Lauren Langman, Douglas Morris
Department of Sociology
The
forms, organization and goals of social movements are dependent on their
historical context. The development a bourgeois “public sphere”, dependent on
books, pamphlets and letters, enabled the rise of bourgeois revolutions and/or
nationalist movements to overthrow dynastic rule. In the 60’s, civil rights and
anti-war movements used television to garner support. More recently, the
emergence of a globalized political economy largely dependent on the Internet,
has enabled the emergence and rapid proliferation of world wide, alternative
globalization movements, organized and coordinated through the Internet. This
collection of movements has raised a number of questions.
These
movements require rethinking social movement theory. We begin with a critique
and extension of social movement theory in the light of the critical theory of
the
I.
Introduction
The Enlightenment claimed
that in the name of science and Reason, people should govern themselves and be
active participants in governance. These ideas, spread through print media,
discussed and debated in various “public spheres” gave rise to various social
mobilizations in the 18th and 19th centuries. With
industrialization, came another wave of democratic social movements:
nationalism, unionization, abolition and suffrage. In the 60s, new social
movements, NSMs, emerged that were typically concerned with questions of
identity and values directed toward civil rights, feminism, ecology, gay
rights, etc. Today, with the development of computer-mediated communication
(CMC) as an essential moment of globalization, we have witnessed the emergence
of thousands of transnational NGOs, democratic grass roots organizations and
massive social mobilizations. Organizations mediated through the Internet can
be thought of as internetworked social movements (ISMs). ISMs are organized
through “mobilizing networks” or coordination structures that mediate and
articulate new forms of identities and strategies for participation in social
action that contest current social/global conditions.
We believe the emergence of internetworked social
movements and their participatory mobilizing networks portend new forms of
democratic politics that integrate some of the structures and strategies of
previous movements, while extending the possibilities of social movements in
new directions. Today, large movement mobilizing networks must be charted
across extremely complex webs of communication, online and offline, that inform
complex, dispersed, and quickly changing field of organizing, decision making,
coordination and issue construction. We use recent developments in the critical
theory tradition of the
II. Perspectives on Globalization and Social
Movements
Globalization, as a
description of the contemporary world, is an extensively debated topic with
little consensus over its nature, meaning and implications. Scholars offer
different explanations of the basis and consequences of globalization. Some
give primacy to the political economy and provide a materialist explanation the
emergence of a new class of elites and the universalization of consumerist
ideologies (Sklair 2001; Harris 2001). Others give primacy to political
factors, state actions, transnational regulatory bodies, and the growing power
of INGOs concerned with environmentalism, human
rights, feminism, etc. (Held 2000; Tarrow 1998; Smith et al 1997; Keck and Sikkink 1998). Still others emphasize the increasingly
important role of media and cultural forces in shaping global relations (Waters
1995; Escobar 2000). With the concentration of mass media, and the “space-time
compression” of the modern world, there have been radical transformations of
culture, consciousness and identity (Harvey 1989; Giddens 1991). We take an
interdisciplinary view to explore the interactions between various social
spheres. There are however underlying factors that impact the nature of
globalization regardless of perspective.
Advanced technologies and information systems have transformed production, distribution, command, control and communication. Today, the majority of products and services are produced or distributed by large transnational corporations (TNCs) whose “global reach” and global brands now extend to most of the populated world (Sklair 2001; Klein 2000). Globalization has eroded state boundaries as goods, information, ideas and even masses of people move freely across the world (Held 2000). Globalization, in its current form has been dependent on the development of new computer-mediated communication (CMC). We believe that the development of computer-mediated communication has been a world historical event. CMC and the Internet have led to greater transparency, potential and actual interconnectivity at various levels within and between institutions (Holzner 2001). Information can now flow across new networks to allow exchanges from the “many to the many,” creating rich possibilities for democratic interaction (Rheingold 1993). The same information technologies that have enabled the globalization of commerce and the rise of “network society” that have also led to new forms of communication and in turn new forms of collective identity (Castells 1997; Melucci 1996). Information technology enables new forms of online social movement actions, also called cyberactivism and cyberpolitics (Ribeiro 1998).
Perspectives on
Social Movements
Early modern theorizing of
social movements noted the irrationality of mobs (Tarde,
LeBon). Freud suggested that groups and group
processes have structures, albeit based on the unconscious. Throughout the
twentieth century, various efforts have been made to understand the structure,
development, action mobilization, and qualities of social movements. Our
theoretical framework draws on multiple perspectives: critical theory, resource
mobilization, social constructionism (framing), and
new social movement theory. Given these starting points, and the fundamentally
new, emergent, qualities of internetworked social movements, or “network
armies” (Hunter, 2002), we will attempt to
theorize these new forms of mobilization.
Resource
Mobilization: Resource
mobilization (RM) theory arose in the socio-historical condition of the 1970s
when the radicalism of the 1960s gave way to many types of social movements
vying for power to reform mainstream society along specific interest lines. RM
theory explains the motivation to political action in terms of an economistic
analysis of the costs and benefit of participation (Zald
and McCarthy 1987). A central concern of RM theory at the micro level is the
rational agency of individual actors as they interface with the strategies of
social movement organizations. At a meso level, RM
theory addressed the dynamics of social movement organizations. A weakness of
the RM models is it did not explain more informal social movement activity such
as is found in the loose coalition networks characteristic of some movements
today. Another criticism is that the role of subjective factors such as
grievances (which may be differential in motivating action) and ideology
formation in social mobilization are downplayed. Despite these lacunae, RM, in
stressing the roles of organizations, resources, strategies, leadership and the
agency of actors, provides important insights. Social movements theorists have
critiqued and modified RM in various directions, most notably in framing theory
and political process theory.
