts (Durkheim 1973:143).  The social contract is the primary force organizing social exchange in organic modern society (Durkheim 1973:87).  Rules are not inherent in modern society; they are imposed by the social contract (Durkheim 1973:115).  The social contract creates a paradox in modern society: “Duties are imposed upon us that we have not expressly desired.  It is however through a voluntary act that this has taken place” (Durkheim 1973:113).  Contractual cooperation creates unwanted duties causing social solidarity to become an obligation (Durkheim 1973:99).  In modern society, cohesion comes from individual self interest (Durkheim 1973:89).  Contracts lead to increased bureaucracy (Durkheim 1973:100).  It is through bureaucracy and moral rules and regulation that modern institutions become enforced (Durkheim 1973:191).  Individuals willingly follow societal regulations but they do not fully desire to do so.

Where as individuals in mechanical societies were subordinate to a group, organic societies become subordinate to a central authority, wether it be a monarch or a constitution (Durkheim 1973:81).  The societal contract is enforced though both repressive and restitutive sanctions (Durkheim 1973:136).  Repressive sanctions are forms of societal vengeance against individuals who threaten the social solidarity of society.  Repressive sanctions are apparent in both organic and mechanical societies.  Restitutive sanctions emerge in organic societies.  Restitutive sanctions are a form of regulation that compensates an individual.  The societal contract is a form of a restitutive sanction.  Restitutive sanctions become necessary in organic, modern society because it insures social cohesion when individuals do not naturally feel obligated to abide by the moral code of society.

Modern society has given rise to utilitarianism.  Durkheim was highly critical of utilitarianism.  Utilitarianism is an English philosophy made popular by Herbert Spencer.  Spencer saw society as an evolutionary hierarchy.  He believed that if individuals followed their own self interest, society as a whole would benefit because superior individuals would rise to the top.  Utilitarianism became the basis for morality in modern society, thus creating a cult of the individual (Durkheim 1973:xxxvi).  Individualism does not promote social integration.  Moral action is dependent on social integration (Ashley and Orenstein 2005:91).  Since individualism distinguishes people due to their differences, social solidarity becomes impossible (Durkheim 1973:48).  Without social solidarity, individuals no longer feel obligated to the norms and rules of society and egoism goes unrestrained (Durkheim 1973:138).

Modern society promotes individuality and specialization which divides society.  The cult of the individual sanctifies individuality which forces the sacred and profane to become fluid (Durkheim 1973:197).  Durkheim believed that the cult of the individual brings about anomie.  If the social part of the individual is not developed, both the society and the individual suffer.  Society suffers because weak social solidarity leads to widespread conflict among individuals.  Individuals suffer due to anomie and feelings of isolation.  Anomie is an emotional response of individuals who lack a strong collective conscious.  Individuals suffering from anomie do not feel connected with society and feel like something is missing.  Individualism forces anomie because it does not promote social integration.  Individualism promotes egoism and egoism cannot satisfy individuals because individuals are also apart of society.

Durkheim believed that altruism was the basis of morality.  He was highly critical of modern society because utilitarianism and the cult of the individual promotes egoistic behavior.  Durkheim believed that individualism caused a rift in society by disintegrating the difference between the sacred and the profane.  He believed that individuals could never be free through the practice of utilitarianism because society is not made up of the sum of its parts; it exists sui genesis.  Society is superior to the individual.  By practicing individualism, individuals will never be free or happy because they are missing a vital part of their being.  Individuals suffer anomie in modern society because they lack a strong collective conscious.

Weber’s concept of social stratification consisted of multiple dimensions which establish one’s life chances.  Unlike Marx, Weber did not believe that stratification is monolithically established by ownership.  According to Weber, there are infinite forms of stratification, not just two forms: owner and worker (Giddens 1971:165).  He recognized the pluralism apparent in acquiring power in society (Giddens 1971:190).  Weber believed that power consisted of three different dimensions: class, status, and party.
Weber believed that both class and ownership are an important factor in establishing power.  “ ‘Class’ refers to the objective attributes of the market situation of numbers of individuals, and as such the influence of class upon social action operates independently of any valuations these individuals might make of themselves or others (Giddens 1971:166).  Those in the same class have similar experiences due to similar material standards (Giddens 1971:164).  Class has dominated society throughout the industrial era by creating a capitalist system.  Throughout this period, class structure and class ownership was the main factor of social stratification.

Power also consists of one’s status in society.  Status is not just a complicated form of class (Giddens 1971:166).  “The status situation of an individual refers to the evaluation which others make of him or his social position, thus attributing to him some form of (positive or negative) social prestige or esteem” (Giddens 1971:166).  Unlike class, status consists of social honor.  The market does not value honor, but values self-interest (Kalberg 2005:160).  Also, unlike class, status groups are almost always conscious of their position in society (Giddens 1971:166).  Status has dominated ancient societies through the use of caste systems, such as the case in India.  Status can influence class by restricting participation in the marketplace.  Class can also affect status because ownership can become a status qualification (Giddens 1971:167).  Although class and status are different dimensions of power, they both affect each other.

Party is a dimension of power based upon association.  “A party refers to any voluntary association which has the aim of securing control of an organization in order to implement certain definite policies within that organization” (Giddens 1971:167).  Party has dominated societies that practice democratic politics.  In democracies, state power is able to be monopolized by dominating political parties.  One’s class position can affect one’s party position since class interest can develop into the creation of a political party (Kalberg 2005:154).  On the other hand, one’s party position can also affect one’s class position since laws and legal monopolies can restrict one’s ability to participate in the marketplace (Kalberg 2005:149).  Party also has a relationship to status.  One’s status can affect one’s party since status differences restrict social interaction (Kalberg 2005:146).  Also, group affinity can formulation into a political community (Kalberg 2005:301).  Party also affects status since party can be a status requirement (Kalberg 2005:162).  Party, status, and class are conceptually different although each dimension has the ability to influence the next.

According to Weber, power consists of multiple dimensions.  Each dimension is conceptually separate from each of the other dimensions, but, on an empirical level, each causally influences the other dimensions (Giddens 1971:163).  Weber recognized the multiple spheres in society and provided multiple dimensions of power.

Weber believed that the understanding of ideal types makes it possible to predict social action at a specific time and place.  Generalization and the use of concepts contribute toward causal explanations of phenomenon (Weber 1968:20).  Weber formulated ideal types drawing off the theory of Gresham’s Law.  Gresham’s Law provides a rational interpretation of social action under certain conditions (Weber 1968:10).  Statistical uniformities are able to provide predictions of social action (Weber 1968:12).  Weber created ideal types to outline the prevalent outcomes of certain conceptual phenomenon.  The ideal type is a theoretical construct that represents the more salient characteristics of empirical phenomenon.  The ideal type is never found in the empirical world; instead, it contains the salient characteristics of an empirical form which assists in the analysis of empirical phenomenon.  Ideal types allow conceptual, predictive analysis based upon types of social action, and types of legitimate order.

Weber believed that social action can be predicted based upon the knowledge of the forms of rationalization and authority.  Rationality provides meaning, and meaning provides a basis for understanding (Weber 1968:7).  Weber identified four types of social action: affectual, traditional, value-rational, and means-end rational, (also known as instrumentally rational) (Kalberg 1980:1148).  Each type of social action allowed Weber to examine the regularities and patterns of action so that social action could be predicted (Kalberg 1980:148).  Affectual action is action based upon emotion.  Traditional action is behavior that is determined by socialization and habit.  Value-rational behavior is action determined by the belief in a value for the sake of some ethical purpose that is independent of success.  Means-end rational is behavior based upon a means for attaining a certain calculated ends (Weber 1968:24-25).  Weber believed that traditional and affectual forms of social action were not rational, and therefore, did not create conscious patterns of rational action.  On the other hand, value rational social action lead to a subordination or realities of values creating a substantive rationality, and means-end rational action lead to a means-end calculation resulting in formal and practical rationalization (Kalberg 1980:1161).

Weber identified and compared for types of rationality with on another: practical, theoretical, substantive, and formal (Kalberg 1980:1145).  Each type of rationality is formulated to describe means-end rational and value-rational social actions, since traditional and affectual forms of social action are not rational (Kalberg 1980:1148-1149).  Practical rationality is rationalization based upon an individual’s pragmatic self-interest (Kalberg 1980:1151).  Theoretical rationality is rationalization based upon theoretical, abstract concepts (Kalberg 1980:1152).  Theoretical rationality can be produced indirectly of social action from various abstract processes (Kalberg 1980:1161).  Substantive rationalization is based upon values (Kalberg 1980: 1155).  Formal rationality is rationalization based upon the social structure that dominates society (Kalberg 1980:1158).  Each type of rationalization leads to a particular way of life.

