How the Internet Shapes Collective Actions

S. Schumann

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137440006
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Personnalité en psychologie

After a Facebook rebellion in Egypt and Twitter protests in Turkey, the internet has been proclaimed as a globe-shifting, revolutionizing force that can incite complex social phenomena such as collective actions. This book critically assesses this claim and highlights how internet use can shape mobilizing processes to foster collective actions.

1

How the Internet Promotes Self-organized Collective Actions

Abstract: Research on collective actions, its underpinnings and dynamics, flourished in the last decades and stimulated contributions from a multitude of disciplines. I commence Chapter 1 by introducing two common conceptualizations of collective actions that emphasize the relevance of a formal group to coordinate and structure collective actions. Following Bennett and Segerberg (2012), the participatory Internet promotes – rather than organization-brokered collective actions – self-organized engagement. More precisely, the Internet allows individuals to access information to develop personal action frames, fostering collective actions that are driven by unique aspirations and not group agendas. In addition, social media platforms may take on the role of cause-related, advocacy, and movement organizations, affording connections and communication between supporters.

Schumann, Sandy. How the Internet Shapes Collective Actions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. DOI: 10.1057/9781137440006.0005.

Throughout the past centuries, social uprisings, protests, and strikes have been an important catalyst for societal and political developments, enabling individuals to express their criticism of social systems, governments, or ideologies and bringing about social change (Melucci, 1996). Research that assesses the underpinnings and dynamics of such collective actions has flourished since the 1960s; it includes contributions from economics, sociology, political science, anthropology, history, and social psychology. Anthropological studies investigated, for instance, the cultural symbols that are produced in the course of collective actions. Research in political science examined collective actions as political actors as well as the role of political opportunities; long-term developments of actions and accounts of the events that preceded them were, for example, explored in historical research (Roggenband & Klandermans, 2010).

The diverse disciplinary roots of collective action research implicate a multitude of definitions and theoretical frameworks. It is impossible to capture all perspectives in this book, and interested readers are advised to see Klandermans and Roggeband’s Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines (2010) for a comprehensive overview. In the following, I will introduce two conceptualizations of collective actions that are grounded in social psychological research and Olson’s (1968) Logic of Collective Action. The approaches emphasize that individuals participate in collective actions on behalf of formal groups that steer demonstrations or sit-ins. In the second part of the chapter, I present the work of Bennett and Segerberg (2012, 2013) who propose that the Internet influences this group-centred understanding of collective actions by shifting power relations between decision-making entities and citizens. More precisely, the authors suggest that the participatory Internet encourages self-organized collective actions – connective actions. Rather than cause-related, advocacy, or social movement organizations, social media platforms enable communication as well as the coordination of collective actions.

Towards a definition of collective actions

On the broadest level, the various definitions of collective actions that have been put forward can be distinguished into a micro- and macro-level perspective. The latter considers – amongst others – a country’s position in the world economy and structural changes such as globalization that may altogether create a political, social, and cultural context in which collective actions are more or less likely, in which, for instance, resources or opportunities to take action are more or less available. Further, the nation state and governing bodies may grant possibilities and set limits for collective actions (Smith & Fetner, 2010). Pertaining to the central question of this book – How does the Internet shape collective actions? – technological advancements, such as the introduction of broadband Internet, are as well macro-level forces that could affect action tendencies.

That being said, I will apply in the following chapters a micro-level approach to collective actions and take the individual as the unit of analysis. Such an actor-oriented angle explores individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviour (intentions), but does not imply that collective actions are taken by only one person. More precisely, the work that I will present most commonly investigates whether Internet use – the average time spent online – or specific digital practices – accessing information or entertainment – shape individuals’ willingness and actual attendance in collective actions. Macro-level influences such as the political environment or legislation certainly impact these relations; they are, however, rarely explicitly considered in the analyses.

Group-brokered collective actions

Collective actions include a wide range of activities; they may be set in public, such as demonstrations and sit-ins, or happen in private, such as making a donation and boycotting a product. Certain collective actions require particular skills, such as lobbying or hacking websites; others can be taken by anyone who is interested in supporting a campaign by wearing, for instance, a button or by signing a petition. In social psychological research, the aforementioned examples are referred to as collective actions if they are performed by members of low-status groups to improve the position, power, and influence of the entire disadvantaged group (Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990). For example, migrant workers who protest to advocate labour rights for all migrant workers engage in a collective action.

