When the 2016 National Elections neared, social media had been buzzing with discussions by Filipinos all over the country—sometimes even abroad— over the candidates, their respective platforms, and meta about voters and their choices.

These discussions added on to the multitude of issues constantly at the forefront of social media sites, such as feminism, politics, religion, the environment, and whichever celebrity happens to have a birthday, death, or new scandal.

While one’s primary instinct might have been to scroll pass the hundreds of thousands of comments, tweets, or links on these sites, one must also begin to understand that in the age of the Internet, social media has more and more become the individual’s primary channel of socio-political discourse of support and protest alike.

Given the new trends in discourse, a rift has appeared between groups of individuals who have the same end goal: Better quality discourse, which reaches more people and effects change. There are those who firmly believe that discourse is best conducted in-person, physically, and through the traditional legal channels. These would involve petitions, assemblies, lobbying, and peaceful protests. Equally solid in their beliefs are those who view the new avenues of social media as the new channels for involvement and information dissemination.

The question now would be whether those Likes on Facebook or those Retweets on Twitter mean the same thing to society, enough so that action is taking towards addressing the need the advocacy created.

Walking the streets

The use of social media is frequently attributed to the youth, and to an extent, the rich and urbanized. As such, it is rather difficult for many to see it as an inclusive means of discourse, particularly when most social discourse aims to lend voices to those who have been pushed into the margins.

Enrique Niño Leviste, PhD, a professor of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, notes that the traditional means of socio-political discourse are geared towards displaying strength in numbers about a particular advocacy, making that advocacy more convincing to the society.

When describing instances of traditional protest, Leviste points to Philippine Martial Law in the 1970s. He says, “Even though civil liberties were suspended, there were attempts by students to voice their displeasure and disdain by taking to the streets.” The benefit of this sort of protest was that there was a face to the displeasure, and that the groups expressing discontent were identifiable and had a presence in the socio-political sphere. He also notes, though,  “The demonstrations were not that rampant and regular in terms of being a frequent exercise because of the nature and political climate at the time,” he said. This means that there are physical and sometimes legal limitations to being a marginalized group, which has to protest in order to be heard. The very definition of being marginalized means that one’s views and concerns are trivialized, putting the individuals or the group in a vulnerable position.

In order to address this concern, Leviste adds that there is a second major vehicle of traditional socio-political discourse. These are what he called “people’s organizations,” and include but are not limited to unions, non-government organizations, and social movements. He states that these are “different mechanisms by which people, particularly those at the margins or peripheries, are able to express displeasure against the status quo, voice or propose alternatives to the status quo, and provide opportunities to pursue concrete actions on a persistent basis.”

The new colloquial

Common to both examples of traditional socio-political discourse is the need for the organised groups to have a physical base of operations. One theory for the new prevalence of social media use is that the need for simultaneously needing to be in the same physical space is bypassed. This is what Michele Zappavigna, PhD lecturer at the University of New South Wales School of the Arts and Media explores in her book, Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. She traces the origins of socio-political discourse online to microblogging, and the creation of “citizen journalists” who report on events that unfold in their close proximity. These are not only limited to the written word, but also include photos, videos, and sound clips. This phenomenon of social reporting was clearly demonstrated in the latest Ateneo bomb threat last March 28. Students were some of the first people to be informed of the goings-on in the university, because of their frequenting social media websites, both to publish and share content.

Zappavigna does note, though, “There is a difference between broadcasting information and engaging in dialogue or coordinating action,” she said. This observation begs the question of whether social media, a sharing and connecting-based avenue, is appropriate to engage in discussion.

Outgoing President of the Ateneo Debate Society Andre Miko Alazas believes so. “Social media represents a very good gauge of the populace’s first reactions to particular issues. Beyond that, social media makes it very convenient for us to engage with other’s opinions. Posts and comment exchanges happen quite fast, so we are exposed to a multitude of ideas by just scrolling through our feeds,” he said.

Aside from being able to reach a significant amount of information and opinions in a relatively small virtual space, social media sites also offer another benefit: Anonymity. Leviste points out that controversy is an integral part of Philippine politics because it helps deepen the democracy we have in the country. He says, “The day we discourage controversy in politics is the day democracy dies or weakens.” Controversy here could take the form of discussing unpopular issues, with the goal of being able to affect change in society. The protests against Martial Law could serve as an example, but other instances would range from advocating for indigenous people’s rights or land reform. These are concerns in which the state must choose to rule in favor of two or more parties, and discussion is needed to reach a consensus. He adds, “The birth of social media has somehow encouraged a vital section of PH society, the youth in particular, to engage in matters that don’t usually concern them: Politics.” In these discussions, social media offers anonymity, something Leviste likens to a buffer between the individual voicing his advocacies and the confrontation that may occur because of its unpopularity in society.

Trending

Given all the things social media sites can do to help an individual engage in social discourse, there are some things that have also arisen from their prevalence. Alazas says, “One major flaw is the tendency for misinformation to spread; many no longer verify sources. However, I think the flaws do not necessarily discredit social media as an avenue for discourse. It’s a matter of making sure we all use social media responsibly.” Because the vast information on the Inter-web is readily available, the burden of fact-checking and looking into what they see on social media is on the individual.

When using social media as one’s primary platform, the onus of proving that the discussion is relevant is also present. Together with the spread of political information, the spread of celebrity gossip, memes, selfies, and the general misuse and abuse of social media means that to many, social media is the avenue for the shallow, narcissistic, and privileged youth.

There are those who disagree with this sentiment though. Zappavigna writes that the use of memes as a social bonding tool, making use of humor in order to connect people. She adds that characteristics mannerisms on social networking sites like twitter, such as misspellings, exclamations, and the “all-caps,”—sentences and phrases in which all the letters have been capitalized—are a way for groups to communicate with each other and know they are of the same group, sort of like an inside-joke. Certain social groups will use their own particular language matrix, with their own syntax and rules. By ascribing to those rules, one makes it known to the general public that one belongs to a particular social group and espouses their values and advocacies.

Leviste says that social media sites promote discourse because they give individuals the ability to create meanings, to interpret meanings, and to make sense of and assert how they view reality. With regards to narcissism, he says, “[The use of social media sites] becomes appealing, especially now where individuality is put on a pedestal.”

In that sense, social media sites serve as social commentary for what the youth (its primary users) are experiencing, what they value, and what society has come to expect of them. Rather than dismiss their observations, we can use social media sites as a means to explore their context.

The future of discourse

While social media sites have come up on the rise, there is no reason for the traditional avenues of socio-political discourse to be shelved off. Alazas observes, “For many, sharing an opinion through a post or a comment might serve as a way to be ‘politically active’ in place of other avenues such as rallies. While discourse on social media has made some lazy, I also think it has inspired a lot more toward further action,” he says. Through social media change on the ground happens when individuals are exposed to issues and topics, which they would not known have existed otherwise. This is why the connective nature of social networking sites is important. Additionally, Alazas notes that, “Protests and rallies have been marketed as events on social media, with people spreading the word.”

Social media sites being the issues of the world at the individuals’ fingertips, and allow them a means to communicate and interpret these issues as they unfold in real time. The onus for change, though, rests on what actions individuals take regarding those issues. The channel for discourse alone does not determine the result.