Since social action involves a social relationship, social action is guided by beliefs of legitimacy (Weber 1968:31). Rationality ascribes legitimacy to an authority type. Authority is the ability for an individual to command other effectively.  Authority is embedded within the social structure and becomes efficient though legitimacy.  The legitimacy of authority can be subjective or interest specific. Subjective legitimacy can come from affectual responses, religious tradition, or value-rationality.  Subjective legitimacy does not take into external circumstances.  Affectual legitimacy results from emotional surrender.  Religious legitimacy is determined by the believe that by obeying the social order one can achieve salvation.  Value-rational legitimacy is determined by the belief that authority is valid based upon ethical values (Weber 1968:33).  Interest specific legitimacy is formed through convention and law.  Conventional legitimacy is determined by the perceived reaction of the social group.  The legitimacy of law is formulated by the guarantee of coercion by a staff to bring about compliance or vengeance (Weber 1968:34).
Each of the types of legitimate order rationalizes authority.  In turn, authority affects social action because authority affects the social order.  Weber identified three different types of authority: charismatic authority, traditional authority, and rational-legal authority.  Charismatic authority is authority based upon certain individual qualities that are considered extraordinary.  Charismatic authorities are seen as super human.  Charismatic authority is based upon irrationality since it is tied to individual characteristics and values.  Traditional authority is authority based on patriarchalism, where there is a traditional authority system without a specialized administrative staff to exercise authority, or partrimonialism, where there is a traditional authority consisting of an administrative staff with ambiguously defined tasks to exercise authority.  Rational-legal authority is authority based upon specialized knowledge (Kalberg 2005:175).  Weber distinguishes each of these forms of authority as legitimate and thus rooted in rationality (Kalberg 2005:174).

Weber’s conceptions of ideal types of rationalization, legitimacy, and authority allows the possibility to predict social action within each type.  Affectual legitimacy results in affectual social action. Religious legitimacy leads to traditional social action.  Value-rational legitimacy comes from a substantive rationality resulting in value rational social action.  Conventional legitimacy comes from practical rationality and results in means-end rational action. Law comes from formal rationality and creates means-end rational action.  Authority types influence social action since authority dominates the social structure. Ideal types of authority, legitimacy, and rationality allowed Weber to predict social action in regard to a specific time and place.

Throughout his work, Weber was committed to liberalism.  Weber believed that liberalization is a path to truth (Weber 1958:120).  Liberalization is obtaining truth by becoming free of the values imposed by society.  In order to obtain truth, one must be value-free.  Values differ from place and time (Kalberg 2005:245).  Values also have the power to force submission and dominate men (Kalberg 2005:255).  Knowledge based on values does not allow consciousness; it just reifies the social order of society.  Values and the sacred deceive individuals and do not allow them to have complete consciousness (Weber 1958:133).

Liberalization can be pursued through the use of science.  Science allows individuals to achieve consciousness since it is free of prepositions and recognizes inconvenient facts (Weber 1958:125).  Science and intellectual rationalism consists of calculation, method, and clarity (Weber 1958:130).  Scientific knowledge is achieved through the use of consistency; only though inner consistency can an individual understand the ultimate meaning of their conduct (Weber 1958:130).  In this way, Weber believed that science can create liberalization.  Science forces scholars to acknowledge their own ideologies (Zeitlin 2001:252).  In other words, it forces intellectuals to be self aware.  Also, intellectualism allows individuals to find their own answers about society, rather than traditionalism where all answers must be given by a god.  Only through liberalization can authority be bypassed causing truth and self-awareness to be achieved.

Not only does liberalization lead to truth and self-consciousness, Weber believed that liberalization would cause society to progress.  Science is never able to give the whole answer (Weber 1958:121).  Instead, it is able to reveal small truths.  Science is an infinite process where answers are consistently revealing new truths and creating new questions to be answered (Weber 1958:116).  According to Weber, social science can achieve desired social change by progressively compiling objective facts about social reality (Giddens 1971:134).  Intellectual rationalization leads to practical reactions (Weber 1958:116).  Social facts, once accumulated, can be used to create a more just society.

Weber’s conception of liberalism influenced his analysis of German politics.  Politics in Germany during Weber’s time consisted of a conflict between Bismarck’s nationalism and the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD)’s socialism.  The unification of Germany in 1871 caused rapid economic growth, but the under the rule of Bismarck, the money was invested in bureaucracy (Ashley and Orenstein 2005:227).  Bismarck’s main opposition was the SPD, a socialist party which also promoted bureaucracy.  Weber disagreed with both Bismarck and the SPD because he believed that politics in Germany were leading to uncontrolled bureaucratization (Giddens 1971:191).  Social actors entering politics faced the danger of submitting to bureaucratization.  Democracy leads to the need for a powerful, large staff and bureaucracy.  Bureaucratization creates an “iron cage” confining individuals to a set of rules and regulations (Giddens 1971:184).  Weber believed that this rise of the bureaucratic machine cannot be reversed, but liberalization can stop “fragmentations of the soul” (Giddens 1971:236) by revealing the realities of life (Giddens 1971:242).  Weber thought that politicians should not increase bureaucratization, but instead, they must fight against bureaucratic domination (Kalberg 2005:257).

During Weber’s time in Germany, politics lead to isolationism because politics were erratic; politics were directed against everyone at various points of time.  Weber saw Germany as a nation without political sophistication (Ashley and Orenstein 2005:228). The rise of democracy did not lead to increased justice since politicians were elected due to charismatic qualities rather than the ability to understand the political process.  Weber believed that the only way for society to become more just is through the election of genuine political leaders formed by liberalism (Giddens 1971:191).  Liberalization leads to ethics of responsibility which can create a more just state (Giddens 1971:136).

Weber believed that politics created dangers due to bureaucratization and democratization, but politics also provided progressive options for society through the use of liberalism.  Due to bureaucratization and the power of charismatic traits, politicians face the dangers of a lack of objectivity (they are not objective on why they succeed) and a lack of responsibility and ethics.  Weber believed that liberalism forces objectivity and creates an ethic of responsibility.  A just society can only be achieved through liberalism.

There has been increasing research on Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the social movement field (Earl & Kimport 2008; Earl 2006; Earl & Schussman 2003; Garrett 2006; McCaughey & Ayers 2003; Van De Donk, Wim, Loader, Nixon, & Rucht 2004).  ICTs can refer to cell phones, email, weblogs (blogs), and various internet services.  Each of these tools are put in the same category of ICTs but each is different and serves different functions.  Researchers have taken into account various uses of ICT activism including petitioning, email campaigns, letter-writing campaigns, online boycotts (Earl & Kimport 2008), social networking sites such as Facebook (Rojas 2009), blogs, and forums (Kidd 2003), but there has not been ample amount of research on the micro-blogging service, Twitter.  The power of Twitter as a tool for protesters of the 2009 Iranian election has caused major mass media sources to dub the protests a “Twitter Revolution” (Berman 2009).  This paper aims to explain the emergence of the 2009 Iranian election protests and the political opportunities created by the use of Twitter as a mobilization tactic.  Since protests are ongoing, I have contained my research to the date of the announcement of the election results (June 13, 2009) to the date that Ahmadinejad was inaugurated (August 5, 2009).

Introduction

The rise of the internet has changed the range of social movements.  ICTs are able to connect local social movements to an international audience.  Scholars have noticed the significance of ICTs and how they affect social movements (Earl & Kimport 2008; Earl 2006; Earl & Schussman 2003; Garrett 2006; McCaughey & Ayers 2003; Van De Donk et al. 2004).  ICTs are changing the way social movements protest (Earl & Kimport 2008), organize (Earl & Shussman 2003), mobilize (Cardoso & Neto 2004), network (Garrido & Halavais 2003), and form identities (Ayers 2003).

ICTs affect various factors of social movements, including, mobilizing structures, opportunity structures, and the framing process.  By reducing the costs of participation, promoting a collective identity, and creating a community, ICTs are able to mobilize participants (Garrett 2006).  According to Tarrow, “Repertoires of contention, social networks, and cultural frames lower the costs of brining people into collective action, induce confidence that they are not alone, and give broader meaning to their claims” (1998: 23).  Costs of social movement participation consist of both monetary and time related costs, and physical risk.  By using ICTs, social movements are able to publish and distribute information to a large audience using little time, effort, and money (Faris & Etling 2008).  Information can snowball in a short amount of time when using ICTs, thus strengthening the impact of information distribution.  Also, ICTs allow participants to take part in a social movement without actually having to physically be at the place the social movement takes place.  Cyberspace and online anonymity contribute to lowering the physical risk when becoming involved in a social movement.  By using ICTs, social movement involvement does not have to consist of large risks or costs.

Solidarity is necessary for social movement to evoke collective action (Tarrow 1998).  One way to strengthen solidarity is by fostering a collective identity.  Participants must share common beliefs about grievances and the direction of the social movement.  ICTs are able to foster a public space where participants are not only able to digest information, but also provide feedback.  This adds an interactive component to identity shaping, and allows participants to feel more incorporated with the group, therefore, more committed to the social movement (Ayers 2003).

The use of forums of discussion not only allows participants to contribute to the collective identity of the social movement, it also allows them to form a community based organizational structure.  Forums give participants a free space to speak about their own experiences and receive feedback, creating a weak tie among the participant and the social movement as a whole.  When studying the Zapatista Movement, Garrido and Halavais discovered that the weak ties, fostered by ICTs, created a collaboration network where overlapping association provided a social network where resources were aggregated (2003).

ICTs are able to form structures that are not hierarchal and are able to create organizations based upon community collaboration, not hierarchal coordination.  The lack of a hierarchal structure gives participants more freedom when choosing to participate and how to participate.  Participants do not just follow a social movement; they collaborate with it.  This mesomobilization promotes cooperation and creates a transformative resource which is continually adapting and progressing the social movement (Garrett 2006).