Political Process: Some theorists have focused on the political aspects
of movements such as political dynamics (organizations, resources,
mobilization), the structure of political opportunities (power differentials)
and political conflicts amongst power holders and challengers (McAdam 1982; Tilly 1978; Tarrow
1998). Tarrow (1998) has extended this model to include cycles and repertoires
of contention, opportunity structures, framing resources, and complex
“mobilizing structures” as important factors informing social movements. For
Tarrow, mobilizing structures have three possible meanings in terms of the form
of movements: formal organization, the organization of actions, and the
connections between organizers and followers within and across movement
networks. We have adapted the latter two aspects of Tarrow’s
concept to internetworked social movements in focusing on “mobilizing
networks,” coordinating structures that are more fluid and virtual than earlier
type of movements, but at the same time, capable of mobilizing many people for
direct actions.
Framing: To correct the objectivist aspects of RM theory, Snow
et al (1986) added a constructivist social psychological and ideological
dimension to resource mobilization by adopting Goffman's
theory of frame alignment. Framing theory uses a symbolic interactionist
perspective to study social psychological and cultural factors relating to
mobilization. Such frames explain the basis of adversity, offer visions of a
desirable world, and suggest strategies. On a pragmatic level, the success of a
movement depends in part on developing a belief system that encourages
participation. On a motivational level, Gamson (1992)
notes that meaning construction is especially important in how grievances and motivations
are defined, linked, and critically extended to form collective identity,
solidarity, and the consciousness or critical awareness of movement actors.
Klandermans (1992) extended the framing perspective to the interconnectedness
of networking and issue framing and the influence of media discourse. To
understand contemporary movements, it is necessary to have a social movement
model which connects identity, ideology, and network formation to understand
how collective action may mobilized via CMC.
New Social Movements: These theories specifically address the conditions for the emergence of collective action and collective identity formation in contemporary information society. The organizing base of NSMs has been theorized as more dispersed, diverse, fluid, and complex in structure than the more defined and fixed structures of previous movement organizations (e.g., labor movements). NSMs can be seen as being grounded in the resistance of middle class to the rationalizing force of modernity and expression of cherished values and/or sharing of group solidarity (Lichterman 1996). NSMs focus on the construction of collective identities (for coherence and to articulate resistance) and nurturing relationships as central values/aims of movement activity. Participatory democratic relations and decentralized forms of organization are a central value perspective (Castells 1997; Melucci 1996). Articulating creative symbolic or cultural modes of resistance are as important to organizing as those for political influence. Movements may be read as strategically navigating fields of action where interest and identity formation are necessary mediating processes in that social movements leverage power against political bodies by virtue of mobilizing publics around shared themes and interests. Most helpful are multi-factor models of recruitment and of the interaction of movements with other movements and broader macro-level political economic structures and cultural mediations.
Social
Movements and the Internet
A growing body of literature speaks to issues of the new, transnational NGOs (Tarrow 2001; Smith 2001; Keck and Sikkink 1998). But the more recent internetworked social movements, which tend to be far less structured, more open and participatory, and articulated across a wide variety of issues, cannot easily be understood within the existing frameworks (Langman et als, 2002). We have thus drawn upon the larger body of social movement theory to develop preliminary models.
In the case of the alternative globalization movements, very few researcherst have investigated actual protest organizations and/or spoken with actual demonstrators. Most commentaries have been focused on macro-social factors and ex post facto analyses. This is not to ignore the important studies of George (2001), O’Neill (2000) and Smith (2001). But most of these studies have tended to be limited in scope and preliminary. The radical differences between internetworked social movements and earlier movements has not fully theorized. There is no simple answer as to how and why people become involved in democratic social movements. The Internet makes the question especially complex. Does the net enable recruitment, or do people already disposed to activism manage to find activist groups via the net? Do such movements attract the alienated and marginal, or the more engaged (Garner 1999)? Are activists rebels, or have they come from activist backgrounds? Movements are not only struggling for access to social power but also for “the right to participate in the very definition of the political system, the right to define that in which they wish to be included" (Alvarez et al 1998: p21). In a globally networked society, local concerns/problems become linked to global patterns of power. Much like the local-global linkages found in globalized capital networks, some movement theorists argue that movement structures operate simultaneously on local and global levels (Escobar 2000; Harcourt 1999; Ribeiro 1998). In a study of various alternative globalization movements (AGMs), Starr (2000) argues that a common strategy of AGMs is to conceptualize structural locations and democratic practices that preserve and recreate local cultures and ways of life. Similarly, Escobar (2000) argues that anti-globalization social movements struggle in various ways for the defense of local places and cultures, the transformation of entrenched forms of power and domination (such as gender and race domination), and the construction of coalitions through media and actor-networks. He further suggests that in transnational movements that various collective identities intersect and are mutually transformed in relation to previous definitions. And, in the intersection of various identities a global collective identity may be forming. We believe that a close analysis of the development of mobilizing networks and complex, multi-dimensional collective identities mediated through the Internet gives leverage to explain the new emergent qualities of internetworked movements and their potentials for growth and strategic influence.
III.
A Model of Internetworked Social Movements
The
emergence of internetworked social movements requires us think outside of the
“boxes” of the dominant theoretical models. As Buechler
(2000) notes, contemporary globally oriented, Internet mediated, movements, in
which grievances and ideologies play a role in framing and organizing, are not
easily understood by any single paradigm. Thus, we need to consider different
levels of analysis with different paradigms. To do so it is necessary to
outline a multileveled thoery of internetworked
movements, considering macro, meso, and micro aspects
of movements.