Further, high-status group members may join collective actions to maintain the status-quo and the oppression of disadvantaged groups (Van Zomeren & Iyer, 2009). Following the previous example, if members of the host society start a petition to prevent migrant workers from attaining labour rights so that all members of the host society do not have to pay more for migrants’ work, this campaign is understood as a collective action. Alternatively, members of the host society who join the demonstration of migrant workers take a collective action in solidarity with the low-status group. Finally, opinion-based groups – two or more individuals who agree on an opinion and for whom sharing this point of view determines their group membership (Bliuc, McGarty, Reynolds, & Muntele, 2007) – initiate collective actions to promote their ideas. A sit-in around a tree that ought to be cut down can be viewed as a collective action of an environmental group, if the protesters agree on the fact that protecting biodiversity is crucial and if they want to advance this mission through their action.

To address these four scenarios, Postmes and Brunsting (2002) referred to collective actions as “actions undertaken by individuals or groups for a collective purpose, such as the advancement of a particular ideology or idea, or the political struggles with another group” (pp. 290–291). If citizens, however, attend protests or make donations with the goal to gain personal benefits, the actions are not considered collective but personal actions (Wright et al., 1990). Concluding, collective actions are conditional on individuals’ affiliation with a group that they act for or on behalf of. This approach resonates with work that examines patterns of civic engagement. Gil de Zúñiga and Valenzuela (2011) describe civic engagement as a voluntary civic activity that is concerned with social and/or community issues that aims to ensure collective goals and well-being. Examples for civic engagement include volunteering for a group that plans to build a play ground in the neighbourhood or hosting community meetings to promote the expansion of a natural reserve. In other words, through civic engagement citizens strive to achieve a collective purpose that benefits a larger group that one is part of or sympathizes with.

At this point, I want to highlight why such a sense of group membership, a sense of belonging, is a relevant constituent of (taking) collective actions. Self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) postulates that individuals’ self-concept – their answers to the question “Who am I?” – consists of a collection of cognitive representations that include distinct, personal characteristics – I have brown eyes, I am a curious person, I like to sleep in – as well as references to group memberships – I belong to my local volleyball club, I am a member of the classical music society, I am Swedish. These representations are organized in a hierarchical system on different levels of abstraction. At the subordinate, the interpersonal level, idiosyncratic characteristics define the self-concept; the personal identity is salient (Turner, 1999). On the intermediate, the intergroup level social identities¹ are salient. The latter represent the cognitive aspect of being a member of a certain group, knowing that one belongs to a group, as well as the associated “emotional and value significance” (Tajfel, 1972, p. 31). All individual and group differences deem, however, unimportant on the superordinate, the interspecies level of self-categorization where individuals define themselves and others as part of the all encompassing category human beings (Turner, 1999).

Participation in collective actions, as discussed thus far, relies on self-categorization at an intergroup level. Then, group norms govern members’ perceptions, judgments, attitudes, emotions, and actions, and individual behaviour shifts to collective behaviour (Castano, Yzerbyt, Paladino, & Sacchi, 2002). Consequently, engagement in collective actions is strictly defined by the interpretations and possible sanctions of a group; there is little room to negotiate personalized perspectives. After all, if individuals affiliate with a group they value – in themselves and others – attitudes and behaviour that advance their group’s endeavours (Tropp & Brown, 2004).

Mancur Olson (1968) proposes in the Logic of Collective Action that groups cannot only rely on members’ sense of affiliation, but must introduce as well procedures and incentives to encourage collective actions. Olson (1968) defined collective actions as behaviour that creates a public good, such as a public radio station, a park, or the right for abortion. A public good is non-excludable; it is accessible to all citizens and can also be enjoyed by those who did not fight for its provision. Being rational actors, individuals are thought to consider the costs and benefits of engagement and are likely concluding that not participating in collective actions is the most effective choice: The public good can be attained without exerting any effort. This free-riding tendency should be reduced in small groups; here, incentives to foster engagement are administered more easily and individuals should view their contributions as more potent.