The Political Process Model has been central in describing the emergence and outcomes of social movements.  This model stresses the importance of political opportunities created by increased access, shifting alignments, divided elites, influential allies, and repression and facilitation (McAdam 1982).  ICTs are able to create political opportunities by increasing access by broadening the range of the social movement.  Globalization has created a world where international influence is important.  ICTs are able to connect social movements where there is little political opportunity to their international counterparts, where there is political opportunity (Garrett 2006).

ICTs assist in the regulation of elites, thus lessening the effects of repression.  Elites are less likely to repress social movements when they know that they are being watched.  Internet “watch-dog” groups, such as watchdog.net, have been set up to continuously monitor and report elite activities.  Repression and corruption become less likely when ICTs report and spread information about  elite misconduct.

Blogs are much more likely to report about local, national, and transnational protests (Almeida & Lichbach 2003).  ICTs provide a larger arena for a social movements framing process which is not limited by the space and distribution issues intrinsic to traditional media sources (Kidd 2003).  With the use of ICTs, social movements have the ability to propagate their own frames.  ICTs allow social movements to bypass the filters of mass media, thus enhancing the control of the social movement on the framing process.

According the Vegh, online activism can be classified into various forms: 1) awareness/advocacy; 2) organization/mobilization; and 3) action/reaction (2003).  ICTs are able to promote awareness and advocacy by serving as an alternate news source.  Information is able to be distributed through the use of blogs, usenet groups, forums, and email campaigns, etc.  Awareness and advocacy commonly revolves around the actions of the social movement.  This leads to the next form of online activism: organization/mobilization.  Organization and mobilization can be used to organize both online and offline activism.  Common forms of organization and mobilization ICTs are discussion forums, cell phones, and Skype teleconferences.  Online activism can lead to a call for action, either online, or offline.  Common action/reaction online activism consists of various types of hacktivism.  Hacktivists engage in “electronic civil disobedience” (ECD).  ECD contains traditional forms of civil disobedience and transforms them to cyberspace (Wray 1999).  Common ECD tactics are blockading websites or email systems by overwhelming a target server, hijacking websites to imitation parody websites, demolishing websites through the use of internet viruses, and trespassing websites to take information (Vegh 2003).

Twitter and Online Activism

Each of these forms of online activism is accessible through the use of Twitter.  Twitter is a micro-blogging service where users are able to write 140 character messages dubbed “tweets”.  Tweets can be open access (available for anyone to see), shared among “followers” (those subscribed to the author’s Twitter feed), or sent through a restricted direct message.  The 140 character limit was set up to be compatible with “text messaging”, Short Message Services (SMS), provided by phone service providers.  Tweets can be received through the Twitter website, phone applications, or other, numerous, external applications (Jungherr 2009).

Twitter is an efficient tool for spreading advocacy and awareness.  The 140 character limit forces authors to communicate in a precise and direct manner, allowing news to hit faster.  The value of Twitter is not strictly the website service, but its ability to combine Tweets with other powerful ICTs such as YouTube, blogs, Flickr, and Facebook.  Links are effortlessly established allowing the Tweet to initiate the reader’s attention and then direct that person to further information.  Twitter is not bound to a single language; external applications such as TweeTrans and Twinslator provide instant translation tools so that Tweets can be instantly viewed by any follower, despite their language.

Tweets effortlessly snowball though the use of “re-tweeting” (RT).  This snowball effect makes Twitter an ideal mobilization tool.  The use of a RT makes spreading information as simple as clicking a button. By spreading information, Twitter can also be used as a way to organize collective action.  The use of Twitter as a way to coordinate collection action was apparent in the 2007 San Diego Wildfires.  Mass media sources were unable to provide residents with the location of the fires, so “Twitterers” (people who use Twitter) Nate Ritter (@nateritter) and Dan Tentler (@viss) tweeted real time updates to keep residents and government agencies updated on the development and rescue proceedings of the fires (Jungherr 2009).  Residence were able to gauge their actions based upon the real time, aggregated information provided by Twitter.

Twitter can be used as a tool to promote action/reaction forms of online activism.  Activism is dangerous in repressive regimes; Twitter promotes action by weakening the costs of online action by providing anonymity, a decentralized structure, and social tracking.  Twitter can be as anonymous as the Twitterer would like; Twitterers can show their exact location on Google Maps, or make their location anonymous by changing their IP address.  Twitter is also near impossible to silence, since it can be accessed from thousands of external websites and phone applications.  Twitter has also been used to react to repressive regimes.  In April 2008, an American student, James Buck (@jamesbuck) was arrested for taking place in protests in Egypt.  While being arrested, he used his phone to update his Twitter feed to “Arrested” which mobilized his friends in the United States to secure his release (Jungherr 2009).

Twitter is a valuable tool when promoting various forms of online activism.  The merit of Twitter as a mobilization tool can be seen in the epoch of the 2009 Iranian Election Protests.  Major mass media sources have even named the protests a “Twitter Revolution” (Berman 2009).  The naming of protests as a “Twitter Revolution” has caused much debate, leading to a special panel discussion held by the Center for International Media Assistance (Mottaz 2009).  In the following sections, I will examine why the 2009 Iranian election protests emerged, what was the role of Twitter in the movement’s emergence, and how Twitter was used to mobilize resources in order to answer the question: Can the 2009 Iranian election protests be described as part of a Twitter Revolution?

The Origins of the 2009 Iranian Election Protests

Revolutions are most likely to occur in repressive states with a weak infrastructure and are more likely to succeed in clientelistic regimes (Goodwin 2001).  Iranian society is repressive and has a failing infrastructure.  Furthermore, Iran has increasingly strayed from populism, giving rise to clientelism (Alamdari 1999).  These aspects, and the rise of contentious collective action of labor movements, women’s movements, minority movements, and student movements, lead to the rise of mass protests resulting from the 2009 Iranian election.

Splits among elites provided political opportunities for the election protests.  The core dispute among elites was domestic policy.  During the election debates held on June 3, 2009, presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi blamed  the current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for “downgrading” Iran in the eyes of the world.

Iranians have been experiencing electrical and water outages outages  due to sanctions, mismanagement, and corruption (Javedanfar 2008).  The 2009 Corruption Perception Index rated Iran with a 1.8 rating on a range where zero is most corrupt and 10 is no corruption.  Iran was ranked ninth most corrupt country out of 180 (Transparency International 2009).  Although Ahmadinejad continuously blames Western forces for the countries internal problems, many Iranians actually fault the country’s leaders, focusing most of the blame on Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad has been criticized on his decisions regarding the economy.  In January 2008, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei overruled Ahmadinejad’s decision to remove subsidies for the poor (Levinson 2008).  The overruling not only highlighted fractions among elites, it also displayed Ahmadinejad’s betrayal of populism.  Ahmadinejad is not a true populist.  Two-hundred forty-seven state enterprises have been privatized since Ahmadinejad took office in 2005 (Wharton 2009).  Ahmadinejad is portrayed as a populist by selling “justice shares.”  Justice shares are stock in newly privatized state companies that are given to the poor.  Although the stock is freely given to the impoverished, this stock is quickly re-bought by elites at an extraordinarily cheap price, leading to elite owned monopolies (Sustar & Sepehri 2009).

The religious populism which emerged from the 1979 Iranian Revolution has been replaced with political clientelism.  Iranian society is not held together by political parties; instead it is controlled by competing group rivalries (Alamdari 1999).  This allows elites to not be held accountable, but it fragments the elites which makes social movements difficult to contain  (Goodwin 2001).

Iranians are not only looking for a change in domestic policy, they are also calling for a change on the leadership’s approach to international bodies.  Many want a better relationship with the outside world (The Real News Network 2009).  International sanctions have lead to sharp declines in Iranian exports (Esfahani & Pesaran 2009).  Many of the educated youth of Iran believe that the economy will strengthen if Iran opens up to the West, including America.

The Iranian election protests rose due to increased contentious activity.  Since Ahmadinejad cam in power, labor movements, women’s movements, minority movements, and student movements have been on the rise (Sustar & Sepehri 2009).  The momentum of other movements increased the political opportunities of the election protestors and facilitated movement emergence.

Increased privatization and the fall of populism has invoked the reemergence of the labor movement in Iran.  In January 2004, a massacre of copper workers gave rise to increased contention activity from the labor movement.  The massacre was followed by a strike consisting of one-third of Iranian Teachers in March 2004.  The worker’s movement nationalized a workers’ committee and called for increased waged by July 16, 2005.  When the government failed to comply, the worker’s movement demonstrated its capability by staging 140 strikes in October 2005 and 120 in November 2005 (Sustar & Sepehri 2009).  The 17,000 member labor union, Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company staged a strike in January 2006, which lead to the arrests of over 7,000 people, and 30 protesters had severe injuries (International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran 2006).  Although the repression of the 2006 protests silenced the labor movement in the short term, it rose again during the 2009 May Day demonstrations, which mobilized 2,000 workers in Tehran (Sustar & Sepehri 2009).

Minorities have suffered longstanding oppression from the Iranian regime.  The Baha’is have been repressed since the exile of the Babi and Baha’i leaders from Iranian society in 1852 (Tavakoli-Targhi 2008).   Baha’is are the largest minority in Iranian society, but they not only provide a threat due to their numbers, they also question the legitimacy of the religious elite in Iranian society (MacEoin 1988).  The arrest of five Baha’is in Tehran on January 14, 2009 mobilized the movement leading to public statements by Iran scholars saying “We are ashamed!” of human rights abuses of the Baha’is (Iran Press Watch:96).