Democracy, Movements, and Public Spheres
Just as print media enabled the move of
consciousness from the local to the emerging “national” levels of shared
identities as citizens, the Internet has enabled new forms of consciousness,
community and identity and new forms of connectivity at transnational levels.
It is crucial to understand that internetworked social movements sometimes
engage in democratic practices outside mainstream media and even outside
the existing political structures. We suggest an integration of
Habermas’ notion of the “public sphere” as a site and basis for democratic
communication and LeClau and Mouffe’s (1984) formulations of democracy as
pluralistic, free articulations of a variety of identities. Fraser (1989) has
argued that Habermas' notion of the public sphere conceives of public discourse
as a single overarching medium, whereas a “multiplicity of publics” actually
advances democracy.
The Internet and
information technology are part of a major world historical transformation of
social relations through political, economic and cultural globalization. The
Internet, providing a many-to-many networked communication medium is being used
to disseminate information not easily available and to organize new virtual,
often dispersed communities, cybercultures and social
movements. Thus, Internet media create various “virtual public spheres” in the
tradition of open, undistorted communication and democratic social change.
These “virtual public spheres” (Calhoun 1997; Langman et al 2001) that mediate
social relationships create the conditions for “alternative political
opportunity structures” (Tarrow 1998) that have implications for the
transformation of society. We are now witnessing the expansion of a variety of
social movement coalitions, including those between diverse, often antagonistic
movements (e.g., ecology and labor).
In internetworking across diverse publics for common and
diverse interests, AGMs exemplify a pluralistic democracy working outside of
traditional political parties or even NGO organizations. Some mainstream
movement organizations, such as labor, are finding that the net transforms
their operations in a more democratic manner. Shostak
(1999) notes that more unionists are communicating with one another through
e-mail than by phone, mail, and fax. Shostak
emphasizes that the Internet is not only a medium for information and
communication. The Internet leads to a familiarity between far-flung
representatives in the union–so that when they meet in person at conventions,
it is easier to form relationships. The Net is also collapsing the distance
between the line and the top of both the union and company hierarchies. This is
leading to the ability of individuals and groups in unions to take initiatives,
as has sometimes been the case in some of the labor organizing in the AGM
protests. In general, the tendencies for greater democracy on the net are accompanying
increasing resistance to injustice and oligarchic forms of power.
Counter arguments have been made about the democratic
potentials of network society. One is that the potentials for democracy on the
Net are mixed and involve conflicting forces. As Garner (1999) has noted,
various anti-democratic (fascist, racist) movements and democratic movements
use the web. Whatever the ideological content flowing through and shaping the
Internet, cyberspace has made possible a plurality of new virtual "public
spheres" where a variety of otherwise marginal voices might be heard.
Another critic, Boggs (2001) sees that the international economy has been
decoupled from local political control. This point is well made, being grounded
in current research (Sklair 2001, Harris 2001). Boggs is therefore quite
pessimistic about the possibilities of either public spheres or sustained
effective political action—notwithstanding the alternative globalization
movements. For others however, CMCs allow the
emergence of new public spheres and possibilities of internetworking that
creates new connections and movements (Calhoun, 1997) linking many local sites
of resistance in complex global networks connected by communication systems and
a very wide umbrella of critique global capital and politics. The Internet both
expands the potentials for democratic social institutions through many-to-many
link and expands the body politic geographically to the globe. The Internet has
enabled a plurality of voices to
publicly articulate, critique and debate a variety views and
standpoints, and yet, there is a unity in the variety, a tapestry in which many
strands are woven together. In the face of domination resulting from economic
globalization, it has become necessary for diverse social movements to work
together to simultaneously advance both their common and diverse interests.
To understand the interaction of mobilizing networks
and global-local structural factors, it is necessary to consider social
movement frames, ideology, identity, and strategy as structuring factors. We
will discuss macro level movement dynamics in cultural terms of “public
spheres” (drawing on Calhoun, Castells, Escobar and Melucci). Structural
considerations are noted in terms of transnational networks (drawing on Keck and
Sikkink, Tarrow, Tilly) and
politico-economic critiques of power and media, alternative and mainstream,
help frame our theory as they so inform the complex AGM networks articulated
vis-à-vis transnational capital and ruling elites.
To focus the above theoretical considerations we propose
following problematics/hypotheses as key areas of study of ISMs.:
·
As a result of
the interconnectedness of movement networks on the Internet, movement
ideologies, identity formation and strategies are more likely to be renegotiated
and rearticulated in various public spheres. Thus, coalitions amongst different
types of movements (such as feminist and labor movements) lead to renegotiated
forms of collective identity and to new umbrella strategies that articulate
linkages across various moral and identity terrains.
·
Specifically,
some recent alternative globalization mobilization networks are in the process
of forming a new collective identity, a global justice identity.
This is being formed to
encompass the great plurality of interests involved in the alternative
globalization movement networks.
·
The interactions
within and among movement mobilizing internetworks
are the webs of decision making, communication, and coordination that navigate
the complex, dispersed, and quickly changing fields of issue construction and
strategizing that face internetworked social movements, ISMs. These complex
mobilizing internetworks (that may weave across a
great many organizations) currently reconfigure on a case by case basis
(protest by protest). Mobilizing networks seem to “harden” around leadership
structures in local manifestations of protests and policy making meetings, but
in practice such arrangements may reconfigure within actions or shortly
thereafter.
·
If complex
network relations become routinized between various organizational offices over
time, this could lead to their institutionalization, creating new sustained,
transnational structures in civil society.
