The media is always a watchdog to the society and that it should disseminate information without fear or favor. However, during the1965 student antiwar protest, the media amplified the exercised bias in many ways. The media actively and physically participating in the students protest. Obliviously, this move was unexpected in that the media should stand aloof in seeking the truth of such matters. This move made the organizers of this student antiwar movement initially appear reluctant in embracing it. But in the end, they finally gave in and incorporated the media in their activities. Should some situations overcome the media’s code of ethics? I strongly believe that media should always remain independent. They decided to exploit the unutilized media attention by deliberately organizing media events that would put the war into the loam lights of the national politics. The media responded to this by submerging itself into the internal activities of the movement and recruited new members and backers. Todd Gitlin looks at celebrity in two ways: as a career and as trap.
Celebrity as a career revolves around activists and the media crew’s performance and dressing style. These two aspects of an individual draw the attention of the media than even what they say. When such incidences occur, some media leaders tend to dominate the fore front by making their support public. They would then draw attention of their colleagues as much as possible. But why should celebrities abuse their fame by taking sides at the time when their impartiality is highly needed by the society? Do they understand the motivation that such moves have on the social movement leaders and their followers? The response to such gestures is to accord the performing media artists and artistes much following from the public. In other words, media celebrities are liked by the public and thus accorded a lot of trust. In case of a social movement or activism in which they take the frontline, many people tend to follows them and accord them their full backing. For instance, Rubin’s performance was justified by absolute theory of revolution. He dramatized his events mobilized opposition against the revolutionist actions. He thus turned part of his audience into his own reflection.
Celebrity also appears like a trap that abdicates when the individual on the spotlight fails to overcome the conflicting responsibilities of the media and the movement. Being a celeb would lock an individual out of his or her rights to participate in the social movements. Anyway, should the errant celebs be gagged? I believe that human rights are universal and every person should enjoy them. However, what happened during these social movements is different. Celebs had to escape from such traps by abandoning their celebrity outfit and become a common man or woman to agitate for the rights of the depressed. Is it satisfying to hang on a job that infringes on your ‘freedom’? And what makes some celebrities feel trapped? This is a very complex scenario that compromise on the media functionality.
Anti-globalization social movements are defensive or opposing movements that politicize the exercise of global powers by coming up with new forms of political community under new ideological claims. The general notion behind globalization is to establish a global village. This would unite the whole would and uphold peaceful coexistence. But why should movements come up to oppose it? I believe that globalization benefits everyone alike. Anti-globalization comes into play when some people team up to reject the globalist ideology basing its actions on the immediate social relations and struggles. The United States and the European approaches to anti-globalization take different perspectives. As United States concentrates on development of conceptual tools to be deployed across history, the European approaches focus on the interpretation of the historical path that these movements make to come up with general social change theories.
The political, new social and neo-Marxism approaches to social movements focus on the contrasting prevalent sources of power behind the modern globalization. Are these power sources institutional, cultural or material in nature? The force of institutional power on anti-globalization is seen to rise from the quest of social movements to fill up political vacuum created by the legitimated international organizations. Just like in the formation of nations, social movements take up these opportunities and engage in framing strategies to acquire institutional power. In fact, the political processes are pioneered and led by large International Non-Governmental Organizations through their participation in the institutionalizing and constructing alternative international norms. What follows is a relatively ‘Global Justice Movement’.
The cultural power of social movements is reiterated in the post-Marxist sociologists. For instance, the cultural conflicts of the postindustrial communities and their resulting programmed information networks. This increase in the globalized information system beyond national borders has triggered anti-globalization resistance. The key mission of these social movements is to regain the social control of the society that they are bound to lose via globalization. Whenever globalization appears to pose threats, alternatives to local, national, communal or national liberty are developed forthwith. This gesture takes the social movements beyond the endless processes to edge of globalized power.
The neo-Marxists address the concept of material power from a capitalism perspective. From as early as 1970s, World System theorists have tried to link the combined state and social power of prevalent classes on global capitalism. The ant-globalization movements seek to seize and control and redirection of such capital to their own powers.
The above social movement activities and phenomenon can be explained well through the theories of social movements. The theories behind Social Movements are the social movement theories, the resource mobilization and political process theories. The social movement theories of suggest that social movements are products of collective behavior which is further rooted in social psychology. From this perspective, social movements are viewed as random that change the emotions of a group of aggrieved people who feel that there some situations which are unsatisfactory. This notion is echoed by the classical model which argues that social movements emanate among people who feel that they have been deprived of some goods, services or resources. The new trends adopted by the social movements can be addressed from various perspectives.
References
Chitlin, Todd. "The Media and the Unmaking of the New Left." 301-311.
Goodman, James. "Antiglobalization Movements." 1-7.