There has also been a rise in nationalist activity among the Kurdish population of Iran.  The Kurds were influential in overthrowing the Shah in 1979, but was silenced during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s (Sustar & Sepehri 2009).  The Kurdish minority movement has gained momentum since the 2003 establishment of Iraq’s Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) (Gresh 2009).  The Kurds are a people whose land is divided among Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria.  Although the United States does not officially support PJAK, PJAK leaders visited Washington in August 2007 in search for resources.  After the murder of Kurdish activists in April 2005, an ethnic uprising formed in Iran which was silenced through the force of 100,000 soldiers (Sustar & Sepehri 2009).  PJAK has turned into a guerilla group and has continued to plague the Iranian government.

The student movement in Iran has become increasingly important in Iranian society.  Iran’s university population has exponentially increased since the  1979 Iranian revolution.  The university population has also diversified; 70% of science and engineering students in Iran are women (Masood 2006).  The student movement gained international recognition in July 1999 when a basiji raid in a Tehran University dormitory resulted in 800 destroyed dorm rooms, 200 students injured, and 4 students killed (known as the 18th of Tir Disaster).  The harsh repression forced the movement to go underground, and it has been sustained though the use of opposition Internet sites such as Gooya and Iran-Emrooz (Mashayekhi 2001).

One of the most influential movements upon the election protests was the women’s movement due to the movements’ mutual association with Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard.  Dr. Rahnavard has become a feminist icon for Iranian women (Escobar 2009).  The Iranian Revolution lead to the introduction of discriminatory laws against women.  Reforms have been difficult to pass, due to the veto power of the Guardian Council, but the women’s movement has continued to push for social reform.  The movement gained moral resources when Iranian feminist and activist, Shirin Ebadi, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003.  In 2005, the Iranian women’s movement launched their first form of large scale collective action by staging a protest in front of Tehran University.  Despite repression, the protest mobilized 5,000 women.  The women’s movement staged a rally in March 2006 which was once again repressed, but Ebadi spoke out against police brutality in favor of the women, which gave the movement international exposure (Hoodfar & Sadeghi 2009).  Despite the lack of substantial progress, the women’s movement is continually expanding (Sustar & Sepehri 2009).

The 2009 Iranian election protests resulted from the the division of elites and the rise of contentious activities creating a wave of protest.  The election protests were able to aggregate various civic groups due to the large scope of the social movement frame: freedom.  Throughout his campaign, Mousavi called for freedom of thought, and freedom of press (Escobar 2009).  The population of Iran is extraordinarily young; 70% of Iranian population is under the age of 30 and consists of one-third of eligible voters (Jahanbegloo 2009a).  The young population has become increasingly critical of the religious establishment and have become agitated by the lack of reform in society (Mashayekhi 2001).

Reform has been the core division among elites since the Iranian Revolution.  Two main factions exist in Iranian society: those for popular sovereignty and those for authoritarian religious rule (Jahanbegloo 2009b).  After the Revolution, there was debate over the power of the clergy.  The clergy quickly consolidated their power dominating all institutions in society: religion, law, military, education, etc.  The clerics in the Council of Guardians have the ability to veto; they have continued to make use of this power by vetoing reform legislation and secular political candidates (Esposito 2005).  Repression of political thought and calls for democratization caused frustration among citizens which erupted into protests after the 2009 Iranian election.

2009 Iranian Election Protests and the State Response

The repression by elites was harsh throughout the protests.  Even before the elections, 21% of the secular websites and 11% of the reformist websites were censored (Kelly & Etling 2008). Between the day that the election results were announced and the day Ahmadinejad was inaugurated, 8 protesters were reported missing, 1017 were detained, and 78 were killed (The Guardian 2009).  Mass marches were held the day that the election results were announced and Mousavi immediately asked for the election results to be annulled.  Mousavi was supported by thousands of protestors, even the Iranian Soccer team showed their solidarity with the Reformist Candidate by wearing green during a game in Seoul.  (Timelines 2009).

Although early repression was harsh, the death of protestors rallied the opposition leading to a protest with over 100,000 people in Tehran for a “day of mourning” on June 18, 2009.  This protest gave rise to a counter-movement  which rallied against the protestors for causing civil unrest.  A counter-rally was held by Ahmadinejad’s supporters at the home of former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, whose family had been seen supporting the protests (BBC News 2009a).

Increased national and international support for the protests lead to an escalation of violence.  On November 19, 2009, Ayatollah Khamenei declared that the vote was valid and that opposition leaders and protestors “would be responsible for bloodshed and chaos” if the protests continued (Fathi 2009).  Repression became extraordinarily harsh after the highly visible death of a young Iranian woman, Neda Soltani.  Her death ignited the passion of the opposition and authorities reacted by ensuing with indiscriminate violence and massive detentions. Divisions among elites widened when daughter and five other family members of Rafangani, who is a former president, a current leader of the Assembly of Experts, and an influential cleric, were detained (Nasseri & Meyer 2009).

On June 21, 2009, Foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi blamed Western governments for instigating the protests.  The government was able to silence he protest movement after blaming Western influences, killing ten protestors, and detaining 457 protestors (BBC News 2009b).  Although Khomeini declared that the election was legitimate, on June 25, Mousavi reified his declaration that the votes were rigged and that peaceful protests should continue (BBC News 2009c).

On June 29, the Guardian Council certified the election results and declared Ahmadinejad the winner (Slackman 2009).  Turmoil was once again blamed on Western intervention (CNN 2009a).  On July 5, the United Student Front announced that it would hold demonstrations on the Anniversary of the 18 Tir Massacre, July 9 (Rise of the Iranian People 2009).  On July 9, 1999, a student uprising against the closing of the reformist newspaper, Salaam, lead to six days of protests with over 25,000 participants.  The protests on July 9, 2009, drew upon the momentum brought by the tenth anniversary.  It was reported that there was around 3,000 protestors, despite the large presence of Iranian police and the use of batons and tear gas (CNN 2009b).

Protestors continued to be repressed but elites started to voice their support for the protestors.  Rasanjani called for the release of protestors during Friday Prayers (CNN 2009c).  Also, the head of Iran’s judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi, called for the protestors to be freed (BBC 2009d).  But despite the gained momentum of the movement due to the division of elites, repression continued to contain the protests.  On July 30, the last day of the forty day mourning period of Neda Soltan, police violently repressed the mourning ceremony (Worth & Fathi 2009).  Harsh repression continued in order to contain the movement before Ahmadinijad’s inauguration on August 5, 2009.

Twitter and Resource Mobilization

Despite severe repression, the social movement was able to sustain itself.  According to Ronald Franscisco “Massacres appear to strengthen dissident leadership and mobilization.  Organizing a dissident movement is much easier after a massacre” (2005:78).  But in order to maintain the movement, a strong organizational network must already be put in place (Osa 2003).  I believe that Twitter was able to help maintain resource mobilization due to its decentralized infrastructure and anonymity capabilities.

Figure 1 shows that Twitter remained a constant force throughout the protests.  Data was gathered using the website Trendrr.  The graph shows the difference in the value of Tweets tagged “#iranelection” and the value of Google hits tagged “iran election” over time.  Where as Google hits quickly dissipated, tweets remained fairly consistent.  Tweets and blogs decreased in activity after the first wave of harsh repression and the first claim of Western intervention on June 21.  After the first drop in activity, Twitter remained fairly consistent, where as blogs decreased after the second call of Western intervention on June 29 and again after the severe repression to avoid protests on the tenth anniversary of the 18 Tir massacre.  Twitter was able to maintain contentious online chatter because micro-blogging takes much less time and attention than blogging, so it is much easier to maintain.  Also, Twitter is much more difficult to block than blogs due to Twitter’s decentralized infrastructure.

Twitter became a valuable mobilization tool because it was able to maintain contention despite the use of repression.  The protests were able to sustain mobilization because of the increasing cultural resources available to Iranians through their use of the internet as a mobilization tool.  Iran supports one of the largest online communities in the world amounting to approximately 60,000 active blogs.  Although online discourse is diverse, secular/reformist blogs are larger in number and share more resources than religious/conservative blogs (Kelly & Etling 2008).

Social movements are able to build off other movements tactical and cultural repertoires (Whittier 2004).  Iranian social movements have been using the internet as a mobilization tactic.  Iranian students have used opposition Internet sites to mobilize an opposition network (Mashayekhi 2001).  Iranian Kurdish nationalists have made use of the internet as a communication tool  to link transnational networks (Gresh 2009).  Iranian woman have made use of internet tactics to mobilize global networks and avoid government censorship (Hoodfar & Sadeghi 2009).  The internet has been used to maintain ties with the Iranian Diaspora, which has been mobilized to assist Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as the Society for Protecting the Rights of the Child, and International Woman’s Day (Ghorashi & Boersma 2009).  Despite the high level of online repression, Iranians have learned how to adapt their tactics and bypass internet censors (Shirazi 2008).

Iranians were able to make use of their technological suave and used Twitter to mobilize resources that would help bypass state regulation.  Twitter was used to quickly spread information and recruit hacktivists (Moscaritolo 2009).  Tweets posted linked to websites that assist the protestors by reporting missing persons, giving protest advice, planning protests, and giving advice on how to keep online anonymity and bypass internet censorship.  Anonymous Iran, a 4chan inspired group of hacktivists, teamed with Pirate Bay in order to organize advice about making your own proxy  to maintain anonymity and how to preform DDoS attacks (Anonymous Iran 2009).

