Tocqueville and the Twitteratti:

Rethinking the “Surfing Alone” Thesis Through the Web 2.0 Boom
Michael W. Gruszczynski and Ari Kohen

Since becoming first available to citizens in 1993, the World Wide Web has been the

subject of much contention from seemingly dueling camps. On the one hand, proponents of

the technology have heralded the onset of a new freedom, whether through the loosening of

constraints on free speech and information1 or through a reinvigoration of the public

sphere.2 The opposing camp, however, often views the Web as simply another foible in a

long string of technologies set to destroy the very social bonds necessary for social and

political community to survive.3

And so it is, with the debate now surpassing its fifteenth year that our commentary

will seek to assess the intersection between technology and civil society. Primarily, we ask

whether the Web of today better represents the utopian vision of those aforementioned

proponents or is simply a continuation of the damning, dystopian view expounded by the

naysayers of the technology. Our debate will center on the promises of one of the most

recent Web technologies to be debated: Twitter. The increasingly popular communications

tool – used for everything from simple status updates to the propagation of news articles,

information, and ideas – presents us with an excellent lens through which to view the

ongoing debate.

One of the better examples of Twitter’s power to bring citizens together comes not

from within the United States, but Iran. Following the June 12, 2009 presidential elections,

where pre-election polling suggested a strong showing by the challenger4 and final results

both a landslide for the incumbent and high levels of turnout, many expressed their outrage

on Twitter:

Mousavi1388: ALL internet & mobile networks are cut. We ask everyone in Tehran
to go onto their rooftops and shout ALAHO AKBAR in protest #IranElection5
Reports following this message, whether via uploaded YouTube videos, Twitter messages or

blogs, showed that the call was indeed met.6 In fact, The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan described

the rooftop chants as “deafening,” a sign of the new communication medium’s power to

quickly coordinate citizens to action.7 And though at the time of this paper’s writing the

outcome of mass protests against the Iranian government is yet to be seen, for many news

watchers Twitter was one of the only sources of information about the Iranian protests, as

the traditional media was largely absent any coverage of the events in the days immediately

following the election.8

But what does this mean for American civil society? We first take a broad view of

this question by considering Alexis de Tocqueville’s emphasis on the importance of social

ties to American life, as well as Putnam’s later findings suggesting that these bonds have

decreased over the past several decades. Our second step consists of an examination of both

past and present iterations of Web technologies and how they either fulfill or abrogate

theorists’ views of social ties and capital. Finally, we present a view of one particular Web

technology – Twitter, a popular micro-blogging service – to demonstrate that dystopian

views of the Web’s social impact require reconsideration and that technologies such as these

deserve careful consideration by social and political scientists.

Ultimately, we argue that while the critics might have made a compelling point about

the initial effects of Internet usage – what we will refer to as Web 1.0 – we argue that it is a

mistake to suggest that the Internet itself necessarily leads to a decline in civic engagement

and participation. Indeed, the principal difference, we argue, between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0

is that the latter allows us to recapture the associational spirit that Tocqueville ascribes to

Americans in Democracy in America, insofar as Web 2.0 applications are developing with the

virtues of engagement and participation in mind. In doing so, we argue that the second

2
generation of Internet users should be seen as possessing the potential to revive the

associational spirit necessary for a strong, vibrant democracy – even if they never return to

the bowling leagues of their grandparents’ days.

The Problems with Democracy in America

In the early 19th Century, Alexis de Tocqueville famously traveled to America and

wrote of the democratic principles that he felt would soon sweep across the world and

overturn the ages-old European aristocracy. And yet, despite recognizing that democracy is

the future and aristocracy the past, he also offers a quite sobering assessment of popular

government in America. As many have argued, Tocqueville astutely highlights two

fundamental problems that plague democracies: a privileging of both liberty and equality,

leading to the twin dangers of excessive individualism and withdrawal from the public

sphere. Both of these problems, according to contemporary commentators,9 are exemplified

and amplified by the Internet.

Although he was a great lover of liberty Tocqueville expressed concern about

excessive individualism, which is far less of a problem in an aristocracy where people are

connected by social status. Democracy has broken these bonds entirely, as class

consciousness disappears with the rise of the middle class and as other connections – like

language and values – might not be experienced as powerfully.10 In examining Americans, he

notes that their freedom to do as they liked often resulted in “a calm and considered feeling

which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw

into the circle of family and friends” (Tocqueville 1988: 506). Further, he argues that

focusing on individual liberty can lead to reliance on others only when absolutely necessary:

“The inhabitant of the United States learns from birth that he must rely on himself to

combat the ills and trials of life; he is restless and defiant in his outlook toward the authority

3
of society and appeals to its power only when he cannot do without it.”11 Neither of these

consequences is necessarily negative; indeed, Tocqueville writes about the idea of self-help

with the same approval that colors his very positive discussion of the American work ethic,

though if taken too far this individualism can result in an extremely disconnected citizenry.

