Group Three.

The reading that struck me the most this week was the Castells reading on Mobile Civil Society. The topic of the paper is one that is extremely relevant to those of us in IC, not just for the sake of looking at how mobile phones affects communication and society, but also in how the conversation about new media and technology is played out. I think it is so important to recognize that yes, these outstanding incidents of civil coherence and mobility did take place- in some cases almost overnight. The people of the Philippines stood together in their pajamas to voice their complaints, and the South Koreans who were tired of someone they viewed as moral and courageous banded together to ensure enough votes would be cast in their favor. That being said, however, does that necessarily mean that Estrada was the monster he was ported to be? And what about the poor people who didn't have cell phones? As Castells rightly points out, their voice was never a part of the equation, and English media discredited them from the beginning when they stood behind their leader. In South Korea, its great that so many decided to vote, but was it because they really felt conviction in the righteousness of Roh or was it because they wanted to jump on a bandwagon with their peer group?

I may be cynical but I feel it is so important to discuss what is really happening on all levels with these incidents because I don't like the idea that all of a sudden mobile technology = freedom of expression for all and the ability to mobilize for revolution. The fact is, when I think of "flash mobs" I think of those weird cell phone commercials where people get together in Grand Central Station and do dances all at the same time and freak out all of the other passengers. Or, worse, I think about the groups of young people in Philadelphia and other US cities who would gather quickly in one spot and jump innocent bystanders, injuring many people and prompting a curfew in many cities, including Cleveland. The idea was the same... a short, snappy message including a location sent out to members of the individuals phone books. The end result? Violence, terror and chaos. The cell phones were not to blame, they were merely instruments. And I don't know about other people's parents, but my parent's are not tech savvy. They do know how to read text messages, however, but are extremely wary of anything that seems "mass produced". My father actually gets angry when people he doesn't already have in his phonebook text him; "big brother" and whatnot.

The point I guess I'm trying to make here is that cell phones in the hands of "the people" does not necessarily equal independent, moral justice for all. It is a tool that has become so common place in our lives that we use it to play games, call our mothers, and yes, text. It is great that in some instances, such as in the Arab Spring, that mobile technology helped the masses generate an outcome that they found favorable to the former government... but now what? Is it possible to replicate such success? And what about, as Castells mentions, governments like US and China who have anticipated these sorts of forms of communication and have already found ways to use it to their own advantage?

I think that communications scholars need to keep these thoughts in mind as they go forth touting the cell phone (which has been around for quite some time now people) as the new cure-all for oppressed peoples everywhere. I find myself tossing the cliché, "this too shall pass" around in my head. In this case, I think it's appropriate.