Through the use of Twitter, the election protestors were able to mobilize organizational resources, quickly and cheaply.  The protestors made use of the Iranian diaspora and their ability to distribute information without state regulation.  Due to Twitter’s ability to translate information quickly, information was able to be sent globally with little effort.  Information was able to go viral through the use of re-tweeting (RT).  By pushing the RT button, information is spread to all of the tweeter’s followers, who can also distribute information by pushing a single button.

Twitter was a tool used to both organize information and distribute it to an international audience.  Videos and pictures of harsh repression were linked to Twitter and showcased the brutality of the Iranian regime.  This was able to help the movement gain valuable moral resources, including former presidents, influential clerics, and judges.

Twitter was used to mobilize human resources by widening the range of the movement and decreasing risk due to anonymity.  Due to the globalized aspects of Twitter, the local movement received support from an international audience.  Internationals organized and protested the Iran election by protesting in front of Iranian Embassies in London, the Netherlands, and Paris (Azpiri 2009).    Twitter was also used as an organizational tool to assist protestors on how to protect their anonymity.  Tweeters posted information and provided support on maintaining anonymity and many helped protesters link to websites that provide anonymity services, such as the Tor Project.  Tor Project provided Iranian users a way to maintain their anonymity; the number of bridge users jumped 1,200% from June 13 to June 23 (Lewman 2009).  Twitter facilitated human resource mobilization by providing a way for more people to become involved, despite their geographical location and by creating a free space that was not controlled by the state media.

Twitter was a valuable tool used to mobilize resources though out the 2009 Iranian election protests.  Networks are important when organizing against repressive regimes (Osa 2003).  Twitter was an important tactic because it provided the protestors a constant, international network whose decentralized structure made silencing near impossible.  The Twitter network diffused information, aggregated resources, decreased risks, strengthened collective identity and created a public sphere.

Conclusion

Twitter was an effective tool in mobilizing resources through out the 2009 Iranian elections, but there are problems with the use of Twitter as a mobilization tool.  The benefits of online anonymity and open access are a part of a double edge sword.  Government officials made use of online anonymity by setting up fake Twitter accounts and spreading misinformation (Twitspam 2009).  Also, government officials were able to track protests by viewing any information that Tweeters made open access.  Twitter can be a powerful force for both elite and opposition parties. But due to the experience and adaptability of the Iranian election protesters, Twitter became a valuable asset rather than a detriment for the social movement.

This paper has only explained the use of Twitter in social movement emergence.  Research needs to be expanded to also describe the influence Twitter has on social movement outcomes.  Networks facilitate success for social movements in repressive regimes (Osa 2003).  Tweets regarding the election protests are still occurring to this day (Twitter 2009).  Twitter has proved to be a consistent mobilization network and social movement research needs to look into this phenomenon.

Although Twitter was an effective tool in the 2009 Iranian Election protests, the protests cannot be described as a “Twitter Revolution.”  The protests were more effective through the use of Twitter as a mobilization tactic but the root of the protests are deep within society and effect thousands of Iranians who do not have internet access.  By reducing the protests to a “Twitter Revolution,” you minimize the range of the social movement.  Technology, media, and new modes of association have always played an important role in facilitating protests (Tarrow 1998), but the movements cannot be reduced to their tactics.  The protestors made use of the technology around them, but the roots of the protests go much deeper into Iranian society.  Twitter was a valuable tool, but the protests must be described by its goals and the cultural rift in Iranian society.  The protests were about freedom and democracy, not about Twitter.

References

Alamdari, Kazem. 1999.  “Who Holds the Power in Iran? Transition from Populism to Clientism to Pluralism.” Cira Bulletin 15 (1): 31-34.

Almeida, Paul and Mark Lichbach.  2003.  “To the Internet, from the Internet: Comparative Media Coverage of Transnational Protest.”  Mobilization 8 (3): 249-272.

Anonymous Iran.  2009.  “Why We Protest- Iran.” Anonymous Iran Home Page.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://iran.whyweprotest.net/).

Ayers, Michael. 2003. “Comparing Collective Identity in Online and Offline Feminist Activists.” Pp. 145-164 in Cyberactivism, edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Azpiri, Jon.  2009.  “Iran Election News: Worldwide Protests Ask ‘Where is My Vote?’.”  Now Public: Crowd Powered Media.  June 14.  Now Public Website.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/iran-election-news-worldwide-protesters-ask-where-my-vote).

BBC News.  2009a.  “Masses Mourn Protestors in Iran.”  June 18.  BBC News Website.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8108115.stm).

BBC News.  2009b.  “West ‘Seeks Iran Disintintigration’.”  June 22.  BBC News Website.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8112176.stm).

BBC.  2009d.  “Iran Judge Urges Arrests Decision.” July 27.  BBC News Website.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8170847.stm).

BBC News.  2009c.  “Iran’s Mousavi Defies Crackdown.”  June 25.  BBC News Website.  Retrieved October 15, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8118783.stm).

Berman, Ari.  2009. “Iran’s Twitter Revolution.” The Nation.  June 15.  The Notion Blog. Retrieved November 28, 2009 (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/443634).

Cardoso, Gustavo and Pedro Pereira Neto. 2004. “Mass Media Driven Mobilization and Online Protest: ICTs and the Pro-East Timor Movement in Portugal.” Pp. 147-136 inCyberprotest: New Media, Citizens and Social Movements, edited by Wim van de Donk, Brian D. Loader, Paul G. Nixon and Dieter Rucht. New York, NY: Routledge.

CNN.  2009a.  “Ayatollah: Western ‘Lies’ Depict Iranians as ‘Rioters’.”  July 6.  CNN Website.  Retrieved October 15, 2009 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/06/iran.khamenei.enemies.unrest/index.html).

CNN.  2009b.  “Iranian Forces Disperse Protestors with Batons, Tear Gas.” July 10.  CNN Website.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/09/iran.protests.anniversary/index.html).

CNN.  2009c.  “Clashes as Key Iranian Cleric Warns Leaders.” July 18.  CNN Website.  Retrieved October 15, 2009 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/17/iran.rafsanjani/index.html).

Earl, Jennifer. 2006. “Pursuing Social Change Online: The Use of Four Protest Tactics on the Internet.” Social Science Computer Review: 24 (3): 362-377.

Earl, Jennifer and Alan Schussman. 2003. “The Site of Activism: On-line Organizations, Movement Entrepreneurs, and the Changing Location of Social Movement Decision Making.”Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change: 24: 155-187.

Earl, Jennifer and Katrina Kimport. 2008. “The Targets of Online Protest: State and Private Targets of Four Online Protest Tactics.” Information, Communication & Society: 11 (4): 449-472.

Escobar, Pepe.  2009.  “Iran’s Green Revolution.” The Real News Network: The Future Depends on Knowing.  June 12.  The Real News Network Website.  Retrieved October 15, 2009. (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3852).

Esfahani, Hadi Salehi and M. Hashem Pesaran. 2009. “The Iranian Economy in Twentieth Century: A Global Perspective.” Iranian Studies: 42 (2): 177-211. Faris, Robert, Andrew Lewman, Stareh Derakhshesh, Sam Sadaei and Richard Kraemer. Center for International Media Assistance. July 7. Special report. Retrieved October 15, 2009 (http://cima.ned.org/events/new-media-in-iran.html).

Esposito, John.  2005.  Islam: The Straight Path.  3rd ed.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Faris, Robert and Bruce Etling. 2008. “Madison and the Smart Mob: The Promise and Limitations of the Internet for Democracy.” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs Journal: 32 (2): 65-85.

Fathi, Nazila.  2009.  “Iran’s Top Leader Dashes Hopes for a Compromise.” The New York Times.  June 19.  The New York Times Website.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8108115.stm).

Francisco, Ronald.  2005.  “The Dictator’s Dilemma.” Pp. 58-84 in Repression and Mobilization, edited by Davenprot, Christian, Hank Johnston, and Carol Mueller.  2005.  Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 

Garrett, R. Kelly. 2006. “Protest in an Information Society: A Review of Literature on Social Movements and New ICTs.” Communication and Society: 9 (2): 202-224. Gasper, Phil. 2009. “Which Side Are You On?” International Socialist Review: 67: 23-24.

Garrido, Maria and Alexander Halavais. 2003. “Mapping Networks of Support for the Zapatista Movement: Applying Social-Networks Analysis to Study Contemporary Social Movements.” Pp. 165-184 in Cyberactivism, edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ghoreshi, Halleh and Kees Boersma. 2009. “The ‘Iranian Diaspora’ and the New Media: From Political Action to Humanitarian Help.” Development and Change: 40 (4): 667-691.

Goodwin, Jeff.  2001.  No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gresh, Geoffrey F. 2009. “Iranian Kurds in the Age of Globalisation.” Iran and the Caucasus: 13: 187-196.

Hoodfar, Homa and Fatemeh Sadeghi. 2009. “Against All Odds: The Women’s Movement in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Development: 52 (2): 215-223.

Iran Press Watch.  2009.  “Iran’s Treatment of the Baha’is, Some Responses from Civil Society Protesting these Violations.” Religion and Human Rights 4: 91-100.

International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran (IASW).  2006.  “Iranian Government Crushed Tehran Buss Drivers’ Strike! An Urgent Appeal.” IASW. January 26.  IASW Website.  Retrieved November 29,  2009. (http://www.workers-iran.org/Vahed/Crushed%20Strike.htm).

