The Internet: finishing the job the television unintentionally started

How the internet aids in bringing social justice movements of the 70s to fruition and inspires new ones to spring up with ease.

Like the first generation to grow up with the television, the first generation to grow up with the internet is fond of questioning the status quo. In his 1985 book, No Sense of Place, media scholar Joshua Meyrowitz explores the influence television had on the social and political uprising in the sixties and seventies in the United States. According to Meyrowitz, television exposed the country to how others experienced life in the US. While this may sound simple or obvious, this unprecedented level of exposure at that time proved to be quite powerful in uniting Americans, in spite of geographical constraints. Given the participatory nature of the internet, it should come as no surprise that the formation of communities only expanded at a seemingly exponential rate.

The “father of media studies,” Marshall McLuhan, wrote about this phenomenon of such unity felt across great distances in his book, The Medium is the Massage. McLuhan (1967) referred to this as the “global village” — i.e. as connected as a village and as expansive as the globe. Although he was writing about the television’s impact, McLuhan’s concept is arguably best applied to the behaviors enabled by the internet. There are, however, quite a few parallels between television and the internet. The television certainly helped make people feel connected to a larger group identity but now communicating within that group and participating in the group’s initiatives is made more possible than ever before, thanks to the internet.

Minority groups have historically struggled more than majority groups to build communities and demand change as a collective. The connective abilities of the internet, however, enable even some of the smallest minorities to unite. The television was sufficient in uniting women as a group because the population of women in the US is so large. Prior to the television, the information systems available to women was determined by their roles as mothers and homemakers. They were excluded from many male-dominated spheres (e.g. the office) while men had more access to the world, including women’s spheres. Although television did not originally portray working, independent women, they were able to gain insight regarding how the other half of the majority (men) lived. In so doing, women could see what they were not experiencing and recognize their lack of a place in much of the man’s world, leading to a questioning of the status quo.

The exposure of men’s previously private spheres (i.e. private to women) was enough. Meyrowitz claims, “the more a medium tends to reveal areas of group activity that might otherwise be private, the more it will undermine slow, staggered socialization processes” (60). Indeed, for women like Betty Friedan, that questioning led to the writing of their experiences and ideologies, which allowed similar-minded women to gain a sense of group identity. Eventually, television stations offered coverage to those who were questioning the dynamic of the country which ultimately enabled the majority of the country to become informed that a women’s liberation movement, at the very least, existed.

This uniting was made more feasible given how many women exist in the country. I argue that feeling a sense of group identity while realizing there are other women to your left and your right is more likely to ignite a movement than feeling that sense of group identity without such easy access to others within that group. Geographical constraints were not as limiting a factor for women in the US to unite as they would have been for the transgender community during the time because women are part of the majority. It’s simple: the fewer in a group, the more likely it is that physical locations will obstruct the group’s ability to unite in a way that makes a difference. Not only were women represented on television, but they occupied nearly half the population. The more people who are part of a group, the more likely it is to find and communicate with other group members and, ultimately, make a significant difference. The television, during the time, could not achieve the same results among the transgender community, for example, simply because the group is drastically smaller in population.

The “Eight Percent Speaks” movement at UNH would earn less attention from the university and from the community if not for their tie to the bigger and more prominent “Black Lives Matter” movement. That is, a small group of people in New Hampshire can feel represented by the country-wide presence of the group at large. This has the potential to both make them feel more motivated to stand up as well as force others to take them more seriously when they do. Online communities provide the mechanisms of support which help bloom collaborative motions for social change. Realizing not only are there others like you, but there are also others out there who support you can spring the idea of a movement. Pursuing and making real change feels more feasible when there are people behind you.

The transgender population is only estimated to occupy less than one percent of the overall US population. When access to other women is seemingly endless but access to other transgender people is few and far between, it is clear why a movement might struggle to gain prominence. There have always been transgender people, but the internet allowed this historically oppressed community a venue for discovering others like them. The internet brings many people together where they can voice their issues. It can aid in helping people feel more confident in their identities. When the identity of a group of people is not captured by the mainstream, the internet can be a breeding ground for niche interests and identities. Just like people can find others who, like them, obsessively play video games, gush over one specific celebrity, or seek out a Christian romantic partner, the transgender community is able to meet others like them, and, as a result, share ideas and experiences. In doing that, this group becomes more united than was previously feasible, given the constraints of physical locations.

