Launching of the Saudi Women2Drive Campaign on Facebook - Case Study Example

Introduction Web 2.0 is a term coined by Darcy DiNucci in her article title “Fragmented Future” (DiNucci 1999). Though the term suggests a new version of the original World Wide Web (which is now known as Web 1.0), it is more of a cumulating of tweaks to the Web over time. Web 2.0 is said to be fundamentally different from Web 1.0 because users can now contribute to a Website’s content. This is especially true for blogs, social networking sites, and podcasts among others. Web 2.0 hinges on the interactivity it conveys to users. Through RSS, new tools are now coming into existence. The Web is no longer read only; it is now a read-write Web RSS is an abbreviation meaning Really Simple Syndication or Rich Simple Site. It is a group of formats for Web feeds used to create works that are updated frequently including news headlines, blog entries, video, and audio in a standardized way. An RSS document is called a “Web feed” or simply a “feed”, or “channel”. It includes summarized or full text, with metadata such as authorship and publishing dates. D’Souza defines RSS as an eXtensible Markup Language (XML) format which employs the Resource Description Framework (RDF) to delineate information about resources on the World Wide Web (D’Souza n.d.). The main difference between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 is the democracy awarded by Web 2.0. One of the ways it does this is by allowing the user to form their own connections between relevant and related information pieces by moving from different pages and Websites and/or back again as they please (Cormode & Krishnamurthy 2008). By doing this it allows multilinear navigation of the Internet. Another way it does this is by allowing the user to edit pages found on the Web, of course, depending on whether or not the creator allows it themselves. Through these changes, the Web has become no longer “read-only”, and now reflects the thoughts of more than just a handful of people as it did before. This paper will analyze the ways in which Web 2.0 platforms are creating social change using the case study on the Saudi Women2Drive Facebook campaign. Social Capital and Cultural Democracy Social capital is defined in sociology as the benefits and cooperation that members of a certain group give to each other. These include preferential treatment and economic benefits. Social capital is the idea that there is value in “social networks”. The term “social net-worth” may be punned on this idea to mean the collective value of one’s social networks. A democracy is defined as a system of governance where the power is held by the people as opposed to by a principle ruler such as in a dictatorship or a monarchy. Cultural democracy, on the other hand, refers to liberalities with regard to culture and diversity, as well as its expression. It is a corrective idea signifying a global values shift where grassroots and traditional cultures are allowed a voice and given equal opportunities to promote their growth and sustainability for posterity. Cultural democracy commits to the promotion of cultural diversity, patronage to actively participate in community life, empowerment to participate in policy and decision making concerning culture, and making certain that cultural resources are equitably distributed (Graves, 2004). The Saudi Arabian Women2Drive Campaign Saudi Arabia is ruled by a monarchy, and is the only country in the world where it is illegal to drive a car while being female (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 2009). . In 1957, a law was made pronouncing a ban on driving by women. This was just one of the many laws limiting women’s rights in the country. This law has since prompted many women to protest against it in an effort to have the law struck about in order to allow women to begin driving. The drivers of the campaign are Saudi Arabian women trying to fight against the oppressive rule. In 1990, dozens of women drove their cars in Riyadh in a peaceful protest against the denial of the right to drive by women. Typical of Saudi Arabian scare tactics, these women were detained (albeit for one day) and Saudi authorities had all their passports confiscated, and some were released from the jobs they had at the time. It worked as there were no more protests until almost twenty years later in September of 2007 when a petition containing 1,100 signatures requesting that women be allowed to drive was submitted to King Abdullah by Wajeha al-Huwaider, the cofounder of the Association for the Protection and Defense of Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia, along with Fawzia al-Uyyouni. The next year, in 2008, al-Huwaider filmed herself driving and posted the video on YouTube. This got her some international attention and may have sparked the beginning of international support (Burke, J 2011). In 2011, inspired by the Arab Spring, the campaigns engines were once again revved. Manal al-Sharif led a couple of other women in the creation of a Facebook campaign dubbed "Teach me how to drive so I can protect myself", now called “Women2Drive” which advocated for women’s driving rights. This campaign called for women to begin to drive in June that year. By May 21st, the campaign had received support from over 