Jahanbegloo, Ramin. 2009a. “Iran’s Crisis of Legitimacy.” New Perspectives Quarterly 26 (3): 14-16. Retrieved October 15, 2009. (http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2009_summer/04_jahanbegloo.html).

Jahanbegloo, Ramin. 2009b. “Special Guest Editorial: Legitimacy Crisis and the Future of Democracy in Iran.” Consetllation: 16 (3): 361-362.

Javadanfar, Meir. 2008. “Iran’s Genuine Energy Concerns.” Middle East Analyst. June 8. Middle East Analyst Website. Retrieved November 29, 2009 (http://middleeastanalyst.com/2008/08/08/irans-genuine-energy-concerns/).

Jungherr, Andreas.  2009.  “The Digiactive Guide to Twitter for Activism.” April 7. Digiactive Website.  Retrieved November 29,  2009 (www.digiactive.org/wp-content/uploads/digiactive_twitter_guide_v1-0.pdf).

Kelly, John and Bruce Etling.  2008.  “Mapping Iran’s Online Public: Politics and Culture in the Persian Blogosphere.” April 5. The Berkman Center for Internet and Society Website.  Retrieved October 15, 2009 (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public-PERSIAN.pdf).

Kidd, Dorthy. 2003. “Indymedia.org: A New Communications Commons.” Pp. 47-70 inCyberactivism, edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Levinson, Charles. 2008. “Iran’s Ayatollah Overrules Ahmadinejad.” USA Today.  January 21.  USA Today Website. Retrieved November 29, 2009 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-01-21-iran_N.htm).

Lewman, Andrew.  2009.  “Online Anonymity.”  July 7.  Verney Conference Management Website.  Retrieved October 15, 2009 (www.verney.ca/onap2009/presentations/946.pdf).

MacEoin, Denis.  1988.  “The Baha’is of Iran: The Roots of Controversy.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies: 14 (1): 75-83.

Mashayekhi, Mehrdad. 2004.  “The Revival of the Student Movement in Post-Revolutionary Iran.”  International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society: 15 (2): 283-312.

Masood, Ehsan.  2006.  “Islam and Science: An Islamist Revolution.”  Nature 44:22-25.

Mc Adam.  1982.  Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

McCaughey, Martha and Michael D. Ayers. 2003. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-21 in Cyberactivism, edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Moscaritolo, Angela. 2009.  “Iran Election Protesters use Twitter to Recruit Hackers.” SC Magazine. June 15.  SC Magazine Website.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://www.scmagazineus.com/iran-election-protesters-use-twitter-to-recruit-hackers/article/138545/).

Mottaz, Laura. 2009. “The Role of New Media in the 2009 Iranian Elections.” Center for International Media Assistance. July 7. Special report. Retrieved October 15, 2009 (http://cima.ned.org/reports/new-media-in-iran-report.html).

Mousavi, Mir Hossein. 2009. “Iran Presidential Debate – Mousavi -Ahmadinejad.” YouTube.  June 3.  YouTube Website.  Retrieved Nobember 17, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/v/f5gGxwDPTTk).

Nasseri, Ladane and Henry Meyer.  2009.  “Ten Killed in Iran Unrest, Rafsanjani Relatives Held (Updated 2).” Bloomberg.  June 21.  Bloomberg Website.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aBGL8pePea4g).

Oso, Mary Jane.  2003.  “Networks in Opposition: Linking Organizations through Activists in Polish People’s Republic.”  Pp. 77-104 in Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, edited by M. Diani and D. Mc Adam.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rise of the Iranian People.  2009.  “United Student Front Announced that on July 9th, They Will Participate in Demonstrations!” July 5.  Rise of the Iranian People Website.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://riseoftheiranianpeople.com/2009/07/05/united-student-front-announces-demonstrations-july-9th/).

Rojas, Fabio. 2009. “Technology, Structure, and Heterogeneity Among American Antiwar Organizations.” Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 26: 221-247.

Shirazi, Farid. 2008. “Social Networks Within Filtered ICT Networks: A Case Study of the Growth of Internet Usage Within Iran.” Pp. 299-317 in  IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Volume 282: Social Dimensions of Information and Communication Technology Policy, edited by Chrisanthi Avgerou, Matthew L. Smith, and Peter van den Besselaar. Boston, MA: Springer.

Slackman, Michael.  2009.  “Iran Council Certifies Ahmadinejad Victory.” The New York Times.  June 29.  The New York Times Website.  Retrieved October 15, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html).

Sustar, Lee and S. Sepehri. 2009. “Iran: Rebellion and Reaction.” International Socialist Review: 67: 13-22.

Tarrow, Sidney.  1998.  Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics.  2nd ed.  New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Tavakoli-Targhi, M. 2008.  “Anti-Baha’ism and Islamism in Iran.” Pp. 200-231 in The Baha’is of Iran: Socio-Historical Studies, edited by Dominic Parviz Brookshaw and Seena B Fazel. London, UK: Routledge.

The Guardian.  2009.  “Iran’s Dead and Detained.” Data Blog: Facts are Sacred.  Nov 4.  The Guardian Website.  Retrieved November 29, 2009 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/04/iran-dead-detained-protests-elections).

The Real News Network.  2009. “The Vote that Could Change Iran.” The Real News Network:The Future Depends on Knowing.  June 12.  The Real News Network Website. Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3855).

Timelines.  2009.  “2009 Iranian Presidential Election.” Timeline Website.  Retrieved November 29, 2009 (http://timelines.com/topics/2009-iranian-presidential-election).

Transparency International. 2009. “Corruption Perceptions Index 2009.” Transparency International: The Global Coalition Against Corruption. November 17.  Transparency International Website. Retrieved November 29, 2009 (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009).

Twitspan.  2009.  “Fake Iran Election Tweeters.” June 17.  Twitspam Website.  Retrieved October 15, 2009 (http://twitspam.org/?p=1403).

Twitter. 2009.  “Real-time Results for *iranelection.” December 5. Twitter Website.  Retrieved December 5, 2009 (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23iranelection).

van de Donk, Wim, Brian D. Loader, Paul G. Nixon and Dieter Rucht. 2004. “Introduction: Social Movements and ICTs” Pp. 1-26 in Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens and Social Movements, edited by Wim van de Donk, Brian D. Loader, Paul G. Nixon and Dieter Rucht. New York, NY: Routledge.

Vegh, Sandor. 2003. “Classifying Forms of Online Activism: The Case of Cyberprotests against the World Bank.” Pp. 71-96 in Cyberactivism, edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wharton, Billy.  2009.  “Selling Iran: Ahmadinejad, Privatization and a Buss Driver Who Said No.”  Dissident Voice. June 28.  Dissident Voice Website.  Retrieved November 29, 2009 (http://www.dissidentvoice.org).

Whittier, Nancy.  2004.  “The Consequences of Social Movements for Each Other.”  Pp. 531-551 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by D. Snow, S.Soule and H. Kriesi. Oxford: Blackwell.

Worth, Robert and Nazila Fathi.  2009.  “Iran Gathering Is Broken Up.”  The New York Times. July 30.  The New York Times Website.  Retrieved October 15,  2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/middleeast/31iran.html?_r=1&hp).

Wray, Stefan. 1999. “On Electronic Civil Disobedience.” Peace Review: 11 (1): 107-111.

I’ve known quite a few “emo” kids, but in reality, I believe they characterize more post-emotional traits. “Emo” kids usually listen to music that talks about how life comes at you and you have no ability to stop it. Personally, I find it a bit too much like a child whining. Postemotionalism is a type of luxury syndrome that occurs when you are given everything. While you take every news event, product, or emotion thrown at you because it is what is easily accessible, you despise the fact that you are being dominated and unable to act on your own. While hating authority you accept it and internalize your anger and other emotions while still not making a true commitment to anything.

The sacred feelings of magic create a feeling of something that is untouchable. The loss of the ideal created by the sacred has weakened the collective conscious. Mass media makes everything available to everyone. Even the process of drug rehabilitation has been mediatized. With so much knowledge, commitment is impossible because there are so many different view points you have become accustomed to. Nothing is sacred anymore due to mass media. I believe that Stjepan Mestrovic’s “Postemotional Society” has been established due to the annihilation of the sacred.

The collective conscious in American society is collapsing. The collective conscious transcends the individual. According to Durkheim, “Collective representations are the product of an immense cooperation that extends not only through space but also through time; to make them, a multitude of different minds have associated, intermixed, and combined their ideas and feelings; long generations have accumulated their experience and knowledge.” The collective values create a collective identity establishing a people by the ideals of their perceived ancestors. You are no longer you; you become a part of something greater and stronger than yourself. The sum is not equal to the parts.

The collective conscious is represented through the use of symbols. Mestrovic writes: Social life is made possible only by a vast symbolism, in Durkheim’s sense of the symbol as the integral component of the emotions that hold society together.” Meanings become attached to symbols in order to help individuals comprehend the complex ideals of the collective. Durkheim explains: “We cannot detect the source of the strong feelings we have in an abstract entity that we can imagine only with difficulty and in a jumbled way. We can comprehend those feelings only in connection with a concrete object whose reality we feel intensely.” Ideals like freedom are attached to the flag, intolerance to the swastika. Even those symbols are being broke down. Hindus are reestablishing the swastika not as a symbol for Nazi Germany but to let good prevail through happiness and fertility. Flags are being seen as relics established through the use of slavery. Symbols are no longer able to capture a true meaning to define a collective conscious. It is difficult to attach yourself to a symbol because there are so many different meanings established for the symbol. This leads to what Mestrovic calls postemotionalism which is characterized by a lack of commitment.

