Can we be saved?

Theoretically, everything has room for improvement. Theoretically.

With social movements, it all depends on the people involved. Social networks provide many people with all the information regarding a social movement but if they don't plan on acting on it, chances are they probably aren't going to act on it. For example, say Sally sees McCain's tweet saying there's going to be a rally against the passing of Obama's Small Business Jobs Act. (Shame on you if you don't know that that's a real act!) Now that she knows about it... well whether or not she receives a reminder to go to it or some other follow up method of the like, if she hadn't planned on going to it in the first place, it's doubtful that she'd go just because of something like a reminder.

It's all about initial interest. People need to be self-motivated. They need to want to take action, real action. They have to want to follow through. I, myself, am having issues imagining a suitable follow-through method social networks could take other than perhaps sending reminders for events or meetings. If they could devise a way to make follow through easier, I'm sure that social networks would be able to help a cause a bit more. Maybe. But what could they do? And this is by all means not a rhetorical question, I really want to know! A follow through electronically is tough for me to imagine being truly successful. What more can you do online than sign petitions and provide info?


I apologize if I'm starting to sound redundant but it will always come back to the idea that social networks are the tools that people use to reach more people than traditional methods, like fishing lines and hooks. You send them out and hope someone will bite. The bait depends on your cause, the response is whether or not the fish is hungry/likes the bait. At the end of the day, the success of the movement depends on how many fish you've caught. And at the end of the day, if every fish sees the hook and line but chooses not to bite, you're left with one empty bucket on the way home.

Past v. Present

Pardon the language, but the point made is quite comical. I stumbled upon this picture and in thinking of the rebuttal to my "social networks are bad!" claim in the last post, I thought it should be shared.

This is precisely where social networks do not fail: in reaching a large audience and making information accessible. Though not much can actually be done once people are informed, being informed is the first step to having a successful social campaign. Without a large audience, the movement will suffer tremendously for there are strength in numbers. One small group cannot make a change as swiftly or effectively as a large group can. So, just to reiterate using a clever metaphor, using a social network is like making the batter to a cake. You have all you need, as in people are informed but you need to be able to take action and throw it in the oven to really make a cake.

The Power of a Click

Social activism. When one ponders upon these two words what exactly comes into mind? In my mind, I visualize picket fences and mobs, screaming for justice. Parades of people united under one cause, blow horns sounding and even violence. In our Black Social Movements class, we have heard of and witnessed the many ways social activism is brought to life. Particularly in a video depicting Marcus Garvey and his plight for Black Exodus and the colonization of Africa.

Nowadays, things are different. In a society where we receive more texts than letters, more tweets than phone calls and spend more time glued to the screen than having coffee or tea in someone elses' living room, it only makes sense that our movements towards social activism would parallel society's changes. I, for one, am guilty of such but one cannot help the age in which we were all raised: the Technological Era.

Have I taken part in "social network activism"? Well, yes and no.

Yes because I have taken it upon myself to join some facebook groups pertaining to topics of my interest such as "1,000,000 For Obama!" or "Click to Save Children in Haiti" and more along those same lines. If it shows up on my Facebook newsfeed and I feel connected to it, why wouldn't I join?

No because, well, let's face it. How does joining a group supporting Obama really help his cause? Not being 18, I wasn't able to vote. I did no campaigning. I may have talked to my friends about why I supported him and his platform but in reality me supporting him electronically did nothing to sway any others towards his cause. Sure I want to help starving homeless children in Haiti after the natural disaster destroyed the livelihoods of the many. But was I spreading the word and gaining support? Did I really help anyone?

The sad, sad answer is no, I really don't think by clicking and joining the group I did much (if anything) to support the actual cause. Everything nowadays is made to our convenience. We are able to shop online and have it shipped to our door rather than driving to the mall to look for clothes. We can take online courses rather than going to school and sitting in a classroom to listen to lecture. Rather than mailing our college applications, everything is done online. Social activism is no different.

Older generations may criticize our current "lazy" predicament with good reason. Yet, when everything else around us is constantly shifting towards more easy and convenient methods, why should fighting for a social cause be any different? I believe that social networks cannot be the only method of fighting for a cause. When used as a helpful tool to bring a cause to attention, it can be highly beneficial. Without physical, and I mean rallies and blow horns and passionate speeches, follow ups a cause will collapse under the meager foundation that is social network activism.

Don't all these angles make me seem dynamic?

After hearing of all the rage the Old Spice man seemed to be getting among my peers, (within reason for his advertisement is quite captivating) I have decided to shift gears and take different approach to this topic. Allow me to present Rachelle Woods.



Along the same lines humor-wise as the Old Spice man, no? She bluntly states my exact reason for choosing her, "You can relate to me because I'm racially ambiguous and market research shows that girls like you, love girls like me".

To list out all the appealing features she possesses would be a bit redundant for she clearly points them out to lightly mock the techniques tampon companies use to appeal to their audience i.e. "dynamic" camera angles to keep a viewer engaged, laughing and dancing to communicate sheer bliss of having this certain brand of tampon, white pants, perfect teeth and skin, etc. This humor seems to be catching on in the advertising community for one simple reason: it works. To mock the subliminal messaging advertisers use by acknowledging the viewer's awareness of their tactics alongside a comical exaggeration is humorous in that they are showing the viewers that companies are trying to influence them with sneaky little details that in reality, make nearly nonsensical reasons to buy their product. For example, Rachelle wearing white pants and has great hair will make viewers want her tampons.

The utilization of Rachelle's racial ambiguity as a marketing tactic to appeal to girls of all races provides an interesting contrast to the advertisements of brands from decades past, which we will investigate in the next blog. But for now, this spokesperson is presented as a youthful young woman, vibrant, exotic and loving the life she lives -- all because of the tampons she uses. As most girls know, receiving Mother Nature's "gift" once a month is enough for a girl to feel under the weather, to say the least. Yet Rachelle communicates a liveliness paired with flawless good looks as if to say (and actually saying it in the commercial), "buy what I use because you want to be just like me!" So my question is: would you buy her tampons?