12,000 Facebook users on their page. This campaign caught the attention of al-Huwaider who, impressed by the effort, decided to help. A woman named Najla Hariri in Jeddah begun to drive in May of 2011 citing inspiration by the way the formerly docile people in the Arab world were now speaking loudly for their rights. The week after this occurrence, al-Huwaider filmed al-Sharif driving. The driver was arrested and released a few days later on bail and with the conditions that she is not to drive or speak to the press, and that she is to make herself available for questioning anytime the was called upon (Burke, J 2011). Above is a screen shot of the Facebook group for the Women2Drive campaign for Saudi women. The group showcases the official poster for the campaign (Facebook 2015). Above is the Poster for the Saudi Arabia's Women2Drive campaign whose artwork was done by Carlos Latuff (Wikipedia 2011). Al-Sharif applied for a driving license and was rejected. She then filed a law suit against the General directorate of traffic with the Grievances Board on this issue and later in 2012, Samar Badawi who had been a regular driver from June 2011 filed similar charges (Burke, J 2011). In October of 2013, there was another wave to the campaign calling for women to protest against the ban by defying it. This gained the support of many prominent female activists. Saudi Arabian authorities responded to this by blocking the website for the campaign within the country. It was said by Sheikh Saleh al-Lohaidan that women risk damage to their ovaries and difficulty in child birth if they drive. Such preposterous comments have peppered this campaign, others being those made by Consultative Assembly member Kamal Subhi for example, who gave a report stating that a lift of the ban would lead to homosexuality, prostitution, divorce, pornography and the "end of virginity" as he put it (BBC NEWS 2015). This campaign has involved women within and without Saudi Arabia, and some male support outside the country. The Arab women involved are mostly between 20 and 50 years old. In Saudi, these women belong to the middle or upper classes where the families can afford more than one car. They have mostly been from the major cities, that is, Riyadh, and Jeddah (BBC NEWS 2015). Facebook as a Web 2.0 Platform Enabling Social Change Facebook is one of the many interactive platforms enabled by Web 2.0. It is an online social networking service which is known as the brain child of Mark Zukerberg who together with fellow Harvard University roommates namely Chris Hughes, Eduardo Saverin , Dustin Moskovitz, and Andrew McCollum launched the website on the 4th of February, 2004. The gang originally intended for the use of the website purely within their university, but it quickly gained popularity and support from other universities begin within those within the state of Boston (Ivy League Colleges, and Stanford University). As time went by, the website gained more followers including high school student and eventually went public. The site got its name from a colloquialism coined by American University Students for a directory with facial identification. By the year 2006, it was legal for anyone to join Facebook as long as they were over the age of 13. This age limit however varies from place to place depending on the local laws (Dunbar-Hester, C 2009). Facebook today is free to register; all that is required is an internet connection and a device through which to access the website. Registration is done by typing in one’s details which include one’s name, date of birth, email address, and a phone number (not compulsory). After this step is complete, one is free to add friends to their profile by “requesting” them, or by accepting “friend requests” sent to them by others. There are settings that allow the user to control the amount of information that they share, and who they share it with. One is also able to control who can share information on their “wall”. Information that can be shared ranges from videos, audios, pictures, links, notes, and status updates (the defining feature of Facebook). Users may join “groups” that interest them such as “shopaholics” and “motherhood 101” and group their friends into lists as they see fit such as “classmates”, “friends from church”, “family” and so on. There is little limit to the freedom that the website allows (Manovich 2002; McLoughlin & Lee 2008). As of March 2015, Facebook boasted of 1.44billion active users. Though these users employ the site for a number of uses depending on what interests them, they all do it through the one main utility that Facebook offers- network creation. Social networks are built and sustained on the website, and through these networks different goals are accomplished. These websites are able to create such a huge impact because they employ the principle that “there is power in numbers”. By increasing the ease of connection and communication, they provide means and ways by which people can air their views, state their causes, rally support, and thereby gain a voice. It is upon these constructs that the Women2Drive campaign is built. It takes advantage of the global village enabled by this social networking site to take its ideas to the public in order to garner support for its advocacies to be implemented (Cole et al. 