To assert the group-brokered nature of the aforementioned conceptualizations of collective actions, consider this example: A demonstration is organized by an environmental advocacy group. To become a member, citizens need to register officially with a local representation of the group and pay an annual fee. When the group plans the demonstration, roles are assigned and a structure is established. Some supporters may be responsible for painting signs and banners; others ensure that the demonstration is in line with the city’s regulations or arrange transportation. The group leaders prescribe the rationale for the action – for instance, a natural reserve must be established because breeding grounds for birds are disappearing – and members are expected to follow these interpretations. Information about the whereabouts and schedule of the demonstration is spread amongst members; citizens who are not formally affiliated with the group are probably not aware of the action. Importantly, members know that if they want to support their group, they join the demonstration – they would not initiate another action with another goal. Attending the protest will be rewarded with validation from the group leaders and positive feedback from other supporters.

Crowd-enabled collective actions

Now imagine a demonstration where citizens do not know each other; they join for various reasons and learnt about the time and place of the protest though their personal social network rather than a formal group. Bennett and Segerberg (2012, 2013) propose that the ubiquity of the participatory Internet encourages the rise of such self-organized collective actions – connective actions – that do not compromise personal beliefs for group ideologies. In other words, social media platforms and its interactive tools may shape the nature of collective actions by shifting the focus from centralized, group-driven engagement to personalized participation.

Users are increasingly generating and disseminating content online, and patterns of news consumption suggest that citizens prefer to receive information that is not filtered by traditional gatekeepers to compile and interpret the material independently (Smith & Rainie, 2010). These developments alter the power relations between decision-making entities such as cause-related, advocacy, and movement organizations and their supporters. Groups are less dominant in setting the tone of a discourse and in steering individuals’ points of view. Rather, as Bennett and Segerberg (2013) point out, political and social issues are considered as frames that are adaptable depending on individual needs and concerns. As a result, personal action frames – addressing unique aspirations and motivations – are established and collective actions emerge as “an expression of personal hopes, lifestyles, and grievances” (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012, p. 743) – not based on the agendas and incentives of formal groups. Citizens choose tactics from their own and not necessarily organizational repertoires of contention; they are proactive and initiate collective actions online or offline.

Despite this personalization, connective actions do not lack a mission or resolve in chaos. The participatory Internet is a context that is rich in information and that promotes communication: Relationships emerge between users and provide structure, processes, and resources (see also Bimber, Flanagin, & Stohl, 2012; Flanagin, Stohl, & Bimber, 2006). In fact, it has been argued that social media platforms take on the role of cause-related, advocacy, and movement organizations and offer the central tools to coordinate actions. As Gónzalez-Bailón and colleagues (2013) noted, “in the case of recent protests [in North Africa, Spain, Greece, or the United States], large numbers of people were recruited and mobilized in a decentralized, horizontal way, using preexisting networks of communication that were not necessarily ( ...) political” (p. 947). On Facebook, for instance, users can easily connect with others who are concerned about the same issue by joining Facebook pages – sometimes only temporarily. Organizations can unite on the social network site with other initiatives that address similar missions. In bringing together diverse individuals and causes – being not limited by time, borders, or physical space – such self-organized, loose action networks have a variety of resources available to initiate, coordinate, and stage collective actions. As the number of digital ties grows, information and mobilizing messages spread farther.

More precisely, the participatory Internet enables citizens to report and promote engagement to their personal social network. Thereby calls for actions reach individuals who never would have attended a protest or sit-in – either because they would not want to commit to a fixed organizational agenda or because they would not have been targeted by the mobilizing efforts of formal groups. Ultimately, collective actions become more inclusive. Bennett and Segerberg (2013) hence propose to conceptualize collective actions as actions that are taken by a “large number of people who experience a common problem or issue and seek common solutions” (p. 1). Individuals do not necessarily need to get engaged on behalf of a group, and they may have diverse motives for participation. While research in soc...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• 1  How the Internet Promotes Self-organized Collective Actions
• 2  How Internet Use Incites Offline Collective Actions
• 3  The Internet as a Platform for Online Collective Actions
• 4  How Cause-related, Advocacy, and Social Movement Organizations Use the Internet to Promote Collective Actions
• 5  How the Internet Shapes Collective Actions in the Future
• Bibliography
• Index