At this point – when individuals are principally concerned with themselves and their families

rather than the common character of American civil society – the connections between

citizens begin to fail: “As for the rest of his fellow citizens, they are near enough, but he does

not notice them. He touches them but feels nothing.”12 This, in turn, can lead to one

individual tyrannically exerting his will over all others, as they are more concerned with their

private well-being than with potential problems in the public sphere. As Tocqueville13

cautions, “Despotism…sees the isolation of men as the best guarantee of its own

permanence. So it usually does all it can to isolate them…. It disposes them not to think of

their fellows and turns indifference into a sort of public virtue.”

Interestingly, Tocqueville’s description of Americans as radically independent

individuals traces that independence directly to their equality. And because Americans are

undoubtedly passionate about the principle of equality, he also argues there is less

independent thought in America than elsewhere, leading to a concern about the prospect of

the tyranny of the majority over thought. All people, Tocqueville14 argues, must necessarily

accept some things on faith, both because they have a need to listen to a higher authority

and because there simply isn’t time to think critically about every possible issue. And because

Americans tend to believe in intellectual equality they generally defer to the authority of

majority opinion, as they hold that – in a difference of opinion – the majority is likely

correct. As Tocqueville15 argues,

The more alike men are, the weaker each feels in the face of all. Finding nothing
that raises him above their level and distinguishes him, he loses his self-confidence

4
 when he comes into collision with them. Not only does he mistrust his own
strength, but even comes to doubt his own judgment, and he is brought very near to
recognizing that he must be wrong when the majority hold the opposite view.

Thus Tocqueville suggests that most people generally aren’t aware of how much their lives

are shaped by the majority opinion, preferring to believe that they can reject traditional

forms of authority because they are perfectly free. Only rarely will Americans feel themselves

to be victims of overt tyranny and, of course, Tocqueville doesn’t mean to suggest that

Americans are wrong in this feeling. He does, however, seek to point to the problem that

arises when Americans cannot even conceive of holding an opinion that differs from that of

the majority. Most often, majority opinion tends to limit the options available to Americans

when it comes to foundational principles like egalitarianism; any opposition to this sort of

principle would be viewed as intolerable.16 This deference to the principle of equality and to

majority opinion can lead, Tocqueville17 cautions, to soft despotism or even outright tyranny

because it creates a docile population that is either content to allow a strong government to

dominate or too weak to resist a strong individual who might aspire to tyrannical rule.

Yet, for all of these potential problems with American democracy identified,

Tocqueville remains a firm believer in it as a model for people around the world. This is

because he also sees the solution to the twin problems of liberty and equality inherent in

democracy itself, as strong individuals can be cultivated who will stand as a bulwark against

the possibility of both soft despotism and tyranny. Of course, these individuals do not

simply spring up on their own; fortunately, American statesmen astutely recreated stronger

interpersonal connections, akin to the lost aristocratic bonds, by encouraging the

proliferation of democratic associations through what Tocqueville18 refers to as self-interest

properly understood. He argues that if self-interest is pursued in the proper manner, it can

benefit the public good as well as that of the individual. Indeed, combining associations and

5
self-interest properly understood can serve as an antidote to the excessive individualism that

tends to isolate people. People form associations because they receive a benefit from doing

so in some way; in other words, they become active in the public sphere because they believe

it to be in their self-interest. In order for these associations to flourish, people must be

educated to virtue; that is, they must be shown how public service, sacrifice, and

participation serve their private self-interest.19 And, indeed, nothing could be more necessary

for the protection of democracy: “An association…is an educated and powerful body of

citizens which cannot be twisted to any man’s will or quietly trodden down, and by

defending its private interests against the encroachments of power, it saves the common

liberties.”20

The Decline of Voluntary Associations

Unfortunately, the associations inherent in American democratic life so celebrated by

Tocqueville were purported to have been somewhat diminished in the latter part of the 20th

Century in Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone. The book demonstrated a decrease of citizens’

memberships in associations, as well as resulting decreases in social capital, civic

engagement, and efficacy. The bleakness of Putnam’s21 survey of voluntary association

membership was apparent when he stated that though actual numbers of nonprofit groups

have burgeoned in the past few decades, “The newer groups focus on expressing policy

views in the national political debate, not on providing regular connection among individual

members at the grass roots.” In his view not only are memberships in sports leagues and

other non-political associations decreasing, but also membership in politically oriented

groups that in another time would likely add to members’ perceptions of social and political

efficacy.