2011). Women2Drive and Theories of Social Change This campaign is informed by the Hegelian theory of social change. This theory is based on the idea of the interaction of forces: action, action, and the resultant force. Form a start point of stasis (momentary), thesis encounters a reactional antithesis causing the former to yield to conflict. The result of this interplay is a new synthesis (the new change) (Hegel & Wallace 1892). Saudi culture is seen to be generally repressive to women, and change does not and has not come easily in this culture. The women of Saudi Arabia realize this and so they have done what the theory dictates that they must do- revolt against the oppressive laws until they cave and women are one day free to, in this case, drive their cars freely on the streets of Saudi Arabia. Technology: The Optimists versus the Pessimists Technology has always been met with either a concoction of skepticism and scorn or with excitement and arms wide open. Its impacts on the construct s of community like learning change of culture and learning has been a hotly debated topic dividing people along the lines of either optimism and skepticism. So has been the cycle every in the wake of every advent from new methods of production (the mechanization of agriculture, and assembly-line production), methods of transportation (air, water, road, and railway), the processes which produce energy (steam, electricity, nuclear), breakthroughs in the medical field (surgery, the invention of vaccines), or change in means of communication (telephone, radio, television, and now the internet). The same script, different cast story repeats itself over and over. The divide in technology acceptance has led to the two teams being labeled as either being techno-optimists or techno-pessimists (Manovich 2002) This cycle of drama of the mix of acceptance and rejection of technologies has been informed by two different thought processes. The optimist camp sees the new technology as a revolution which will lead to the improvement of the way life is led. The way they see it, change is bound to happen anyway, people and institutions must adapt to progress—or die. Society is nothing if not built on change. For these people, technology holds the promise of a better and brighter day—making life easier and simplifying tasks (Gauntlett & Horsley 2004). All is not well, however in the house of the pessimists. The story goes like this; new technology happens (the thesis), they see the change as threatening their way of life and they therefore reject it vehemently (the antithesis). The sky is always “about to fall” in the pessimist camp—they hold firm to the belief that society is a delicately woven fabric that needs as little interference as possible. What is most ironic about this dance is that the hotly defended “way of life” of the pessimists is a technological advancement of the generations before them which was met with the same, if not more resistance. These people are driven by the impending fear of doom and gloom—that the beliefs, customs, traditions, values, nature of institutions, ways of doing business will be overthrown. “Is nothing sacred?” is the phrase playing on repeat on the minds of the pessimists (Mendelson 2012). The current reception of the internet today follows the same steps of this old and familiar dance with its share of optimists and pessimists in equal measure. Some were already fighting against the internet even before they got a chance to experience it for themselves, and soon there were people on both sides of the divide who would defend their opinions almost to the death. Schuler (2007) talks about the place of consensus between the optimists and the pessimists. He argues that the teams are now aware of the track record of historical momentum—that change does not find human effort necessary in its implementation. There is a sort of “whatever will be, will be” feel to this discussion. Schuler leads the “new kids on the block” in the new point of consensus, so to speak, that is characterized by the belief that the meaningfulness of technology is dictated by the patterns of its use. This is the so called period of construction and both sides of the divide are in agreement on this one point. In fact, the pessimist/optimist war may be nearing its end on this one issue as this new age is ushered in. In terms of social change, the techno-optimists like David Gauntlet and Clay Shirky used to argue that social change is driven by the endless capacity of Web 2.0 platforms for ordinary people to have a voice through authorship and the creativity (Gauntlett & Horsley 2004; Shirky n.d.). These opportunities then allow for create a platform for social change and cultural democracy which leads to positive changes. On the other side of the fence, techno pessimists like Brandon B. J. Mendelson, Nathaniel Tkacz, and Astra Taylor claim that the idea that ordinary people could bring about changes is overvalued at best. They chalk their claims up to the fact that Web 2.0 platforms, much like their predecessors, are dominated by heavyweights in large corporations who drown out the voice of the people thus impeding social change (Mendelson 2012; Taylor 2014; Tkacz n.d.). The Impact of the Women2Drive Campaign The campaign has involved women of all walks of life in Saudi by