Paper

The World Trade Organization marked the new millennium with its November 1999 conference in Seattle, Washington, soon after to be known as the “Battle in Seattle”. The proceedings were met with the fiercest series of protests against globalization to date on U.S. soil. Forty countries and conservative estimates of tens of thousands of individuals lined the streets to protest the WTO’s trade, labor and environmental policies, as well as the favorable treatment towards the WTO by mainstream media (Lievroux, p. 134). These protests were organized and fueled, in part, by an experiment in media activism called Independent Media Center, or Indymedia. Begun in Seattle in 1999, Indymedia grew to 178 websites at its peak in 2008 (Lievroux, p. 140). With its slogan, “Don’t hate the media, be the media”, Indymedia’s purpose was to provide an online outlet for local activists to post protest demonstration details and independent news coverage. It has since declined in influence due to internal tensions and the rise of other alternative outlets, but remains a pioneer in the effort to use social media to advance social and political causes.

Indymedia’s rapid rise and eventual decline symbolize the conflict inherent in using social media to support collective action. It is undeniable, on one hand, that the internet provides an unprecedented arena for broadcasting information and viewpoints that are largely absent from mainstream media. The immediacy of social media and its global reach, coupled with its capacity to include images, a personal or local angle, and the compelling voice of those who passionately wish to bring about positive change, all work to voice the call to action. On the other hand, social media have long been criticized for attracting only superficial attention to injustice. Malcolm Gladwell (2010) concluded that social media can not provide the two crucial elements to any lasting social movement: discipline and strategy (5). He sums up the criticism against the effectiveness of online activism when he states, “It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact” (6). In this paper, I will explore the scholarly literature that supports the role of social media in advancing societal change, the literature that challenges that role, and conclude with thoughts on my research question, “According to recent literature, is social media an effective tool for activists confronting social injustice?”

Social and political change need not require tear gas and mass arrests, as seen at the “Battle in Seattle”. Instead, some activists motivate citizens to work within the system to affect meaningful change, and have found social media to be the key. For example, McGrath (2011) reports on the efforts of two voter advocacy groups, ColorOfChange.org and Voto Latino, to use cell phones, email and websites to raise awareness in underrepresented voter blocks, African-Americans and Latinos. Noting that their target populations access their websites through mobile devices, these organizations have designed their sites with this in mind, gearing content towards one-minute videos and short blogs. Social media technology allows these organizations to gather accurate information on which issues matter the most to their audience. They describe a digital difference, rather than a digital divide (p. 43), guiding how, not whether, these voters will be engaged.

Reaching people and stoking interest in a cause would appear to be the strong suit of social media, as observed by Meyer and Bray (2013). They were principally interested in how emerging adults (ages 18-25) used social media to participate in social movements, and how effective this participation was. Like many such studies, the results were mixed. Respondents to an online survey said that they joined a social cause via a social media network because they believed in the cause (40.9%), but 54.2% also said that their online interest had little effect on their offline activities for a cause. In gauging how effective social media is for these causes, it is interesting to note that the participants’ definition of “effective” centered around raising awareness and spreading information rather than measurable changes in public opinion or policy. Using this definition, 41.5% felt that social media was effective. However, approximately one third responded that online social movements raised only superficial interest in their causes, with awareness alone not resulting in any actual change.

Gladwell’s pessimism about the impact of social media on sustained and effective change, and Meyer and Bray’s divided conclusions are reinforced by the findings of Kang (2012), who analyzed the 2009 Whole Foods boycott following its CEO’s Wall Street Journal editorial opposing healthcare reform. The boycott was organized on a Facebook page that offered users the opportunity to post their pro and con views on current healthcare reform, as well as learn details of local Whole Foods pickets. Kang found that Facebook provided a valuable site for competing viewpoints, despite the combative tone the discourse often took. However, Kang observed that such discourse “has limitations as a public engagement, because it remains rooted in broad ethical appeals... and fails to tackle technical considerations related to... political issues” (p.572). Further, with online arguments “The complexity of social issues are effaced, and sensational and simplistic discourses circulate faster and wider” (p.575), supporting Gladwell’s view that the nature of online organizing works against sustained, disciplined attention on difficult issues.

Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter do not operate in a vacuum, of course. Whether or not they have the capacity to perform a valuable service in positive collective actions, they exist to turn a profit. Youmans and York (2012) investigate how the commercial interests of these corporations create tension for those users who depend on such media to spread word of their cause. For example, Facebook bans anonymous accounts so harassment or criminal activity can be detected. However, those posting information and views that oppose an oppressive regime depend on complete privacy for their own protection (p. 319). Facebook also bans violent or disturbing images at its discretion, but such images can be necessary to expose a government’s brutal practices. Facebook and YouTube have both allowed, then taken down, graphic images of tortured bodies and brutal assaults by police or military (p. 320). Allowing the images may be in line with exceptions for educational or documentary material, but it may also endanger corporate employees or assets situated in unstable countries. This article concludes, however, by identifying six strategies that can aid activists facing these challenges: using social media “en masse” to force the industry to adapt; legal maneuvers against media companies that do not protect users; appealing to democratic governments to enact regulations that make censorship and surveillance more difficult; agitate for industry self-regulation; applying steady pressure on social media companies to preserve what power the users retain; and fully exploit open architecture sites such as Wikipedia (p. 325). These practices would preserve the powerful role social media might play in collective actions.

The power of social media to play a significant role in social change can be analyzed according to who is receiving the message, how long they stay engaged in a thread, and how compelling the content of the message is. Wang et al. studied the interplay of equality (relative popularity of a Twitter user), stability (how long a Twitter user stayed with a discussion), and emotion (the positive or negative tone of a tweet) in determining how widespread a discussion thread is. They found that discussions tend to be dominated by a small fraction of Twitter users who have the most followers, which results in a highly unequal distribution of tweets. Further, the popularity of the user influences stability: popular initiators tend not to stay with a thread, while popular receivers do. The most popular receivers are (in order) news organizations, individual activists, and celebrities, suggesting that initiators use Twitter strategically to garner attention from those who will spread the message most efficiently. Finally, this study found that emotion was an important element in a re-tweeted message; a negative voice resulted in faster distribution and more responses. Given that the literature seems to support social media’s capacity to raise awareness, the implication for social movements is that “ordinary” users can engage more popular and powerful users in their cause by acting as initiators. These “elite” receivers then perpetuate the message using their followers.

Citizens agitating for revolution also use social media in more subtle ways. Harlow (2013) performed a qualitative textual analysis of Facebook posts during Egypt’s “Arab Spring”, and found that narratives played a vital role in fueling the revolution. Stories of personal experiences with government oppression were spread via Facebook until they became memes. Once they become viral, such stories, exemplified by Egypt’s “We Are All Khaled Said”, normalize the rhetoric around revolution, foster a sense of collective identity, and make the idea of successful protests seem more plausible. Further, such a role in activism does not fit neatly into the accepted theoretical frameworks for social movements, and indicates that social media needs to be considered more than just a tool for societal change, but a means of changing the nature of movements in the future (p. 73).

In contesting social media’s capacity for bringing about real societal progress, Malcolm Gladwell provides a succinct re-wording of the popular term, “slacktivism”: “Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice” (4). The evidence supports this view, at least in part. However, in seeking an answer to my initial question, “According to recent literature, is social media an effective tool for activists confronting social injustice?”, I wonder if this type of engagement, insufficient in Gladwell’s eyes, might have a useful role in collective action after all. The literature describes social media as being an effective means of starting and continuing conversations, of advertising details of planned protests, and of telling compelling stories that bring people together through shared experience. These are not the only elements of a social movement, they may not even be the most important, but they do perform real functions within a collective action. Social media can not replace those high-risk, face-to-face encounters that make or break a movement, but it can publicize, energize, and mobilize the actors that put themselves on the line to make a difference. 


References

Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change. New Yorker, 86(30), 42-49. Retrieved from http:// search.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=54022061&site=ehost-live

Harlow, S. (2013). It was a "facebook revolution": Exploring the meme-like spread of narratives during the Egyptian protests. Revista De Comunicación, 12, 59-82. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=92630500&site=ehost-live

Kang, J. (2012). A volatile public: The 2009 Whole Foods boycott on Facebook. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 562-577. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2012.732142

Lievroux, L.A. Alternative and activist new media. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011.

McGrath, M. (2011). Technology, media, and political participation. National Civic Review, 100(3), 41-44. doi:10.1002/ncr.20075

Meyer, M. E., & Bray, C. W. (2013). Emerging Adult Usage of Social Networks as Sites of Activism: A Critical Examination of the TOMS and TWLOHA Movements. Ohio Communication Journal, 5153-76.

Wang, C., Wang, P., & Zhu, J. J. (2013). Discussing Occupy Wall Street on Twitter: Longitudinal Network Analysis of Equality, Emotion, and Stability of Public Discussion. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 16(9), 679-685. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0409

Youmans, W. L., & York, J. C. (2012). Social media and the activist toolkit: User agreements, corporate interests, and the information infrastructure of modern social movements. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 315-329. doi:10.1111/j. 1460-2466.2012.01636.x