Central to understanding
ISMs is understanding the fundamental dialectic of the Internet. On the one
hand, the Net is the means through which global firms move capital, finance investements, conduct business, coordinate branches,
design/produce and sell goods/services and sustain profits. But, the Net also
can be used as a medium for resistance. Through internetworking and
cyberactivism, net-based organizing enables various social actions and
mobilizations in which progressive social movements confront globalization
through new forms of communication, community building, resistance and
mobilization (Castells 1997; Dyer-Witheford 1999; Melucci 1996). Of the recent
upsurge of ISMs, perhaps most notable have been the support for the Zapatistas
and dolphin free tuna, the Land Mine treaty banding the manufacture and
deployment of mines, and ending strip mining, clear cutting forests and
genetically modified organisms. More recently, masses of youth have protested
against neo-liberal economic globalization from Seattle to Genoa embracing
frameworks that critique globalization, targeting treaties such as FTAA,
regulatory agencies such as the WTO, IMF, World Bank, WEF, etc., and the
meetings of global and regional elite power blocks such as the G8, EU, TABD,
etc. These movements, using technologically sophisticated forms of
internetworking, have rapidly proliferated and embrace a variety of democratic
goals (Langman et al 2001). Internetworked social movements, as networks of
organizations, often consist of broad coalitions that range from trade
unionists to environmentalists, feminists, and gay rights activists. These
movements may be seen as networks of networks (Keck and Sikkink
1998).
We suggest that internetworked
movements operate through various types of “cyberactivism"
(based on Langman et al 2001). These are a
combination of two factors: first, type of social action in regards to the net
either “through the net” (the net as a tool) or “in the net” (the net as a
social space or site of contestation), a distinction discussed by Poster in
terms of the Net as tool and/or community (199x); and second, type of social
sphere (economic, political-relational, and cultural). Hence, cyberactivism through the Net is seen in: 1) Internetworking, 2) Capital and
information flows, and 3) Alternative media. Cyberactivism
in the Net is seen in: 4) Direct cyberactivism
(hacktivism), 5) Contesting and constructing the
Internet, and 6) Online communities. We define the types of cyberactivism
preliminarily as follows:
·
Internetworking: The Internet extends the reach of existing struggles
and enables the expansion of established movements, new organizations and
actions. Many traditional social movement organizations (SMOs)
(often becoming NGOs) such as the ACLU, NAACP, and AFL-CIO as well as new SMOs such as NOW, ACT-UP, Amnesty International, Human
Rights Watch, and Green Peace, maintain online resources and organize online in
diverse ways[1]. We see
various ISMs as less institutionalized, grass roots movements that use the
Internet to coordinate actions by a diversity of groups.
·
Capital and information flows: Net based economic activity includes such processes
as mainstream networked channels of capital distribution, solicitation, and
management by social movements; computer mediated barter banks and local
capital pools and credit unions and collective goods coordinated via the net,
and decentralized P2P media distribution networks. Large mainstream movement
organizations and NGOs raise funds and coordinate capital through the Internet.
Information resources are also extensive on the net including extensive
information on foundations and grant making. Databases of movement
organizations and contacts enable networking across organizations and coalition
building.[2]
Emails campaigns are not only used to organize protests (see direct cyberaction below), they can be used to solicit ongoing
donations from members. Adaptations to the modes of managing capital by the
public and social movement sector to the Internet are a site of contestation
and accommodation to capital (sometimes in the life of same person or activity
of same organization).
·
Alternative
media: Movement organizations use
net media, such as websites, movement listserves, bulletin boards and chat
rooms to recruit, inform and engage members. These alternative sources of
information are highly decentralized and little subject to corporate or
governmental control or censorship.[3]
One example is the
·
Direct
cyberactivism: Movements are utilizing e-technologies as a disruptive
tool against some industries or global organizations. Cyberactivists
have protested various corporations through electronic civil disobedience, for
instance, in “virtual sit-ins” by overwhelming websites with high amounts of
traffic. "Hacktivism" is a form of direct
cyberactivism in which hackers appropriate or disrupt technologies for personal
and political ends (Wray 1998).[5]
Denning (2000) writes, “Government and non-government actors used the Net (in
former
·
Internet
Access and Structure: Internet structure and access are subjects of
activism. Various advocacy groups, programming innovations, and legislative
initiatives aim to structure and regulate the Internet and Net access. For
example, the free software movement is a set of programming efforts to keep
information resources public (Lessig 1999). In terms
of access, closing the digital divide is a necessary part of empowering the
main victims of the information revolution and increasing their ability to form
productive alliances with other sectors in contesting for broader political
power. One of the most important and less visible forms of cyberactivism has
been the proliferation of groups fostering computer use and skills among the
underserved. The development of Community Technology Centers enable
underprivileged populations to gain technological training, access to the net,
and form networks and connections with other communities. The CTC network now
has over 600 member organizations and is rapidly growing. Through CTCs, many less privileged youth have developed marketable
computer skills, are able to go online, and some have become politically
empowered.
·
Online alternative community formation: Early online forums
demonstrated the promise of a great diversity of “virtual communities”
organized around common interests (Rhiengold 1993). A
fundamental problematic is if Internet-based communities exist solely as
“virtual” moments in cyberspace or do constellations of digital information
have an enduring material basis for “reality.” Castells (2001) characterizes
online interactions as less a space of communities (conceived as based on
primary relations) and primarily extending already existing modes of relations
or interests of individuals. We
disagree. Wellman (2001), while agreeing with Castells on the increase in
individualism in industrial societies, has extensively studied the nature of
online communities and has argued that such communities, as networks of
interpersonal ties are indeed “real” in terms of forming durable relations that
provide an number of social rewards including sociability, identity and support
networks. Social movement literatures have gradually (Klandermans 1992, Tarrow
1995) compiled a variety of incentives to engage in social movements, including
individual rewards and skills building, solidaristic/social
rewards, network pulls, and ideological framing. It stands to reason that
online movements will find persons interested developing the community aspects
of online relations as part and parcel of progressive politics.