encouraging them to post videos of themselves driving. These videos have been posted on the Facebook site though it has since been blocked in the country (BBC NEWS 2015). More videos continue to be posted each day of women driving in support if the campaign. Activists recon that the movement is working as the authorities launched an intense inflammatory response to the revolt. In the month of October in 2014, the traffic police in Riyadh were increased and security was buffed up. They were on high alert for any women drivers stating that offenders of the law against driving by women would be harshly prosecuted. In the same year, King Abdullah announced, in spite of great opposition from conservative council members, the recommendation that women over be allowed to drive. The caveat for this permission was that they be over thirty, that they should not be wearing any make-up, and that they only drive between 6am and 8pm. The future stand on the country on this matter is still an uncertain one, though they are currently deliberating on it which may be viewed as progress in the right direction. It is still unknown whether or not women will be free to drive in Saudi Arabia, but what is certain is that the noise made by the campaign has had an undoubted effect on the revolution that may or may not take place (Agence des Feuilles Politiques 2014). Conclusion In summation, Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prevents its women from driving by law. This issue has been debated and contested over time. The launching of the Saudi Women2Drive campaign on Facebook was a major catalyst on the stand on this issue both in the country and the world. Women filmed themselves driving and posted the videos online, this garnered the support of the general public and has helped in pushing the authorities to consider lifting the ban. Though it is still unclear if this will go through, the campaign had definitely had an effect on the fate of women and driving in the country, but only time will tell whether their plight will be different in the future. References DiNucci, D. (1999). "Fragmented Future" (PDF). Print 53 (4): 32. D’Souza, Q. (n.d.) Web 2.0 Ideas for Educators; A guide to RSS and more: The Creative Commons Attribution. Retrieved from  http://www.teachinghacks.com/files//100ideasWeb2educators.pdf Agence des Feuilles Politiques, (2014). Saudi Women's Driving Campaign Seen As 'Successful'. [online] Business Insider. Available at: http://ttp://www.businessinsider.com/afp-saudi-womens-driving-campaign-a-success-2014-10 [Accessed 28 Apr. 2015]. BBC NEWS, (2015). BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saudi women make video protest. [online] News.bbc.co.uk. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7159077.stm [Accessed 28 Apr. 2015]. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, (2009). 2008 Human Rights Report: Saudi Arabia. 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. [online] United States State Department of State. Available at: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119126.htm [Accessed 28 Apr. 2015]. Burke, J. (2011). Saudi Arabia women test driving ban. [online] the Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/17/saudi-arabia-women-drivers-protest [Accessed 28 Apr. 2015]. Cole, J., Nolan, J., Seko, Y., Mancuso, K. and Ospina, A. (2011). GimpGirl grows up: Women with disabilities rethinking, redefining, and reclaiming community. New Media & Society, [online] 13(7), pp.1161-1179. Available at: http://nms.sagepub.com/content/13/7/1161 [Accessed 26 Apr. 2015]. Dunbar-Hester, C. (2009). 'Free the spectrum!' Activist encounters with old and new media technology. New Media & Society, [online] 11(1-2), pp.221-240. Available at: http://nms.sagepub.com/content/11/1-2/221 [Accessed 28 Apr. 2015]. Facebook, (2015). Saudi Women To Drive. [online] Available at: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Saudi-Women-To-Drive/227817097234537 [Accessed 29 Apr. 2015]. Gauntlett, D. and Horsley, R. (2004). Web.studies. London: Arnold. Graves, J. (2004). Cultural Democracy: The Arts, Community, and the Public Purpose. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Hegel, G. and Wallace, W. (1892). The logic of Hegel. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Manovich, L. (2002). The language of new media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. (2008). Mapping the digital terrain: New media and social software as catalysts for pedagogical change. In: Ascillite Melbourne 2008. [online] Melbourne: In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008., pp.641-652. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/mcloughlin.html [Accessed 27 Apr. 2015]. Mendelson, B. (2012). Social media is bullshit. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin's Press. Schuler, D. (2007). Online communities and social computing. Berlin: Springer. Shirky, C. (n.d.). The Richard S. Salant lecture on freedom of the press with Clay Shirky. Taylor, A. (2014). The people's platform. New York: Metropolitan Books. Tkacz, N. (n.d.). Wikipedia and the politics of openness. Wikipedia, (2011). New Saudi Arabia's traffic sign (women2drive).gif. [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Saudi_Arabia%27s_traffic_sign_(women2drive).gif [Accessed 29 Apr. 2015]. Read More