6
 Putnam’s emphasis on membership in associations as an indicator of community and

social capital has important implications for the health of American democracy, with perhaps

the most important being that associations help to guard against encroachments on an

otherwise isolated citizenry, as Tocqueville noted.22 However, if we are to accept

membership as a gauge of citizens’ engagement in political and social life it would be

foolhardy to acknowledge traditional conceptions of voluntary associations (such as, say,

bowling leagues) while ignoring new and evolving associations. Indeed, paying heed to some

associations while ignoring will likely give us an erroneous view of American social life.

Thus we should be sure to recognize those citizen bonds that do not fall under the

rubric of traditional associations. For example, though membership in the multitude of

groups presented in the Encyclopedia of Associations has dropped precipitously,23 Web 2.0

technologies such as Twitter afford citizens the opportunity to form associations with little

effort – whether associations of friends, colleagues, or even strangers with little in common

other than a singular shared interest – and as a result interact and potentially gain social

capital. Though these new forms of association may be less “official” than previously

accepted conceptions of groups, we argue they nonetheless clearly fit under the common

understanding of associations that focuses on engaging citizens to meet with one another

(outside of friendship or familiar bonds) for the purpose of expressing opinions or sharing

activities (whether political, social, or even purely recreational).

Of course, early commentaries on the Internet’s ability to either reinvigorate or

destroy citizens’ social bonds came early and often from the very outset of the new

technology’s emergence in civic life. Critics of the Internet were only too willing to equate

the popular image of the Web surfer – alone, quietly entranced in front of a softly glowing

screen – with that of Putnam’s empty bowling alley. If a lack of participation in league play

7
was a sign of a critical decline in social capital and citizen connectedness, then surely the

Internet was the harbinger of social capital’s downfall.

Claims such as these were not only common24 but were often backed up with

empirical evidence. Early research indicated that use of the Internet decreased social

involvement and increased depression and loneliness.25 These charges are intuitive to their

core: as scholars26 contend, “Like watching television, using a home computer and the

Internet generally imply physical inactivity and limited face-to-face social interaction.” Simply

put, one has only a finite amount of available time, and if that time is spent in front of a

computer screen instead of with acquaintances, social interaction and ties will presumably

suffer as a result.

These criticisms of the Internet and its potential to cordon off individuals from

broader society have a significant flaw, especially when applied to the Internet in its current

(and constantly evolving) state. They may have applied ten, or even five, years ago – for in

the past, the Internet most certainly represented a somewhat seamless continuation of

passive technologies, such as television, print, and radio – but leveling the same criticisms

against Web 2.0 is akin to comparing apples and bullfrogs. Simply put, the first incarnation

of the Internet (Web 1.0) looks and acts nothing like the Web 2.0 experience that users

currently enjoy.

When private individuals first came into contact with the World Wide Web in 1992,

the format was little more than a digital representation of print media. Users found

themselves suddenly able to access information theretofore unavailable to them – a person

in Nebraska could read the New York Times instantly, for example – but other than the

sudden increase in geographic reach afforded by the new technology there was little

difference in the consumption patterns available to citizens. The Internet, like its broadcast

8
and print media brethren, was simply another exercise in passive consumption;27 in other

words, a Web site would publish information online and users would consume it. Later

innovations allowed consumers to comment on news stories and possibly deliberate with

other readers about the content contained therein, but other than these snippets of

participation little potential for interactivity was available.28

Simply put, Web 1.0 technologies did little to disrupt traditional methods of

obtaining and using information. Much like one would read a newspaper or watch a

newscast, following consumption of the information in these sources, a citizen may (or may

not) talk about what was just consumed with friends, family, or other immediate

acquaintances, but would be otherwise unlikely to interact with the information just

consumed. Benkler29 explains that these unidirectional modes of communication had a

tendency to tilt public debate in the direction favored by the mass media, simply because

citizens had no effective means to input their views and opinions into the mass debate:

“Their social reach, and hence potential political efficacy, [is] many orders of magnitude

smaller than that of the mass media.” Thus a citizen reading information online in the early

days of the Internet resembled any other citizen reading the newspaper – she was simply

doing so in front of a screen as opposed to a broadsheet paper, with little chance for an

increase in the efficacy that Benkler notes may result from a more interactive communication

process than one offering only an opportunity for passive consumption of information.