On the basis of preliminary
observation and research, we suggest that for internetworked social movements
there have also been new and mostly uncharted changes in movement organization,
participation and leadership. To highlight this point, we note that traditional
social movements often have been organized by professional leadership. Such
organizations were often highly disciplined. NSMs are more loosely organized.
Indeed, they embrace more participatory democratic practices and processes.
Often, their leadership is more diffuse. One unique aspect of ISMs is formation
of coalitions involving organizations with various structures (both
hierarchical and decentralized) which often interact in a decentralized manner
but can also become tightly organized in some mobilizations (as in the
We would add that the Internet provides opportunity
structures for mobilization outside the bastions of institutional power. Just
as the Iranian revolution of 1979 depended on smuggled tape recordings and
support for Yeltsin against the Communist attempted coup in 1991 was
facilitated by faxes and CMC, now internetworking and CMC have created new
channels of communication and in turn, many avenues of expanded mobilization
potential and ongoing interaction for social movements. In terms of an
organizational structure, the Internet brings many organizations and persons in
many-to-many relations together, enabling some networks to sustain a balance
between a structured institutionalized form able to influence states,
corporations, etc. in an ongoing way. Yet a fluid networks are able to mobilize
in new ways to meet new opportunities and threats quickly. This is informed by
ideologies holding to decentralization, organizing from the grass roots, etc. Such
ideologies are mediated through online public spheres/media and through
counter-summits which have been held at larger mobilizations and gatherings
such as the World Social Forum.
We propose that due to the pervasive use of the Internet
and through the will and practices of grass roots democratic social movements,
there is an increasing tendency for decentralized networks to inform networks
structured by elites and for elite structures to inform decentralized networks.
In this relation, there are emerging hybrid or dynamic network constructions,
which sometimes manifest as structured in links across many networks and
sometimes fluidly change connections. Contemporary movements range in structure
from extremes of decentralization to centralized authority. Such extremes may
persist indefinitely. However, through repeated engagements over time, in the
middle of such possibilities something new is emerging: A structured yet
flexible, internetworked global civil social sphere that integrates in many
collaborative projects the interests and activities of many social movements.
The above multi-focal framework for cyberactism
and multi-dimensional approach understandings ISM internetworking as the
creation “virtual public spheres” through alternative media to frame issues and
the use of internetworking to recruit, organize, and mobilize action
(individual and collective), without ignoring the unique structural and
subjective aspects of internet activism and how these directly inform the
movement. It is important to emphasize that counter to some early claims about
Internet use that extensive online interactions may supplement offline personal
interactions.
In an intensive ethnography of Internet use, Miller and
Slater (2000) found that the effects of Internet use on the virtualization of
social life, or the migration of social
exchanges to Internet, varies depending on the level of formalization of the
social relations. For instance, offline family and friendship relationships
were extended and enriched and encouraged by CMC and not replaced by Internet
relations. On the other hand, some types of economic transactions were found to
move from face-to-face exchanges to primarily Net-based transactions. We
suggest that the same principle is operating in social movements. Personalized
interactions such as the extension of offline friendship networks through
movement activity (and formation of new friendship networks) would be enhanced
by Internet use. In contrast, more rationalized social movement actions such as
routine decisions and data transfers in movement networks may be likely to
migrate to mostly Net-based mediation.
At
the meso level of analysis, we suggest the following
problematics as key areas of study:
·
How mobilizing internetworks actualize and organize movement coalitions.
·
Collective
identity formation and change via the net: how is the Internet is used in
activism and how does the Internet mediate, enable and constrain social
movement activism? How do the framing of movement issues and ideology and development
of identities correlate with Internet mobilization?
·
Alternative
globalization movement networks (rather than being fields of indeterminable
differences described by some popular writers) are composed of complex
sub-networks that differ in organizing style, e.g., the degree of
centralization and ideology. These structural differences are associated with
distinct strategies and outcomes (that may be clearly charted in local
mobilizations) and may continue to manifest, perhaps more distinctly, in future
mobilizations.
·
Central to some
internetworking in movements, especially that inform the AGMs, is if and how
the organization of the varying mobilization efforts is conducted in a
participatory democratic manner. The commitment to and connection to the participation
of the periphery is what may keep international and transnational movement
structures, in the interaction of the general public and movement
professionals, flexible and democratic.
The emergence of Internet based movements requires us to inquire about how participants are recruited and actions mobilized. It has long been shown that groups with strong political sentiments show high degrees of in-group solidarity. The problem for democracy is testing ideas and factual support for ideas outside the in-group of “true believers”. Thus it becomes important for democratic groups to gain sympathy and support outside the core of the dedicated. How internetworking can and does build bridges in a crucial question for the future of democratic movements. Hence, we locate these four types of factors may be influence or be influenced by the interaction of face-to-face mobilization and mobilization via the Internet: background, network exposure, framing/ideology, and interests/motivations:
·
Background
of Participants: Organizers frame messages to reach a specific
audience. Previous membership in a voluntary organization is likely to increase
level of participation because previous skills can be transferred regardless of
the substantive issue addressed (Morris 1992). A measure of prior socialization
around an issue is previous involvement in activism, or more broadly,
volunteering around any issue. Another measure of interest in an issue is a
long history of concern about the issue, which often involves early
socialization. Whalen and Flacks (1989) suggested that many of the 60’s
anti-war activists were not rebelling against parental authority, but came from
more liberal, permissive families with progressive politics. Some
impressionistic evidence suggests that a number of people in the ISMs had
parents active in the NSMs of the 60’s. But this relationship may be specific
to certain sectors of cyberactivism, thus what might be a significant
relationship in one group may not apply in other groups. For example, labor
activists may come from different kinds of family backgrounds than do
environmentalists or human rights activists. Thus it becomes important to
investigate the relation of individual backgrounds and activism.