Postemotionalism has developed due to the breakdown of civil religion and the prevailing strength of utilitarianism. One of the prevailing ideals in American society is freedom and the strength of the republic. Freedom in an American sense is the freedom to pursue ones own ends. It is believed that by having unrestrained freedom to pursue ones desires the whole community will prosper. With monopolies apparent, the idea of equal opportunity and freedom are slowly falling apart. American ideologies are also built on the concept of the republic. The republic is created when everyone has equal political rights and equal political access. But corruption is obviously apparent. And as Bellah writes, “Corruption is, in the language of the founders of the republic, the opposite of republican virtue. It is what destroys republics.” With unrestricted access to public information, individuals are able to see the inequality and corruption apparent in postemotional society.

There has been a complete loss of ideals. Bellah writes, “A republic as an active political community of participating citizens must have a purpose and a set of values.” In postemotional society, there is no concrete set of values. Values are rated according to polls and change as the audience changes. Tolerance is always necessary because numerous amounts of other people determine values. Mestrovic writes, “Postemotional, post-other-directed society is too sophisticated cognitively to commemorate or remember any historical even without arguing about its meaning, cynically debunking someone else’s interpretation in order to promote one’s own, and, ultimately, without Balkanizing.” All of the ideals and values become debunked until there is nothing left. There is no meaning. There can be no real emotion without a real meaning to respond to.

Due to the rise in utilitarianism, the cult of the individual has developed. Simmel writes, “As soon as the ego had become sufficiently strengthened by the feeling of equality and universality, it sought once again inequality- but this time an inequality determined only from within.” There has been an emergence of freedom of self expression and liberalism. But it is not about the original concept of Enlightenment freedom, it is just a small cleaned up part of the total concept. Mestrovic states that “The Enlightenment was about more than individualism, human rights, science, rationality, and other phenomena that are glorified by modernist. The Enlightenment was also about civil and religious wars, mass executions, witch hunts, colonialism, slavery, and other unsavory phenomena.” All of the negative aspects are taken out and new, cleaned up versions of emotions are redistributed to the masses. The emotion involved with the concept of individualism is no longer authentic.

In all, there has been a complete loss of the sacred. Something that is sacred is something that is not accessible to all. The idea that something is untouchable to some leads to a feeling of magic. The collective concept of magic is created through collective effervescence. Collective effervescence is spontaneous and unrehearsed. Mestrovic writes, “Social life is defined by its hyper spirituality. Ideas are social products of the second degree which have a life of their own and are subject to the yet unknown laws of collective ideation. But this collective ideation is born in explosions of ‘collective effervescence’ that are primarily emotional, collective experiences.” Life is primarily emotional and by taking away the sanctity of emotion you are taking away the sanctity of life.

Mass media has made sure that all is profane. Everything is accessible to all. Constant information is given. But the overflow of information has stunned the individual because it is so conflicting that it is incomprehensible. Not only does mass media overflow information, perceptions, and emotions, it all frames them. The reality of it is tarnished because it becomes censored and magically crafted to the point that the viewer doesn’t recognize the difference from reality and fantasy. Live television is no longer live because live information is unpredictable and therefore dangerous to modern society. Different angles can be used to create that Hollywood magic and go unnoticed by the viewers.

The television also distances the viewer from the event and those who are experiencing the even with them. You no longer have to go to an actual church to attend mass; you can watch it on television or TiVo it so you can be in the comfort of you own home on your own time. But without the collective interaction, collective effervescence is difficult to achieve. People feel isolated and unattached but are unmotivated to interact and change their feelings of anomie due to the ease of acquiescing to postemotionalism.

Mass media also introduces the individual to an abnormally large amount of emotional causes. Mestrovic states, “But all this luxurious emotion leads to compassion fatigue, anomie as the malady of infinite desires that can never be satisfied, and a diffuse anxiety that colors almost every waking hour, among other pathologies.” The individual is introduced to numerous amounts of problems and many different sides to that issue. The individual is overloaded by the emotions to the point that they no longer feel like there is anything that can be done or should be done. Anxiety plagues the postemotional individual. They know that something is wrong but don’t necessarily know what it is. They are overloaded with problems so they worry about these problems without the ability to act, causing fear and resentment.

Mass media is able to frame images and project sanitized versions of reality. It is also able to feed emotional stimuli to the public. Even on comedy shows there is a generated laughing cue that tells the viewer when to think something is funny. Scary movies are more about the emotions invoked by the music than the actual action. Food is perceived as something capable of conjuring emotion such as in Mc Donald’s slogan, “I’m lovin’ it”. Mestrovic concludes: “The McDonaldization of emotions has seen an attempt to make the Enlightenment project, therapy, civilization, and communities all seem predictably ‘nice’ and to create Disneyesque, artificial realms of the authentic.” By prepackaging emotions, it increases predictability which is a necessary function of the well polished machine of post emotional society.
Punishment has always been a way to strengthen the collective conscious.

Law assures the life of society. Durkheim writes, “The law is not something sacred in itself, it is a means to an end.” Law becomes sacred because it is a way to create social order. Those who break the moral codes and go against the collective conscious are punished as a form of vengeance preformed by society. Without punishment, norms are viewed as acceptable to violate.
Recently law in American society is becoming more relevant but more fluid. Law must be concrete in order to assure social order and ease social anxiety. The excess of lawyers has led to the dissection of law. What is right and what is wrong no longer matters, in fact it is forever under debate. Life of society is instable. People are anxious about what will happen next and constantly fear the unpredictable. It is perceived that law no longer can protect the individual or the community. Mestrovic writes, “The state must punish crime, not out of cruelty, but because this organized for of vengeance is part of society’s need to revivify itself in the face of all crime, and especially crime that leads to murder.” Society has become so isolated that crime is no longer seen as an act against society but as an act against an impersonal individual. The depersonalization created by the post emotional gaze allows manipulation through entertainment. Although the masses are entertained and satisfied in the act of consumption, the collective conscious is being destroyed. No one is able to know the difference between right and wrong because rewards and punishment are mediatized and morality is based upon framed, unrealistic, entertaining opinions.

By succumbing to the prepackaged emotions provided for society, you are allowing yourself to be dominated by society. Postemotional society has become Balkanized and has led to extreme intolerance. Simmel states, “It must therefore be emphasized that the common submission to a ruling power by no means always leads to unification but, if the submission occurs under certain conditions, to the very opposite of it.” This happens when the ruling power seems so untouchable that people feel like they are incapable of having a real fight so they fight against each other. Domination makes individuals despise the leader because they have less power than the leader. Yet at the same time a group mentality is created under the form of domination and as social creatures we love the feeling of being a part of a group. This leads to the ambivalence present in post emotional society and creates what Nietzsche would call a herd of sheep. Postemotional society is characterized by a group mentality always wanting to follow the herd. And the postemotional character has been fed everything. Led to clean water and given shelter. The postemotional sheep wants to be able to do things on their own but don’t want to go through the hassle of learning it. They ask “Why be uncomfortable?” because they don’t really believe that they can ever really learn. Knowldege is limitless, so why try to conquer it. Postemotional characters are unsure of their selves and their entire community.

Rituals are necessary to strengthen and create a collective conscious and collective effervescence. Unfortunately rituals in postemotional society are not engaging enough to stimulate the feeling of collective effervescence. Nothing is ever seen directly, it is always seen through some form of inaccessible gaze. Rituals have become short, efficient, and have lost all meaning. Everything has become rationalized and is unable to really stimulate emotions. Even emotions become predictable and unpredictability is needed to create collective effervescence. There are rational stages of grief and set amount of days to deal with a breakup. Feelings are not appropriately and individually addressed. They are given to you and you are expected to follow the pattern of feelings society ascribes. Rituals no longer are able to create the feelings necessary to increase the sanctity of the community.

In order to try to make up for the loss of the sacred, post emotional society tries to re-enchant the public and recapture lost collective effervescence. Mestrovic writes, “In an age of induced childbirth, induced peace treaties, and most things induced rationally, collective effervescence is also induced.” Old feelings that once created a sense of community are recycled and provide a sanitized version of an authentic feeling. Museums are able to recreate the emotions of the Holocaust by assigning a role of a “real” victim to participants so they too can experience the “real” fear and concept of loss created by the Holocaust. Pilgrimages and past emotions are recreated to produce post emotions viewed from an unrealistic tourist gaze. The experience is not real so the emotions created by it are not real.

The loss of the sacred has created a society of spectators with no real motivation or knowledge to act. The problem is that I see this every day. People smile and say “howdy” not to be friendly but because it is an obligation. Niceness has become an obligation. People no longer feel the need or value for sticking up for what is right. If someone sees something wrong they are unable to process their emotions on their own because it is constantly fed to them. People have become complacent and comfortable. There is no sense of who we, as a people, are because we, as a people, do not formally establish our selves. We are ambivalent. This turns people into a complete waste of space because we are just mirrors that reflect every one else’s ideas. We are losing ourselves.