The recent arrival of Web 2.0 technologies has begun to change this, not only with a

multitude of new Internet tools – Facebook, Web logs (blogs), Wikipedia, and Twitter, to

name but a few30 – but also an increasing pervasiveness of the Web in everyday life. And

though these technologies are similar to past Web iterations in a few key respects (e.g.,

hyperlinks, accessibility via Web browsers) unlike Web 1.0 technologies, users are no longer

9
expected to simply act as passive consumers of information originating from media elites,

but instead are pushed toward acting as elites themselves. To be sure, much of the Internet still

consists of Web 1.0-era technologies, but there has been a massive shift over the past several

years towards a citizen embrace of Web 2.0 and its emphasis on social – rather than isolated

– forms of media. And the very pervasiveness of the Internet in modern life has brought

with it a constant connection not present in the past.

Benkler31 sees this as the result of both the Internet’s lower cost of entry into

participation in the public sphere and the resulting increase in feelings of efficacy among

citizens:

The change is as much qualitative as it is quantitative. The qualitative change is

represented in the experience of being a potential speaker, as opposed to simply a
listener and voter. It relates to the self-perception of individuals in society and the
culture of participation they can adopt. The easy possibility of communicating
effectively into the public sphere allows individuals to reorient themselves from
passive readers and listeners to potential speakers and participants in a conversation.

The transition from a culture of passive receptivity of communication to active participants

in the process brings with it the potential for increased creation and use of associations.

Simply put, the fact that citizen deliberations are no longer relegated to the ends of the

communicative hub means that the perception of potential efficacy increases, with a

subsequent increase in the potential for activity in both the public sphere and associations.

Fragmentation, or Association?

Web 2.0 technologies – as well as their capabilities as powerful new tools for the

creation of citizen associations – have not been immune from critiques, though the

criticisms leveled tend to be much different from those of earlier iterations of Internet

technology. Whereas critiques tend not to take the tack of presenting the technology as

generally isolating users from society (as was the case with earlier criticisms of the Web), but

10
instead present the new Internet users as selectively isolating themselves from fellow citizens

who may hold views not comporting with their own.

Of course, this paper is concerned primarily with whether citizens’ use of Web 2.0

technologies constitute an example of a reemergence of Tocqueville’s citizen associations,

not with whether or not fragmentation occurs; thus including the warnings of scholars over

the potential for social fragmentation may appear to miss the point entirely. We contend,

however, that the potential for fragmentation inherent in Internet use by the citizenry is an

example in itself of a preponderance of new associations that would simply not be possible

in the pre-Web 2.0 Internet.

Sunstein32 issued a warning concerning the Internet’s potential for social

fragmentation, wherein users expose themselves only to those views, interests, and ideas

analogous to their own. This can lead to the creation of “echo chambers” of like-minded

citizens, with the result being increasing polarization and a preponderance of more extreme

viewpoints.33

Empirical evidence has been marshaled in support of such claims of selective

exposure; research has found, for example, that partisans will choose to read only those

blogs that align with their own political beliefs.34 Additionally, partisan blogs tend to link

only to ideologically similar blogs35 and present political news that is most advantageous to

their chosen party.36 All of these findings point to an increased probability of fragmentation

among citizens by way of the Internet.

The potential for fragmentation pointed out by these scholars, however, presents us

with quite an interesting question: are not fragmentation and association describing the same

phenomena at different points in the process? In other words, are not groups and

associations essentially fragments of the broader society? For one to take part in an

11
association made up of a subset of society, they must first fragment themselves from society

at large into smaller groupings. One example of such fragmentation and subsequent

association could be found if we imagine two hypothetical citizens: for example, Jim enjoys

bird watching and Marla belongs to a yacht club. These two individuals will not necessarily

find themselves engaging in the same social groups, and both have essentially broken

themselves free of broader society to engage in those activities and interests they find most

pleasant; if the Internet allows for the fragmentation of society so often cited as problems by

scholars,37 then we may take this as a good example of associations via Web 2.0.

To be sure, scholars38 have warned about much more than yacht clubs and bird

watching, with more worrisome examples of the coordination of religious extremists in

Internet groups and the increased polarization of partisans that results from selectively

hearing only those views deemed “correct.” However, these instances, though unsettling, are

not cause to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The fact is that the enhanced ability to find and communicate with those sharing

similar views or interests, political or otherwise, indicates increased opportunities for the

formation of citizen associations, which is something Web 2.0 technologies do particularly

well. As such, we contend that Tocqueville’s39 aforementioned concern over the prospect for

tyranny of the majority over thought, owing to feelings of equality and a lack of

distinguishing characteristics, is allayed as a result of the possibilities of the new technologies

at citizens’ fingertips. The preponderance of views and associations made possible by Web

2.0 technologies may in fact demonstrate that citizens in democracy today, owing to the

opportunity for membership in any number of groups – many which may not have been

accessible previously, owing to geography or otherwise – are living out the spirit of

Tocqueville’s associations in ways that he would never have been able to imagine.