·
Recruitment Networks: Recent movement theory explains participation as
being enabled by the effect of exposure to social networks and social location
and incentives. A number of theorists emphasize
that social bonds and networks are necessary for recruitment (Klandermans and
Tarrow 1988, Castells 1997, Melucci 1996). Networks are not one‑dimensional
but have strong and weak connections. The affective bonds between members are
important facets of mobilization. McAdam (1986)
showed that exposure to networks and affective bonds to members promoted
joining the Freedom Summer civil rights campaign. Snow et al (1980)
found that recruitment to alternative religions was influenced by contact with
a movement's networks, affective interaction with members, and availability for
recruitment through low commitments. There has been a great deal of debate over
the political consequences of the Internet. Some have claimed that it has been
colonized by consumerism, contributes to fragmentation of society and greater
apathy of citizens. Others have seen the Internet as a means of creating
communities based on interests and belief, not accidents of geography. Such
net-based communities are as "real" as face-to-face communities and
may often lead to such interactions (Garton et al
1999, Wellman 1999, Miller and Slater 2000). The limited evidence suggest that
participants were first recruited
through personal connections such as friendship, social and activist
networks, or through public outreach via Internet or other media, while noting
that impersonal/political use of the Internet may lead to personal connections
and vice-versa. A central problematic asks how to define network recruitment
via the Internet.
·
Framing the Issue and Forming Identities: In social
movement theory there are several distinct approaches to explaining the
motivation or "push" that moves people to participate. Traditional RM
theory explains motivation in terms of calculation of the costs and benefits of
participation; this remains a central tenet of RM theory. An earlier theory of
social movement participation, collective behavior theory, places the push for
involvement in deeply felt grievances.
In the 1990s, RM theory adapted discussions of grievance framing (Buechler 2000), linking additional concerns such as
legitimation and the framing of empowerment to the process of interpreting
grievances, and exposure to networks. NSM theory explains participation in
terms of the link of identity formation and community/network pulls. One aspect
of framing work in movements today is the dense set of links between various
online organizing materials. The movement literature of various movements is
often informed by incisive critiques of social problems. We believe that an
important connection between critique and mobilization can be found in the
intensive use of Internet discourse in organizing. It is likely that both
ideological socialization and friendships go up as Internet use goes up. The
representations of AGM mobilizations are highly contested inside and outside
the movements. Differences are at least partly grounded in various
organizational commitments and cultures. Hence, framing theory is a very helpful
perspective for the study of mobilization via the Internet.
·
Benefits and Costs: The social constructionism
of framing theory explains motivation in terms of framing interests. Social
movement theorists note that interests in social movements change over time,
based partly on group interests, and distinguishes three central motives for
participation: collective motives related to willingness to help produce a
collective good, social motives related to reactions of significant others, and
reward motives based on individual costs and benefits (Fireman and Gamson 1979; Klandermans 1984). Collective motives may
figure strongly in the inclination to act, even when self‑centered
motives are strong. People contribute to a collective good precisely because
people are aware that nothing would happen unless someone takes the initiative.
At a micro level of analysis, the above considerations may be summarized in the following research questions:
·
What factors
dispose persons to activism? How are people recruited into ISMs? Why do people
join, participate and/or leave movements, e.g., what are the costs, benefits
and outcomes gained through participation in movements? We will consider
factors such as a person’s background, values, ideology, and the origins and
basis of his/her network exposure and subsequent membership.
·
What factors are associated with different levels of
participation and commitments of organizers, active participants and passive
membership?
·
How do personal
and social factors intersect with and impact identities and ideologies? What
are the interactions between network participation, framing of issues,
ideology, and identity formation in ISMs?
In the last few years, with the rise of
networked society (Castells 1996, 2001; Hunter, 2002; Sassen
1998), democratic social movements, network armies, with a distinctly global orientation have
emerged. Organizers have become skilled in the use of the Internet. The
Internet has made possible new forms of social relations, “internetworking” as
well as net-based political actions, “cyberactivism.” In some ways,
internetworked social movements (ISMs) share the goals articulated by earlier
democratic mobilizations such as the unionization, suffrage, and civil rights
movements. But with the use of the Internet, ISMs stand as unique forms of
social organization and movement activism.
Twenty-first
century social change, internetworking, collective identity formation, social
movement mobilization, and democratic social action are a very complex social
field. To understand the complexity of internetworked social movements ranging
from more structured organizations like labor unions to more fluid movements
like the alternative or anti-globalization groups, we believe is necessary to
engaged multileveled comparative studies of movement networks and
internetworking. In developing critical social understandings of the dynamic
nature of modern protest, we suggest that social movement theories of network societies
(Klandermans 1992; Melucci 1996; Tarrow 1998), the emerging field of Internet
studies (Jones 1999; Garton et al 1999; Miller and
Slater 2000; Wellman 1999), and the critical theory of the
·
At a macro level, in the information age, it is crucial to
understand the role of Internet media in the historical emergence of various
virtual “public spheres” and creation of new large-scale movement networks,
quasi-enduring structures, ideologies and identities (Calhoun 1997; Castells
1998).
·
At a meso level, the relation of
social movement internetworking can be effectively mapped in studying
mobilizing networks, processes and dialectics of the collective identities
construction, and the development in ongoing contents of movement strategizing
for democratic social change.