The real depressing part is that I do not think we can get beyond this well polished machine. Sometimes progress seems impossible so we are happy to be comfortable. The sheep waiting for slaughter is compliant and comfortable because it refuses to take any control. But we know that everything is breaking down and are anxious and in need of Klonopin. Nothing is stable so the personality is unable to be stable. The postemotional character has no concept of what is right and what is wrong and doesn’t really care enough to know or act on its behalf. The whole concept of postemotionalism has angered me because I feel its presence and I too feel powerless.

Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club describes a Nietzsche influenced reaction to modern materialist culture. In Fight Club, the narrator Joe is trapped by consumerism and all the flaws of materialism and capitalism. While fighting internally with modern day consumption, Joe manages to create a super human personality, Tyler Durden. Tyler recognizes the flaws of society and is not afraid to exert his power. Tyler is free in all the ways Joe is not. He is not trapped in bureaucracy, capitalism, and materialism. Bound to no morals but his own, Tyler is able to fully express his individuality. Tyler is Nietzsche’s idea of the “over man” who controls his own life.

Throughout the novel, Joe points out the flaws of capitalism that have controlled his life. He believes that the proletariats are entrapped in bureaucracy and controlled by consumerism which causes individuals to become alienated. The current mode of production, capitalism, creates a loss of self where no one is able to exert their full power and maximize their capabilities. Capitalism confines and binds the individual to a set of inflexible rules and regulations. People are forced to follow the pack and are not allowed to lead the pack. This restores the class order but creates unsatisfied “worker bees”.

One of the greatest flaws of materialism is that is creates alienation of both self, group, and product. Marx believes that “He [The proletariat] becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack that is required of him” (18). Instead of maximizing potential, the proletariat just does what the machine asks, losing individuality. The means of production does not allow individuals to think for themselves. Instead they are only allowed to do what the machine or bureaucratic structure allows them to do. This binds the individual, and they are not able to fulfill their maximum potential.

Group alienation also occurs in modern materialism. Joe attends support groups because he has become fed up with this alienation. He feels unable to really connect with people. Joe believes that “If this might be the last time they saw you, they really saw you… People listened instead of just waiting for their turn to speak. And when they spoke, they weren’t telling you a story. When the two of you talked, you were building something, and afterward you were booth different than before” (Palahniuk 98). In society, people have stopped interchanging diverse ideas. Instead people have been torn into various factions where no one truly communicates. The routine of the bureaucratic structure does not allow people to discuss ideas because everything is planned and no communication is necessary since the complete structure of the product has already been defined.

The proletariat becomes alienated from product as well. Joe recognizes that “You do the little job you’re trained to do. Pull a lever. Push a button. You don’t understand any of it, and then you just die” (Palahniuk 2). The art of production is lost, and the individual is no longer making a personally inspired material. Also, the proletariats try to express their creativity not by creating an object buy by buying one. The creativity expressed in making something is lost in order to maximize production.

The rationality of capitalism fosters the development of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy entraps the individual and everything becomes predictable. Weber describes bureaucracy as an “iron cage” that does not allow individual exceptions, causing the individual to no longer matter. Everything becomes standardized and predictable. Joe makes a reference to the fact that everything is planned: “My boss is wearing his blue tie, so it must be a Thursday” (Palahniuk 118). With everything being the same, life becomes boring and tasks become monotonous. With bureaucracy, the individual becomes ignored and is forced to follow a set of prewritten rules, which oppresses individuality.

People in materialist culture become “means to an end”. Joe believes that “the things you used to own, now they own you” (Palahniuk 34). Proletariats have been conditioned to consume by the bourgeoisie. The proletariats continuously consume and sell themselves in order to gain more material. This causes them to become subjects rather than objects. Marx explains this process: “These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market” (18). People no longer control their own lives, the material controls them.

The family is also reduced to treat people as means to an end. Marx writes, “The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation” (13). Joe saw that family has been reduced to a method of expanding material value. He speaks of his own childhood saying, “My dad, he starts a new family in a new town about every six years. This isn’t so much like a family as it’s like he sets up a franchise” (Palahniuk 41). The family is not valued from an emotional perspective, but from a material one.

In all, materialism causes a feeling of anomie. People no longer feel connected with society; they feel like a mechanism of society. Marx describes that “in bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality” (29). Bureaucracy and alienation do not allow the individual to fully develop themselves and maximize their potential. Consumerism and materialism foster people to feel disconnected and asleep. Joe illustrates the feeling of anomie: “The insomnia distance of everything, you can’t touch anything and nothing can touch you” (Palahniuk 11). The feeling of anomie causes the individual to not recognize their own power because they are confined by materialism and are unable to relate to society.

After Joe recognizes the flaws of materialism, he creates another personality named Tyler, who can be described as Nietzsche’s perception of the “over man”. Tyler continuously challenges himself by taking Nietzsche’s advice and “living dangerously”. He tries to bring consciousness to modern men so they realize that they have nothing to lose and that they are powerful. Tyler’s whole motive is to create a revolution that destroys society in order to make a new one that will not bind the individual.

According to Tyler, in order to maximize life, individuals must continuously test themselves. Tyler takes on Nietzsche’s advice: “Let us divinely strive against one another” (Novak 144). The only way to fully improve one’s self is to constantly battle with one another. For this reason, Tyler invents Fight Club, which is not as much about fighting as it is about challenging one other. In the end, the challenging of various ideas or fists helps them to become stronger. The experimentation of life will allow the purist and strongest forms of thought to emerge. Tyler believes that “A person had to work hard for it but a minute of perfection was worth the effort” (Palahniuk 23). The only way to emerge as a “over man” is by living life as if it is a battle to perfect one’s self. It takes work and continuous self discipline; however, it is the start of creating strong character.

Tyler also took Nietzsche’s approach to morality. Since “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of the ruling class” (Marx 34), morality is also an idea of the ruling class. The ruling class’s motive is to keep its power, so it uses morality to do so. According to Nietzsche, “to call the taming of an animal its ‘improvement’ is in our ears almost a joke. Whoever knows that what goes on in menageries is doubtful whether the beasts in them are ‘improved’. They are weakened, they are made less harmful” (Novak 73). In other words, morality is a restraint used by the bourgeoisie so that people feel it is immoral to exert their power and challenge the ruling class.

In order to transform society, the proletariat must realize it is powerful, oppressed, and has nothing to lose. People tend to go though their day without conflict or challenges. The narrator remarks, “If you’ve never been in a fight, you wonder. About getting hurt, about what you’re capable of doing against another man” (Palahniuk 43). Society educates the individual to follow directions and see conflict as negative. Tyler creates the Assault Committee “to remind these guys what kind of power they still have” (Palahniuk 111). By provoking and enraging people, Tyler brings out strong powerful emotions that society has forced humans to repress.

The proletariats must also realize that they are being oppressed by the bourgeoisie. People are not maximizing their happiness or potential with the current mode of production. Tyler preaches: “You have a class of young strong men and women, and they want to give their lives to something. Advertising has these people chasing cars and clothes they don’t need. Generations have been working in jobs they hate, just so they can buy what they don’t really need” (Palahniuk 141). The proletariat is stuck in a cycle that reinforces the bourgeoisie and widens the gap between the classes. Although the proletariat is the one who performs manual labor, the lazy bourgeoisie are able to invest and make the largest amount of profit.

In order to gain the courage to revolt against society, the proletariats must realize that they have nothing to lose. Joe writes the haiku: “Worker bees can leave/ Even drones can fly away/ The queen is their slave” (Palahniuk 54). Since the proletariats are the ones who actually do the work with the least benefits, they are the ones who should control society. People can only benefit from revolution that they deserve. If the proletariat recognizes this, revolution is eminent.

Tyler’s revolution occurs when people reject consumerism, act on their own ideas, and continuously challenge their capabilities. As noted earlier, consumerism traps the proletariat and only benefits the bourgeoisie. Tyler envisions a world where just the basic needs were met: “Picture yourself planting radishes and seed potatoes on the fifteenth green of a forgotten golf course” (Palahniuk 28). Instead of working to gain excess material, people would work just to get their basic needs served. The rest of the time individuals would be able to fully appreciate their existence and express their creativity.

In order to fully develop humanity, individuals must act on all desires, either good or bad. These rebels must be willing to act in accordance to their own will. They can not follow the ideas society gives them. Marx writes “the bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie” (22). The revolutionaries must reject society’s socialization and act on their own ideas about exerting power. Nietzsche believes “The strong are as naturally inclined to separate as the weak are to congregate” (Novak 100). Revolutionaries must separate from the norms of society and from the current mode of production. Tyler’s revolution would cease proletariat enslavement from capitalism and consumerism, giving the world time to flourish its creativity.

After recognizing the flaws in capitalism, Tyler plants the seeds to revolution using Nietzsche’s idea of creating the “over man”. I disagree with Tyler’s reaction to capitalism. One problem with his revolution is that he maintains a bureaucracy and power hierarchy within Fight Club. This allows Tyler to be free of alienation but keeps the “space monkeys” who participate in Fight Club from expressing themselves. They still do not know what Tyler is planning and are never free from product and group alienation. Tyler’s aggressive approach is also flawed. Working together and not against each other allows more progress. I believe that a group can challenge each other but work toward a collective goal. Rather than embracing aggressive behavior, people should be reeducated to reject negative feelings, such as greed and competition, fostered by the bourgeoisie. Society also needs to challenge all people intellectually, and there should be public access to a variety of ideas. This will allow individuals to test their own ideas by continuously rectifying them, slowly working for perfection.