The Presupposition That We All Want Social Change

In Clay Shirky's "Cognitive Surplus" TED talk he uses Dean Kamen's (who is the creator of the Segway) argument that "free cultures get what they celebrate" to promote his concept of cognitive surplus (that free time away from consumption activities, e.g., watching television, can be extremely important to producing civic value). Shirky argues that if we can reward those who use cognitive surplus to create civic value, social change will follow. As someone who has only viewed this talk by Shirky (i.e., I haven't read his book) I find myself gravitating to such aphorisms. Yet, terms like "freedom" are becoming more and more hollow these day, at least to me. 

I find that speakers/writers/designers often drop the "F" bomb (freedom) in the hopes of inhabiting and taking control of a habitus--one in which this particular word ("F" word) holds a great weight--when in reality they are hoping to invest that habitus with new values that he or she already holds. In other words, the social change she or he wants is one that already privileges him or her. What would happen if this social change actually led to a loss of privilege on his or her part, but led to greater accessibility to social agency for the majority? Another way of looking at this is do we presuppose that "free" cultures celebrate freedom, say, over consumption? What comes first, the appreciated civic value (which may not have anything to do with freedom) or the habitus that produced it? Maybe this is a rhetorical question. Because if a free culture celebrates labor exploitation, then according to Shirky and Kamen, that's what they'll get. Should we reward these productions of civic virtue? What do we mean by social change? Is equality, civil rights, etc. always presupposed? To some conservative ideologies, these terms have taken on pejorative values. What then?

We see in Meggs' book A History of Design that technologies of design and writing coupled with accessibility and the public's ability to use and create with these technologies definitely has led to social change, historically. But depending on the given culture using these technologies, these social changes can also create oppressive power relations, even in "free" societies. Through exploitation of labor, collusion, etc., a corporation founded on neoliberal philosophies can limit the freedoms of its employees every bit as much as a government can its citizens. Granted the ability for a corporation to exercise this power is contingent upon the current economic standing of the society it participates in, though as we can see in our current economic crisis, governments can quickly lose influence during economic crisis, too.     

Tharon Howard recognizes this potential for social change as well in Design to Thrive, though seems to see it more critically (and understands how complex "social change" can be) than Meggs or Shirky (at least from what I've read to this point of them). Paralleling, to some degree, Shirky's story of Ushahida, Howard recognizes this potential for change, but warns against blindly presupposing "good" as the only effect. I'm quoting at length here:

"Social networks and online communities have the potential to effect economic, political, and social changes far beyond the expectations of their designers, and that kind of "success" can ironically threaten the sustainability of a community. When social media begin to impact larger institutions, such as the election of government officials, intellectual property law, religious institutions, educational settings, and other established institutions of literate cultures, then a battle for control ensues." (Lines 4728+, Kindle Version)

Again from Howard: "By analogy then, one of the issues that community managers and social network designers need to monitor carefully in the future is what will happen to us as more and more governments recognize the power of social media? . . . we need to be considering how we will respond when states [and I would add corporations] attempt to turn us into their agents in order to maintain control of their citizens [employees] who happen to be using our networks or communities to challenge the status quo." (Lines 5009+, his emphasis)

So not only does Howard question that only inherent good stems from social change, but he also posits the problematic consequences of potential power relations when those in control become aware of the production of civic virtues that will potentially lead to social change. No doubt, he presents an image of societies and cultures whose values and loyalties are tested more than ever. Where do/will we stand and how prepared will we be when values that currently appear consistent with one another are juxtaposed and in need of adjudication?