·
At a micro level, it is necessary to articulate in larger context,
the recruitment, mobilization, commitments, identity formation, and nature of
participation of individuals in civic activism.
The rise of global social movements is rooted in the
secular trend of the expansion of democracy and civic activism over the last
three centuries that has become intertwined with the new technologies of
communication. We believe the current round of mobilizations will lead to new
insights as various as: How inclusive democracy and some elements of global
civil society may be developing via the emergence of virtual public spheres;
how internetworking interacts with identity formation and the framing of
issues; how internetworking facilitates participation in civic activism and
movement mobilization.
The
Internet, with its widespread access and ease of use, has both democratic and
anti-democratic potentials. While large numbers of people mobilize via the
Internet for progressive social ends, various fascist, racist, and other
anti-democratic forces are also using the Internet. Social scientists need a
better understanding of the social nature and implications of such movements
and the new, growing arts and technologies of “internetworking” and net-based
“cyberactivism”.
Bibliography
Adorno, Theodor
W. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality.
Alvarez, Sonia E., Evilina Dagnino, and Arturo
Escobar, eds. 1998. Cultures of Politics, Politics of Culture.
Boggs, Carl. 2001.
"Economic Globalization and Political Atrophy." Democracy and
Nature 7(2): 303-316.
Buechler, Steven M. 2000. Social
Movements in Advanced Capitalism.
Calhoun, Craig. 1997.
"Community without Propinquity Revisited: Communications Technology and
the Transformation of the Urban Public Sphere." Sociological Inquiry
68(3):373-397.
Castells, Manuel. 1996. The
Rise of the Network Society.
Castells, Manuel. 1997. The
Power of Identity.
Castells, Manuel. 1998. The
End of the Millennium.
Castells, Manuel. 2001.
"On Barry Wellman." Presentation at Social Structure in a Changing
World: Presentations in Honour of Barry Wellman,
Castells, Manuel. 2001. Internet Galaxy.
Cleaver, Harry. 2000. The
Zapatistas and the Electronic Fabric of Struggle. Online:
www.eco.utexas.edu/homepages/faculty/cleaver
Denning, Dorothy E. 2000.
“Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism:
The Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy.” Paper for Internet
and International Systems: Information Technology and American Foreign Policy
Decision making Workshop,
Dicken, Peter. 1992. Global Shift.
DiMaggio, Paul et al. 2000.
"The Internet's Effect on Society." in Annual Review of Sociology,
Dyer-Witheford, Nick. 1999. Cyber-Marx:
Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High-Technology Capitalism.
Escobar, Arturo. 2000.
"Notes on Networks and Anti-Globalization Social Movements."
Presented at 2000 Annual American Anthropological Association Meeting,
November 2000,
Fraser,
Fromm, Erich. 1941. Escape
From Freedom.
Fireman, Bruce and William A. Gamson. 1979. "Utilitarian Logic in the Resource
Mobilization Perspective." In The Dynamics of Social Movements,
Gamson, William A. 1992. "The
Social Psychology of Collective Action." In Morris, Aldon
D. and Carol McClurg Mueller, ed., Frontiers in
Social Movement Theory.
Garner, Roberta T. 1999.
"Virtual Social Movements." Presented at Zaldfest:
A Conference in Honor of Mayer Zald, Sept 17.,
1999,
Garton, Laura, Haythornthwaite,
Caroline, and Barry Wellman. 1999. "Study On-Line Social Networks."
In Jones, Steve, ed., Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods
for Examining the Net.
George, Larry. 2001.
"'This is what Democracy Sounds Like': Democratic Theory and
Anti-Globalization Protests from
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity
and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Habermas, Jurgen.
1960. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge,
MA.: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jurgen.
1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.
Harris, Jerry. 2001.
"Information Technology and Global Class Formation." Paper presented at Global Studies
Association Inaugural Conference: Networks and Transformations, July 2-4,
2001, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Harcourt, Wendy, ed. 1999. Women@Internet: Creating New Cultures in
Cyberspace. London: Zed Books.
Harvey, David. 1989. The
Conditions of Postmodernity. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.
Held, David et al. 2000. Global
Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Holzner, Burkhardt.
2001. "Transparency in Organization". Paper presented at Global
Studies Association Inaugural Conference: Networks and Transformations,
July 2-4, 2001, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Hunter, Richard. 2002. World Without Secrets.
Jones, Steve. 1999. Doing
Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Keck, Margaret E., Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists beyond Boarders:
Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Klandermans, Bert. 1984.
"Mobilization and Participation: Social-Psychological Expansions of
Resource Mobilization Theory." American Sociological Review,
49:583-600.
Klandermans, Bert. 1992. "The
Social Construction of Protest and Multiorganizational
Fields." In Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller, ed., Frontiers in Social Movement
Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Klandermans, Bert and Sidney
Tarrow. 1988. "Mobilization Into Social Movements: Synthesizing European
and American Approaches." In International Social Movements Research,
Supplement to Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 1:1-38.
Klein, Naomi. 2000. No Logo.
New York: Picador.
Langman, Lauren. 1992.
"Neon Cages." In Shields, Rob, ed., Lifestyles of Consumption,
London: Routledge.
Langman, Lauren. 1998.
"Identity, Hegemony and Social Reproduction." In Lehmann,
Jennifer, ed., Current Perspectives in Social Theory, Greenwich, CN: JAI, 1998.
Langman, Lauren. 2001.
"Carnivals of Consumption: Local Identities in a Global Era". in
Kennedy, Paul and Catherine Danks, eds., Globalization
and the Crises of Identities, London: McMillan.
Langman, Lauren. 2002.
