Digitally Enabled Social Change Jakob Svensson Cyberculture and politics, spring semester 2015

Outline of the lecture E-mobilization/movement/ tactic Affordances To think of before class Theory 2.0 vs. Supersizing The work in the classroom

E-Mobilization Using online tools to facilitate offline protest hybridity

E-Movement Unlike in offline social movements, long time activists who have shared an extensive political background is no longer needed Online tools offers inexpensive opportunities for organizers and participants that would not have come together if not for the web

E-tacticts Between protests mobilizations and movements Ex. Online petitions, boycotts Instances of collective action with varying degrees of offline and online components and varying degrees of affiliation with social movements

Affordances A type of action or characteristic of action that a technology enables through its design Actions and uses that a technology makes qualitatively easier or possible when compared to prior like technologies (p. 32)

Affordances 1) Reducing costs for a) participation and (b) organization Easier to mobilize standby activists and create bridges also leads to five minute, flash activism A) People don’t have to come together physically – Time becomes less important for participation Risk of punishment (loss of income, stigma decrease) Private passions may also lead to activism Do webpages take advantage of this? ( , petition, buycotts, automated participation, clictivism)

Affordances The need of an actual organization/ movement decline (organizing without organization) B) Scaling up is cheap and initial starting costs are cheap Market protest events and expand the reach and speed of communication – facilitate connections and mobilization Collaboration and social production increase Organizing becomes more varied and may include even ”parties of one”

Affordances People can act and coordinate actions without being co-present 2) Ability to aggregate peoples individual actions in to collective, without requiring co-presence in time and space A) Participation ”We”-ness vs. stigma (the threshold for participation lowers) Collective action without collective identity Coordinated action instead of collective action

Affordances Organizing is a coordinating phenomenon rather than a collective one B) Organization Leadership is less important Finding like-minded is easier temporary connections are facilitated by the internet Less people need in when organizing action Sporadic, episodic and periodic organization will become more common

Affordances The question is how people leverage these affordances (rather than focusing on the affordances themselves). The more these affordances are leveraged the more the web (peoples uses of the web) transforms

Affordances

To think of before class For the work in the interactive classroom I want you to bring concrete examples of 1)How the low cost affordance on the internet is leveraged when it comes to a) participation b) organization 2)How the reduced need for co-presence is leveraged when it comes to a) participation b) organization When you design your campaign you should account for how you consider these affordances and also show successful or deterrent (warning) examples from existing campaigns

Theory 2.0 vs. Supersizing Supersizing model = the makes participation faster, wider, cheaper but without changing its dynamics. accelerating processes (help in reaching target audiences – strategic communication, circumvent government imposed barriers) Theory 2.0 = how uses of the web changes dynamics of processes of activist participation altering processes, no need for central leadership, no need of collective identity (Sylvain), to act without being stigmatized Summary: The affordances of reduced cost for participation, reduced costs for organizing, reduced need for physical togetherness in order to participate in collective action, and reduced need for both collectivity and physical togetherness in organizing are critical to understand web activism (p. 177). The effects can be supersized or change dynamics of activism

Theory 2.0 vs. Supersizing Social movements needed as resources (that has been located to SMO) becomes less important) – five minutes activists, lone-wolf organizers, flash activism (cf. swarm) a critique of resource mobilization theory since resources no longer important Web leads to a new digital repertoire of contention

The work in the classroom Before class – think of concrete examples (good or bad) of 1)How the low cost of affordance on the internet is leveraged when it comes to a) participation b) organization 2)How the reduced need for co-presence is leveraged when it comes to a) participation b) organization In class – you will be divided into four groups (based on your interests). Your job is to design a campaign that builds upon these conclusions of Earl & Kimport You should exemplify your campaign choices (hence the need to think about examples in advance) and justify them out of Earl & Kimports conclusions Prepare a five minute presentation of your campaign We will have a five minute presentation of the technology before class and have technological support throughout class. We start 1215 sharp!

Thank you for listening!