The Light and Shadow of Media Content Activism: Liberalism or Communitarianism?

Since the 1990s, the media has become even more powerful. The fall of the totalitarian socialist states at the end of the 20th century was largely due to the media. Almost every aspect of human society is now under the influence of media. Real-world politics and economy, society and culture are all interacting with media products (which exist somewhere between the virtual and the real). This is where the term “content activism” comes into play. As you may know, content activism is the idea of “realizing social movements through content”. In some countries, where totalitarian dictatorships and human rights abuses that deprive people of their freedom are commonplace, content activism can be crucial as a way for citizens to actively mobilize in solidarity and resistance to unjust social and cultural systems. Content activism can be a new wind of change in a conservative or troubled society, and it can be a “conduit and device for social justice”. To this end, media content aimed at the majority is often utilized as a means of content activism. The problem is that media content activism is not as simply positive as this. This is because content activism can lead to difficulties and conflicts in social consensus, a side effect of dissonance. In advanced cultural content societies, where content activism can thrive, the content echos are free to burst forth with content that seeks to realize justice based on its own perspectives and ideologies, whether from the left or the right, and from different sectors of society. Based on this perspective, this article examines the two characteristics of media content, the ideological messages of content activism, and parrhesia, or “fearless speech” emphasized by M. Foucault. Finally, it considers the significance and dangers of media content activism from a socio-ethical perspective.