12
Web 2.0 In Action

To use only one particularly illustrative example from among the many Web 2.0

possibilities, we now turn to the rapidly evolving and increasingly popular Web site,

Twitter.40 While usage and publicity of the service exploded only recently,41 the service was

founded in 2006 “for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected

through the exchange of quick, frequent messages…often called ‘tweets’ of 140 characters or

fewer.”42 Undoubtedly, the vast majority of people make use of Twitter in this manner – as a

series of status updates – and this has prompted the most frequent critique of the service,

namely that it isn’t clear why anyone should care about the minutia of anyone else’s daily

existence. But, as Facebook (among other Web 2.0 applications) ably demonstrates, people

seem to be very much concerned with their friends’ status updates, as they are being read

and now – with changes to the service – commented upon with great frequency.

While many people will continue to use Twitter to keep their friends apprised of

their activities, or to chat with them asynchronously, it is clear that usage of the service has

expanded considerably since its inception. One reason for the change is that posting on

Twitter is analogous to carrying on a private conversation in public: every post, even a reply

to another user, can be viewed by third parties who visit the user’s profile page or who

search for terms contained in those posts. If one Twitter user is interested, entertained,

provoked, or in any other way engaged by something written by another, the former may

reply to the specific post or may “follow” all of the updates by the latter. While there is no

right or wrong way to use the service, it is apparent that many users are actively seeking to

engage with new people around similar interests.

At present, users are sharing photos, recommending books and music, commenting

on breaking news, connecting with professional actors and athletes, linking to blog posts,

13
and even making news themselves. Undoubtedly, the most famous example – combining

several of these new uses for Twitter – comes from the recent emergency landing of US

Airways 1546 in the Hudson River, as the first photos came from a user on board a ferry

used to rescue passengers.43

An even more recent though perhaps less prominent example is the execution of

Iranian juvenile offender Delara Darabi on May 1, 2009. The news first appeared in a post

from the Twitter account of SaveDelara.com and the first media outlet to pick up the story

was Breaking Tweets, “a news site which reports stories from around the world using

Twitter for breaking news.”44 While it might not be unusual that a story would break on

Twitter, what is particularly interesting is that, on the day of the execution, “traditional news

media did not report the story at all. A Google News search on Delara Darabi revealed, as

of late last night, a total of ZERO mainstream US news stories. The only stories about

Delara as of last night were from Iranian and international sources, blogs, and human rights

groups…. Breaking Tweets was paying attention to the Delara Darabi story, and they

reported it more than a full 24 hours before the mainstream media.”45

A quick survey of five Twitter updates posted by users while this paragraph was

being written ably demonstrates the new face of Twitter:

SenJohnMcCain: Finished taping the Phil Hendrie show - listen live @ 10:30 pm
PT in Phoenix (KTAR) and Tucson (KCUB).
rainnwilson: Apparently NY MAG, the US WEEKLY for Upper West Siders, calls
my tweets “silly and trite”. They also didn’t deign to give me a head.
http://tinyurl.com/cgrdda
antoniocapo: A Mobile App That Saves Lives, Literally http://ff.im/-2qQCJ
theheroworkshop: I’m 70 pages into “Escape From Cubicle Nation” by @pamslim
and I can’t say this more clearly - Buy This Book. She’s a life changer.
UberPooky: Just paid my registration fees for CPSA in May. Conferences are really
starting to get expensive. Are they worth it?

While three of these posts can be thought of as status updates – as they directly reference

something that the user is doing or has done – they also ask questions of other users (about

14
the utility of political science conferences) or make recommendations to other users (about a

particularly good book or a radio interview that might be of interest). The other two contain

hyperlinks and are explicitly designed to send users away from Twitter in order to learn more

about a particular topic that might be of interest. The key, here, is that all of the posts are

designed with other users in mind; the “Dear Diary” aspect of Twitter – so often criticized,

especially by those who are unfamiliar with the service – has been transformed by a great

many users who have an audience in mind whenever they write.

The reason behind the change in usage – we argue – speaks directly to the

associational spirit of contemporary Internet users: like Tocqueville’s 19th Century

Americans, they desire the company of others and make choices that lead them into

associations (not just with regard to politics or economics, but intellectual, moral, and even

other more whimsical endeavors). As Tocqueville46 notes, “American political and industrial

associations easily catch our eyes, but the others tend not to be noticed. And even if we do

notice them we tend to misunderstand them, hardly ever having seen anything similar

before. However, we should recognize that the latter are as necessary as the former to the

American people; perhaps more so.” But can Twitter users really be said to form

associations and, if so, are they of a sort that Tocqueville would recognize?

It is quite clear that the virtual associations formed by Twitter users vary a great deal

one to another. The celebrities – with their hundreds of thousands of followers – likely feel

no more connected to any of their fans than they did prior to joining Twitter; many of the

fans, however, likely feel a good deal more connected to the celebrity, as their access is much

more direct. But this does not necessarily constitute an association, as the fans of a particular

celebrity generally seem not to follow one another’s Twitter updates. By way of example,

comedian Jimmy Fallon presently follows approximately one hundred users and has nearly

15
one million followers, while the vast majority of his followers have fewer than one hundred

followers of their own. But this connection – following the updates of the same actor or

athlete – is far more tenuous than the majority of connections people make through the

service. Using on-going real-time searches, users can keep abreast of the subject of every

post written, following those who write on subjects of interest or repost those updates

elsewhere.47 Additionally, users can follow those persons posting on topics of interest to

further discussion on blogs, social media sites, and other Web 2.0 technologies.

And yet, if the story ended here, it is clear that we would not have anything

approaching an association of the type that Tocqueville – who might have been quite

skeptical of Twitter himself – might recognize. After all, brief exchanges with strangers

(especially ones that are limited to 140 characters) don’t go very far toward instilling public

spiritedness. But what distinguishes this service from so many others is that it connects

strangers and fosters friendships, rather than simply maintaining connections between

friends, co-workers, and former classmates. Those connections – built as they are on

common interests, like sports or politics, rather than on people or common experiences, like

high school attendance – provide a solid framework for associating with others, as online

communities form themselves around the various interests. What Twitter provides, then, is a

larger community with increasing interactivity: each user can easily connect with a great

many new people who have similar interests and engage in more conversation than he or she

ordinarily might. In addition to private conversations between individual users, Twitter

communities have sprung up away from the computer, as tweet-ups – in-person meetings

between two or more users – have become increasingly common.48 From New York City

Web developers to political scientists in the Palmer House lobby to hockey fans in NHL

cities, users are meeting one another, discussing common interests, and rediscovering the

16
association spirit that Tocqueville described as a hallmark of America.

Of course, a service like Twitter is only beginning to take root and, as it requires

both computer and Internet access, it remains something of a tool of the elite. That being

said, the diffusion of the Internet into households across the country is continuing, with

usage growth among the less well-to-do far exceeding that of society’s elites, who once held

a near monopoly on Internet use.49 It can thus be reasonably expected that in time,

increasing numbers of citizens from a variety of economic backgrounds – elite and non-elite

alike – will have the opportunity to utilize the associational powers of Twitter and other Web

2.0 technologies. What is clear is that such a service offers a unique starting point for a new

discussion of the impact of the Internet on democratic participation. As barriers to

technology continue to fall – and as mobile text messaging allows for increased usage of

Twitter – the ability of citizens to connect with one another in meaningful ways is likely to

expand further.

The Internet today is quite a different tool than it was even five years ago, as

evidenced by burgeoning technologies such as Twitter. Thus, owing to citizens’ increasingly

networked behavior, the old criticisms – especially with regard to declining social capital –

no longer apply: Internet users are no longer using the technology to cordon themselves off

from society and associations.50 Instead, as we have contended, the Internet of today offers

citizens increased opportunities to engage with one another and hence once again invoke the

spirit of association so revered by Tocqueville two centuries ago.

Empirical research examining the influence and effects of Twitter, similar to other

social media such as blogs, is still very much in its infancy, and understandably so. We

contend that, owing to the arguments presented in this work, micro-blogging services such

as Twitter need to be closely scrutinized and studied. We need to understand how citizens

17
use (or don’t use) technologies such as these as a means to social and political association, as

well as how these advances in communication factor into the broader picture of politics as a

whole.51 Several scholars52 recently echoed a similar call for political blogs, noting that

“There is good reason to believe that blogs are changing politics, but we don’t know exactly

how.” Given recent evidence that Twitter and other social media are having potentially large

impacts around the world, whether in Iranian uprisings or American emergencies, it is of the

utmost importance that we learn more about the political and social implications of this

emerging technology.

18
 Works Cited

Matthew A. Baum and Tim Groeling. 2008. “New Media and the Polarization of
American Political Discourse.” Political Communication 25: 345-365.

David Beer and Roger Burrows. 2007. “Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial
Considerations.” Sociological Research Online 12(5). Accessed at:
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/cgi-
bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?q=sure&showurl=%2F12%2F5%2F17.html

Yochai Benkler. 2007. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms
Markets and Freedom (New Haven: Yale University Press).

Paul Boutin. 2009. “All You Need to Know to Twitter.” New York Times (May 6).
Accessed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/technology/personaltech/07basics.html

Nisha Chittal. 2009. “The mainstream media ignored Delara Darabi. New media didn’t.”
Politicoholic.com (May 2). Accessed at:
http://politicoholic.com/2009/05/02/the-mainstream-media-ignored-delara-darabi-
new-media-didnt/

Crystal. 2008. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Twitter.com (November 4).

Accessed at: http://help.twitter.com/forums/10711/entries/13920

Helena Deards. 2009. “Twitter first off the mark with Hudson plane crash coverage.”
World Editors Forum (January 19). Accessed at:
http://www.editorsweblog.org/multimedia/2009/01/twitter_first_off_the_mark_wi
th_hudson_p.php

David W. Drezner and Henry Farrell. 2008. “Introduction: Blogs, Politics, and Power: A
Special Issue of Public Choice.” Public Choice 134: 1-13.

Henry Farrell, Eric Lawrence, and John Sides. 2008. “Self Segregation or Deliberation?
Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics.”
Unpublished manuscript.

Nazila Fathi. 2009. “Support for Moderate a Challenge to Iran’s Leader.” The New York
Times online (May 25). Accessed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/world/middleeast/26iran.html

Eszter Hargittai, Jason Gallo, and Matthew Kane. 2008. “Cross-Ideological Discussions
Among Conservative and Liberal Bloggers.” Public Choice 134: 67-86.

Akshay Java, Xiaodan Song, Tim Finin, and Belle Tseng. 2007. “Why We Twitter:
Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities.” Paper presented at the Joint
 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop ’07.

James E. Katz and Ronald E. Rice. 2002. Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access,
Involvement, and Interaction (Cambridge: The MIT Press).

Robert Kraut, Michael Patterson, Vicki Lundmark, Sara Kiesler, Tridas Mukopadhyay,
and William Scherlis. 1998. “Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces
social involvement and psychological well-being.” American Psychologist 53: 1017-1031.

Evgeny Morozov. 2009. “Moldova’s Twitter revolution is NOT a myth.” Foreign Policy
(April 10). Accessed at:
http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/10/moldovas_twitter_revolutio
n_is_not_a_myth

Norman H. Nie. 2001. “Sociability, Interpersonal Relations, and the Internet: Reconciling
Conflicting Findings.” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3): 420-435.

Norman H. Nie and Lutz Erbring. 2002. “Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report.” IT
& Society 1(1): 275-283.

Markus Prior. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy (New York: Cambridge University

Press).

Robert D. Putnam. 2001. Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American
Community (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Robert D. Putnam and Lewis Feldstein. 2004. Better Together: Restoring the American
Community (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Sarah Radwanick. 2009. “ComScore Media Metrix Ranks Top 50 U.S. Web Properties
for March 2009.” ComScore Online (April 22). Accessed at:
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/4/Twitter_Traffic
_More_than_Doubles/(language)/eng-US

Amanda Rose. 2009. “Twestival Raises Over $250K and Counting.” Mashable: The
Social Media Guide (February 18). Accessed at:
http://mashable.com/2009/02/18/twestival-results/

Brian Stelter. 2009. “Real-Time Criticism of CNN’s Iran Coverage.” The New York
Times Online (June 14). Accessed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/business/media/15cable.html?scp=2&sq=c
nn&st=cse

Andrew Sullivan. 2009. “The Revolution will be Twittered.” The Atlantic Online (June
13). Accessed at:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-revolution-will-
be-twittered-1.html

20
Cass R. Sunstein. 2007. Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Alexis de Tocqueville. 1988. Democracy in America trans. George Lawrence and ed. J.
P. Mayer (New York: HarperPerennial).

Twestival. 2009. “The Twestival History.” Twestival.com (April 12). Accessed at:
http://twestival.com/
1
Benkler 2007
2
Sunstein 2007; Munger 2008
3
Putnam 2003; cf. Putnam and Feldstein 2004; Katz and Rice 2002
4
Fathi 2009
5
For those not accustomed to the format of Twitter messages, the “#iranelection” following the message
allows users following certain threads of conversation to input into the stream of messages. For purposes of
the users talking and reading about the election, #iranelection allows all messages related to the event to be
easily searched.
6
Alaho Akbar is Farsi for “Allah is the greatest.”
7
Sullivan 2009
8
Stelter 2009
9
Cf. Putnam and Feldstein 2004; Katz and Rice 2002; Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay,
and Scherlis 1998; Nie 2001; Nie and Erbring 2002
10
Tocqueville 1988, 507-508
11
ibid 1988, 189
12
ibid 1988, 692
13
ibid 1988, 509-510
14
ibid 1988, 434
15
ibid 1988, 643
16
ibid 1988, 254-256
17
ibid 1988, 192, 672, 691-692
18
ibid 1988, 510-511, 525-528
19
ibid 1988, 528
20
ibid 1988, 697
21
Putnam 2001, 51
22
Tocqueville 1988, 697
23
Putnam 2001
24
cf. Putnam and Feldstein 2004; Katz and Rice 2002
25
Kraut et al. 1998; Nie 2001; Nie and Erbring 2002
26
Kraut et al. 1998, 1019
27
See Benkler 2007 for commentary on the difference between active and passive forms of media.
28
Of course, other, non-Web technologies such as Usenet newsgroups and email groups were available for
participatory exercises, but the interactivity of these mediums lacked much semblance of dynamic
communication inherent in the technologies of Web 2.0 sites and applications. Instead, they more or less
offered the same level of interactivity available to citizens in older forms of the media; for example, one
could converse with other readers at the “ends” using the comment section following an online media
article in much the same way a person can discuss a traditional newspaper article with acquaintances.
However, these examples of interactivity are limited to the ends of the communication hub, and as such
offer little to citizens in the way of participation.
29
Benkler 2007, 179
30
Beer and Burrows 2007
31
Benkler 2007, 213
32
Sunstein 2007
33
Prior (2007) echoes this viewpoint, though his work focuses on cable news’ tendency to increase
polarization among partisan citizens, as opposed to the potential of the Internet to do so.
34
Farrell, Lawrence, and Sides 2008

21
35
Hargittai, Gallo, and Kane 2008
36
Baum and Groeling 2008
37
cf. Sunstein 2007
38
Sunstein 2007
39
Tocqueville 1988, 643
40
While other social networking sites are certainly more popular at the moment – with Facebook usage
becoming nearly ubiquitous amongst Americans – we focus on Twitter in this paper for several reasons:
Twitter is easy to use, its usage is evolving far faster than other web sites, and the service most obviously
allows for increased interaction (with friends and strangers). Further, we have every reason to believe that
Twitter may surpass even Facebook in the future. As Paul Boutin (2009) argues, “Twittermania has only
begun. In the days after Oprah’s show, Twitter’s traffic growth is accelerating. The ratings service HitWise
now ranks twitter.com as America’s No. 38 Web site. It’s about to rocket past CNN and Wells Fargo.”
41
In April, 2007, Twitter had around 94,000 users (Java, Song, Finin, and Tseng 2007); in March, 2009, the
site receive 9.3 million visitors (Radwanick 2009).
42
Crystal 2008
43
Deards 2009
44
Chittal 2009
45
ibid 2009
46
Tocqueville 1988, 517
47
In commenting on April 2009’s so-called Twitter revolution in Moldova, Evgeny Morozov (2009) notes
that “Twitter is part of a much richer social media landscape, with many other important services and
networks (Facebook, LiveJournal, WordPress, and many others come to mind) that are usually connected in
ways that are not always visible to English-language audiences…. When a new posts [sic] appears on
Twitter, it usually has a life cycle that is invisible to most of us: somebody posts it to a Romanian-language
blog, somebody posts it to a Russian blog on LiveJournal, etc – and suddenly, these re-posts allow for
initial updates to be discovered by local media – who may not know about Twitter at all – who then pass on
the news to even greater and more diverse audiences. In the case of Moldova, it’s possible that Twitter has
made much bigger impact on the new media environment outside of (rather than inside) the Twittersphere
by simply feeding a stream of blogs, social networks, and text messages with content. In my view, people
who point to the low number of Twitter users in Moldova as proof of the mythical nature of the subject
have conceptual difficulties understanding how networks work; on a good network, you don't need to have
the maximum number of connections to be powerful – you just need to be connected to enough nodes with
connections of their own.”
48
The best – and the biggest – example of this phenomenon is the so-called “Twestival” that took place on
February 12, 2009, when “close to 1,000 volunteers hosted events in over 200 cities around the world. In
all, more than 10,000 people attended” and raised upwards of $250,000 for charity: water (Rose 2009). The
concept was born when “In September 2008, a group of Twitterers based in London UK decided to
organise an event where the local Twitter community could socialize offline; meet the faces behind the
avatars, enjoy some entertainment, have a few drinks and tie this in with a food drive and fundraising effort
for a local homeless charity…. Around the world similar stories started appearing of local Twitter
communities coming together and taking action for a great cause. Twestival was born out of the idea that if
cities were able to collaborate on an international scale, but working from a local level, it could have a
spectacular impact” (Twestival 2009).
49
Benkler 2006, 237
50
cf. Kraut et al. 1998
51
cf. Java, Song, Finin, and Sing 2007
52
Drezner and Farrell 2008, 1

22