The #MeToo movement is a perfect example of how these communities are built and how social movements can gather so many likeminded people with such speed. The functional use of a hashtag alone brings exposure to the pervasiveness of a topic. When these stories are shared among others in person, the scale of the issue at hand remains unknown. For this reason, the issue feels more specific to the individual as opposed to being viewed as a result of a systemic issue in our society. When these stories are shared with millions of others online, however, the scale of the issue at hand actually comes into question at the societal level. The internet ultimately enables a forced recognition regarding how many people think a particular way. When the scale of an issue is large enough, it is more difficult for it to be ignored.

The internet provided new platforms for people to express themselves in ways they may have otherwise felt incapable of doing within our society. Whether interacting with others anonymously or not, the internet provided spaces for all walks of life to find others like them. Otherwise difficult topics become normalized online as people who are willing to engage with them have a space to do so. Previously deemed hard boundaries begin to breakdown online. Room for things beyond the mainstream emerged. Information systems were no longer limited to twelve channels — meaning people across the country would not necessarily receive the same exact information. The internet is different from television in that it enables everyone the ability to participate in the production of and engagement with viewing/reading content. During the 70s, women watched men on television and questioned their own feelings of discontent in their lives and might then discuss those feelings with other women they knew. In other words, they were able to engage with that material with others like them. Having less access to others like them, minorities were not able to fully engage with the material they were watching and feel supported enough to form a revolution like women of that time. The internet allows people to engage with everything under the sun, with others too. Rather than being passive recipients of television content, people can now be active participants in internet content.

When Meyrowitz was writing, television content was mostly produced through a male lens. Still, Meyrowitz (1985) writes, “the more information is shared, regardless of its specific content, the more difficult it is to maintain traditional distinctions in behavior and world view” (215). Although early television content was not created with the goal of liberating women, they were at least represented. Because television content catered to mainstream interests and women are part of the majority, simple television exposure to men’s lives was capable of aiding the drive among women to revolt against the system. Because the internet caters to nearly all interests, it seems everyone can access a group of likeminded people who share the drive to revolt against something too. Ability to collaborate does not automatically lead to success in revolution, of course. Some minority groups are larger than others. But it is the internet that brings minorities together and ultimately forces their existence to be acknowledged.

Although it is certainly not smooth sailing for the trans community, their existence has not been ignored. The very existence of the documentary, Gender Revolution: A Journey with Katie Couric (2017), demonstrates just how prevalent transgender issues are in the country. Even if our current president is working against their rights, the trans community has successfully integrated transgender issues into public dialogue. The internet acted as a breeding ground for rejection of the status quo and as a result, the first generation with it accessed more niche interests and identities than was previously possible. Not so surprisingly, the “niche” is in opposition with the mainstream and consequentially, this generation is quite comfortable rejecting it.

Like Meyrowitz posited with television, “the new potential of electronic media to transform both work and home may finally remove the seeming necessity of the split in domestic and public domains and reintegrate men and women in a single social sphere of work and family” (225), the internet has enabled our society to desire a world in which we can all interact within a single sphere. Perhaps this means a future where people are at least more accepting of minorities. However, while minorities band together online, so do those who value that old status quo. Meninism and Alt-Right movements have breeding grounds on the internet too. This goes to show that it will not be an easy transformation to a minority-accepting future, as some groups work in opposition to already oppressed groups of people. Although I recognize the internet to unite countless groups of people together, the single sphere about which I write is a different from Meyrowitz’s. I envision a transformation of this sphere, in which there is not a further divided country, according to different groups, but instead a sphere in which diversity is both recognized and appreciated, but not oppressed. Instead of these different groups figuring out how to adapt to fit the mainstream, the mainstream itself will change.