"From Subject to Citizen" in Brown, Richard, ed., Media, Self and
Society, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Langman, Lauren, Douglas Morris
and Jackie Zalewski. 2001. "Social Movements in a Global Age: Toward a
Critical Theory of Cyberactivism." Paper presented at Global Studies
Association Inaugural Conference: Networks and Transformations, July 2-4,
2001, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Langman, Lauren, Douglas Morris
and Jackie Zalewski. 2002. "Globalization, Domination and
Cyberactivism", in Dunaway, Wilma A., ed. The 21st Century World-System:
Systemic Crises and Antisystemic Resistance.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
LaClau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1984. Hegemony & Socialist Strategy: Towards
a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso Books.
Lemos, Andre. 1996. "The
Labyrinth of the Minitel." In Cultures of Internet: Virtual Spaces,
Real Histories, Living Bodies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lessig, Lawrence. 1999. Code and
Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
Lichterman, Paul. 1996. The
Search for Political Community: American Activists Reinventing Commitment.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McAdam, Doug 1982. The Political
Process and the Development of Black Insurgency. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
McAdam, Doug. 1986. "Recruitment
to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer." American Journal of
Sociology, 92:1, 64-90.
McChesney, Robert W. 1999. Rich
Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. Urbana,
IL.: University of Illinois Press.
Melucci, Alberto. 1996. Challenging
Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Miller, Daniel and Don Slater.
2000. The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford: Berg.
Morris, Douglas. 1992.
“Mobilizing Participation: A Case Study of Participation in Pittsburgh Peace
Links.” M.A. Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, West Virginia
University, Morgantown.
Morris, Douglas. 2000.
“Globalization and the Interweaving of Movement Identities.” Unpublished
Manuscript, Loyola University of Chicago.
O'Neill, Kate. 2000. “Sleepless
in Seattle: Transnational Environmental Protest and Trade Organizations."
Paper presented at 42nd Annual Convention of the International Studies
Association, February, 2001, Chicago, IL.
Rheingold. Howard. 1993. The
Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Ribeiro, Gustavo Luis. 1998. "Cybercultural Politics: Political Activism at a Distance in
a Transnational World." In Alvarez, Sonia E. et al, eds., Cultures of
Politics, Politics of Culture. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Rorty, Richard. 1998. Truth and
Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sassen, Saskia.
1998. Globalization and Its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of
People and Money. New York: The New Press.
Shostak, Arthur B. 1999. CyberUnions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Sklair, Leslie. 2001. The
Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Smith, Jackie, Charles
Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco, eds. 1997. Transnational
Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Smith, Jackie. 2001.
"Transnational Mobilizations Against Global Trade Liberalization:
Challenges for Global Institutions." Paper presented at 42nd Annual
Convention of the International Studies Association, February 23, 20001,
Chicago, IL.
Snow, David A., Zurcher, Louis A., and Sheldon Ekland-Olson.
1980. "Social Networks and Social Movements: A Microstructural
Approach to Differential Recruitment." American Sociological Review,
45:787-800.
Snow et al. 1986. "Frame
Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement
Participation." American Sociological Review, 51:464-81.
Starr, Amory. 2000. Naming
the Enemy: Anti-corporate Movements Confront Globalization. London: Zed
Books.
Stryker, Sheldon et al, eds.
2000. Self, Identity and Social Movements. Minneapolis: University of
Minneapolis Press.
Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power
in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, Second Edition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tarrow, Sidney. 2001.
"Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International
Politics." Annual Review of Political Science 2001, 4:1-20.
Teeple, Gary. 2000. Globalization
and the Decline of Political Reform: Into the Twenty-First Century.
Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.
Tilly, Charles. 1978. From
Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Wasserman, Stanley and
Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waters, Malcom.
1995. Globalization. London: Routledge.
Whalen, Jack and Richard
Flacks. 1989. Beyond the Barricades: The Sixties Generation Grows Up.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Wellman, Barry, ed. 1999. Networks
in the Global Village: Life in Contemporary Communities. Boulder: Westview Press.
Wellman, Barry and S.D.
Berkowitz, ed. 1997. Social Structures: A Network Approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wilhelm, T. 2001. "Virtual
Political Discourse." Paper presented at Global Studies Association
Inaugural Conference: Networks and Transformations, July 2-4, 2001,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Wray, Stefan. 1998. “Electronic
Civil Disobedience and the World Wide Web of Hacktivism:
A Mapping of Extraparliamentarian Direct Action Net
Politics.” A paper for The World Wide Web and Contemporary Cultural Theory
Conference, Drake University. Online: www.nyu.edu/projects/wray/wwwhack.html
Zald, Mayer N., McCarthy, John D.
1987. Social Movements in an Organizational Society: Collected Essays.
New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
[1] See SocioSite Activism directory, www.pscw.uva.nl/sociosite/TOPICS/Activism.html, and New Social Movement Network, www.interweb-tech.com/nsmnet/resources/default.asp, for lists of movements on web.
[2] For instance, see the extensive database at the Hague Appeal for Peace website, www.haguepeace.org
[3] Note that some of the new alternative media adopt the same approach to freedom of news that the free software net does to code: open access and free use. For examples of various alternative media, see the Independent Media Center (IMC) www.indymedia.org, Common Dreams Media www.commondreams.org, www.alternet.org, www.infoshop.org, Direct Action Media Network damn.tao.ca, and WebActive www.webactive.com websites.
[4] During and after the G8 protests in Genoa, 2001, the IMC web received over 5 million hits a day.
[5] For examples of hacking for personal reasons, see Lemos’ (1996) discussion of the Minitel, a government sponsored bulletin board that hacker's transformed into a system that included personal messaging, and Cleaver's (2000) discussion of the ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet.