Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Will the Revolution be Tweeted or Facebooked? Using...

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Will the Revolution be Tweeted or Facebooked?Using Digital Communication Tools in ImmigrantActivism

Summer Harlow

School of Journalism, The University of Texas at Austin, 300 W. Dean Keeton, Austin, TX 78712-1073,

Lei Guo

School of Journalism, The University of Texas at Austin, 300 W. Dean Keeton, Austin, TX 78712-1073,

Considering the debate over U.S. immigration reform and the way digital communication technologiesincreasingly are being used to spark protests, this qualitative study examines focus group discourse ofimmigration activists to explore how digital media are transforming the definitions of ‘‘activism’’ and‘‘activist.’’ Analysis suggests technologies are perhaps pacifying would-be activists, convincing themthey are contributing more than they actually are. Thus, ‘‘slacktivism,’’ or ‘‘clicktivism’’ that takesjust a mouse click is potentially diluting ‘‘real’’ activism.

Key words: activism, computer-media communication, immigration, information communicationtechnologies, social media, social network sites.

doi:10.1111/jcc4.12062

In one of the most visible demonstrations of the U.S. proimmigrant movement, 100,000 students acrossthe U.S. walked out of their classes in the spring of 2006 to defend immigrant rights (Malloy, 2006). Thismassive wave of walkouts, marches, and protests was in response to the Illegal Immigration Control Act,or House Bill H.R. 4437, that passed the House of Representatives in December 2005 and characterizedundocumented immigrants and those who assist them as felons (Velez et al., 2008). Starting in Californiaand then moving eastward, the walkouts were coordinated using what Costanza-Chock (2003) referredto as the ‘‘repertoire of electronic contention’’—online social media postings, e-mails, and cell phonetext messaging to mobilize collective action (Shore, 2006).

Online social media have been found to be the most common gateway into digital activism, eventhough none of these electronic tools were created with activism in mind (Brodock et al., 2009). Forexample, 2011 kicked off with social media-inspired protests throughout the Arab world, resulting inwhat the news media began to refer to as ‘‘Facebook revolutions.’’ And 2011 closed with the digitallydriven Occupy Movement that spread from Wall Street across the U.S. Still, in this age where millionsand ever billions of people worldwide are regularly using social network sites (e.g., Fowler, 2012), onlineactivism is in its nascent stages and much remains unknown about exactly what the Internet meansfor mobilization (Rolfe, 2005; Wojcieszak, 2009). As such, it is important to explore the usefulnessand potential of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) for activism (Cleaver, 1998; Diani,1999).

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association 1

Considering the ongoing polarized debate in the U.S. regarding immigrant rights, studyingimmigrant activists’ use of digital tools is a particularly timely topic. Further, as most immigrants’native language is not English – which very much still is the language of the Internet—and immigrants’lower levels of income and education impact computer access (Ono & Zavodny, 2008; Benítez, 2006),examining the immigrant activist community allows for an analysis of the challenges of using newtechnologies in the face of the digital divide. This division excludes populations from technologicaladvances whether because of lack of access, skills or interest in the equipment (Bonfadelli, 2002; Diani,2000). How, then, do activists best approach a community mostly on the wrong side of the digitaldivide? It is within this context that this study, using focus groups and written, open-ended responsequestions conducted in Austin, Texas, set out to examine immigrant activists’ and advocates’ narrativesabout activism and digital media. Under what conditions do activists employ new digital tools? Howdo they believe these technologies are impacting both activism and what it means to be an activist?As evidenced by the 2006 walkouts, and more recently the Arab Spring and Occupy Movement, newtechnologies have helped incite moments of collective action, but what possibilities do digital mediahave for maintaining sustained activism or provoking real social change, especially within a digitallydivided community? As collective actions increasingly are mobilized via digital media, this study isimportant for adding to our understanding of electronic tactics of contention and what these toolsmean for advocates and activists who work with marginalized populations. The aim is to offer insightinto how digital media might be transforming the definitions of ‘‘activist,’’ and what that means for thefuture of ‘‘activism.’’

Background

Austin, the capital of Texas – a traditional immigrant settlement state – has a population of nearly800,000 people, according to 2009 Census estimates. Roughly 20 percent of the population is foreign-born, with the bulk of these, 67 percent, coming from Latin America. In addition, 33 percent of Austin’spopulation speaks a language other than English at home, 2009 census numbers show.

In 1998, the city commissioned an Austin Task Force on Immigration Issues, and at least 50nonprofit organizations serve the immigrant population in the city. In April 2006, as walkouts occurredacross the country, immigrant organizations in Austin joined forces for the largest march in the city’shistory, with an estimated 15,000–30,000 participants marching for immigrant rights (AIRC, n.d.).

The massive nationwide mobilizations (Velez et al., 2008) were part of a larger U.S. and worldwideimmigrants’ rights movement that has escalated into a global antideportation movement (Corrunker,2012). In the U.S., the immigrants’ right movement has taken the form of walkouts and marches;countrywide economic boycotts (Shore, 2006); the ‘‘coming out’’ of the shadows movement (Corrunker,2012); and the DREAMers, or activists demanding approval of the DREAM Act, which would grantcitizenship for undocumented youths who have spent more of their lives in the U.S. and who havegraduated from U.S. high schools (Corrunker, 2012). While some studies have looked at migrants’use of digital technologies to stay in touch with their homelands (Benitez, 2006) or the difference intechnology use between migrants and their children (Gibb, 2006) and migrants’ uneven access to digitaltechnologies (Panagakos & Horst, 2006), this study instead looks at technology use among immigrantactivists, rather than the immigrants themselves.

Theoretical Framework

This study draws on social movement theories, such as the repertoire of contention, to build aframework for developing a better understanding of how immigrants rights activists and advocates

2 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2014) © 2014 International Communication Association

employ digital communication tools and conceive of their usefulness for aiding – and perhaps evenengendering – activism. The aim is to contribute to our understanding of the repertoire of electroniccontention, exploring what these tools mean for those who work with a marginalized segment ofthe population. Such a study is significant because it offers clues as to how digital media might betransforming the definitions of ‘‘activist’’ and ‘‘activism.’’

Repertoire of ContentionTilly (1978) called the tactics available to activists a ‘‘repertoire of contention.’’ These tactics areparticular to a place and time; the effectiveness and outcomes of the various tactics employed differunder various conditions and according to the groups that use them (Diani, 2000). The contemporaryU.S. repertoire includes everything from demonstrating and petitioning to striking and organizingpressure groups (Tilly, 1978).

This ‘‘repertoire of contention’’ (Tilly, 1978) is slow to innovate, and most new tactics are abandonedas soon as they are adopted. Still, when innovation does occur, tactics are introduced and adoptedby new or marginal groups, then diffused and adapted to meet the needs of more groups, until thetactics that are proven to be successful eventually reach the central, more established groups and areinstitutionalized to become part of the repertoire (McAdam et al., 2001; Tarrow, 1998). Ultimately,which tactics a group decides to adopt in order to reach its goals depends on its resources, opportunitiesand organizational structure (McAdam & Rucht, 1993; Tilly, 1978). Further, groups must consider the‘‘relative appropriateness and efficiency’’ of established tactics in comparison with the new, alternativetactics (Tilly, 1978, p. 153).

Costanza-Chock (2003) has brought Tilly’s (1978) concept into the 21st Century, referring to a‘‘repertoire of electronic contention’’ (p. 173). This online repertoire includes both Internet-supportedand Internet-based actions (Van Laer & Van Aelst, 2009).

It is important to note that activists’ technical abilities, available resources, and organizationalstructure can limit which digital tactics are diffused and adopted (Rolfe, 2005; Garrett & Edwards,2007). Thus, the notion of an electronic repertoire of contention, coupled with how new digital toolsare diffused, provides a useful framework for analyzing how these immigrant activists in Austin areemploying new technologies.

Literature Review

The term ‘‘activism’’ generally refers to the practices of individuals challenging the status quo inorder to bring about social, political, or economic change (Cammaerts, 2007). Social movements arecharacterized by a group’s long-term contestation of authority and challengers’ interactions with powerholders as they try to incite social change (Tilly, 1978; Tarrow, 1988). Collective action participants canrun the gamut from ‘‘intensive involvement to passive compliance’’ and their interests can range fromthe personal to universal (Tilly, 1978, p. 7).

Activism, Alternative Media, and the InternetHistorically, activists have depended on the media for getting out their messages (Gamson & Wolfsfeld,1993). However, mainstream media have been found either to discredit or marginalize activists’ actionsor cover the actions using a ‘‘protest paradigm’’ (McLeod & Hertog, 1999). Employing this paradigm,journalists focus on numbers, spectacles, or dramatic actions, rather than the message underlyingthe action (Watkins, 2001). To counter mainstream media’s misinformation, activists often turn toalternative media (Downing, 2001). Whether blogs, independent news sites, or social network sites,


the Internet is believed to be an important alternative media tool for activism (Kenix, 2009; Raghavan,2009).

Among digital communication tools, social network sites (SNS) allow individuals to create profilesand develop a social network comprised of profiles of other users with whom they share a common link(boyd & Ellison, 2007). As a form of alternative media, the Internet can represent a way for activists tobypass the gatekeepers of traditional media and control their own message (Cleaver, 1998; Postmes &Brunsting, 2002).

Some scholars have questioned whether online interactions could be as effective as face-to-facerelationships in creating the levels of trust necessary for sustained collective action (Diani, 2000; Polat,2005). Further, the ease with which people can participate in online activism prompts doubts as to thededication of these participants, and the value of their actions, resulting in what has been referred to as‘‘clicktivism’’ and ‘‘slacktivism,’’ or a less meaningful activism (Morozov, 2009a; Van de Donk et al.,2004). Morozov (2009b) cautioned that despite the hype over digital tools for technology, in the endwhat really matters is offline participation.

Still, research has shown that the Internet facilitates activism, reducing participation costs, promotingcollective identity, and creating a sense of community (e.g., Norris, 2004). For example, the Internetallows information to be disseminated immediately and cheaply to multiple people simultaneously,regardless of where they live (Castells, 2001; Juris, 2005). As such, scholars increasingly are studyingways the Internet is adding to the ‘‘repertoire of contention,’’ and perhaps transforming activism (Rolfe,2005; Van Laer & Van Aelst, 2009). Research has shown that in some cases, online activism is relatedto offline activism and political actions (Harlow, 2012; Wojcieszak, 2009). The Internet allows peopleto come together in ways and for purposes that would not have been possible but for technology, andtechnologies are what help modern social movements to take shape (Juris, 2005).

The Digital Divide and Immigrant CommunitiesWhile Internet optimists see new technologies as a potentially democratizing force, opening up a newdigital public sphere (Kellner, 2000), any discussion regarding digital tools must consider unequalaccess to these technologies, as the digital divide has the potential to threaten democracy (Bonfadelli,2002). More than just lack of access, the digital divide has widened to include lack of Internetknow-how, computer illiteracy, out-of-date infrastructure, and lack of interest (Bonfadelli, 2002;Goldstein, 2007). Economic, political and cultural divides all are part of the digital divide (Fuchs,2009).

Despite an overall Internet penetration rate of 77 percent in the U.S. (Internet World Stats, 2010),research shows disparities still exist along racial and ethnic lines (Robinson et al., 2003). Further,immigrants are significantly less likely to have access to or use computers (Ono & Zavodny, 2008). Infact, Ono & Zavodny (2008) found that between 1997 and 2003, even as the digital divide in the U.S.in general was decreasing, the gap between immigrants and natives widened. Similarly, in his study ofSalvadoran immigrants living in the Washington, D.C., area, Benítez (2006) found low levels of useand accessibility are related to disparities in education and income. Beyond limitations for economicreasons, a lack of English language skills also factors into the digital divide between immigrants andnatives (Castells, 2001).

Considering the scholarship on repertoire of contention, online activism and the digital divide,this study examined themes that emerged when immigrant advocates and activists in Austin, Texas,discussed the usefulness of new technologies in their work. The study focused on how they incorporateddigital tools for activism, and how their perceptions of activism, and who is an activist, were changingbecause of these tools.


Methods

This study incorporated a triangulation approach, which refers to ‘‘the comparison of two or moreforms of evidence with respect to an object of research interest’’ (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 240),leading to deeper understanding of the issue under investigation (Flick, 2004). In particular, this studyemployed methodological triangulation and investigator triangulation.

Methodologically, this study used focus groups and open-ended response questions to explorethe group discourse and individuals’ thoughts. Two focus groups were conducted in Austin, Texas,with advocates who are active in immigrant issues. Additionally, follow-up questions were sent to allparticipants to obtain a deeper understanding of their individual ideas.

All the participants worked with immigrant organizations in Austin, Texas. Participants wererecruited by first contacting Austin-based immigrant-related organizations and then using a ‘‘snowball’’method (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002), asking recruits to invite other potential participants. A total of10 people participated in two focus group discussions of five participants each. Keeping the focusgroups small allowed for richer discussion and more detailed input from each individual. Further, theexperiences that real-world practitioners could bring to the discussion were deemed more importantthan sheer number of participants.

The focus groups were comprised of six women and four men, aged 23 to 41. Seven consideredthemselves Caucasian, two Hispanic, and one Persian. Eight of the 10 were born in the U.S.; one femalewas born in Brazil and another in Peru. All of them spoke English fluently, and most were fluent inSpanish. All were digitally savvy to varying degrees. Most participants’ technological skills were limitedto basic computer, Internet and social media use, while a few knew about video production and websitecreation. Participants’ language and computer skills meant they could easily communicate with theimmigrant community, but at the same time they were set apart from most of that community becauseof their English and digital know-how.

The first group was comprised of Chris, 30, and Kayvon, 26, both males, who worked as lawyers withthe Equal Justice Center. Stacy, 23, was a volunteer for the immigrant shelter Casa Marianella. Lindsay,28, worked with refugee resettlement at Caritas. Maile, 32, was the executive director and founderof English at Work. The second group included Leila, 25, of Brazil, a Ph.D. student in counselingpsychology interested in immigrant issues. Michael, 41, was a managing librarian for the Austin PublicLibrary, working with the library’s New Immigrant Centers. Matt, 31, an independent filmmakercovering the immigration movement, was part of several local proimmigration organizations. Carla,36, was born in Peru and was a volunteer at the immigrant shelter Posada Esperanza. Cassie, 30, was anemployment specialist for Caritas of Austin, which services refugees. ‘‘Stacy’’ and ‘‘Leila’’ are aliases; allother participants provided consent for identification.

Focus Group DiscussionFocus groups allowed for probing the group discourse of people who share mutual experiencesserving Austin’s immigrant communities. Throughout the hour-long discussion, participants fed offeach other’s ideas, even continuing the conversation afterward. Clearly, they understood each otherand actually belonged to the same ‘‘interpretive community’’ (Bohnsack, 2004). Focusing on theirinteractions and conversations allowed for an examination of the groups’ ‘‘collective meaning pattern,’’or the recurrent patterns underlying the group discussion that are common to the individual narratives(Bohnsack, p.217). Conducting two focus groups allowed the discussions to be examined for whetherpatterns were repeated in both conversations.

During the focus groups, participants were asked open-ended questions to examine their perceptionsof and experiences with digital media in immigrant activism. Questions included: 1) How do you define


activism? 2) What are the new technologies and tools you have used in your activist work? 3) Givean example of what worked well, what didn’t work so well, and why? 4) How, if at all, would yousay activism has changed because of digital tools? The authors acted as group facilitators, avoidinginterrupting the conversation in order to ensure continuity of group dynamics. Follow-up questionswere only asked to ensure the flow of the conversation.

A few days after each focus group, participants were e-mailed open-ended questions, such as 1)Based on our focus group discussion, what do you think the role of digital communication tools willbe in activism in the next 5 or 10 years? Asking participants to write down their thoughts helped toprobe individuals’ in-depth thinking that perhaps could not be captured in the focus groups. Doing soalso allowed for triangulation of research methods, thus making it possible to capture the issue underinvestigation from different approaches (Flick, 2004).

Discourse AnalysisThe authors, from different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, analyzed the texts of theconversations and the follow-up questionnaires. Such investigator triangulation helps ‘‘expand, corrector check the subjective views of interpreters’’ (Flick, 2004). Triangulation of researchers was especiallybeneficial as one of the authors is native to the US and the other is foreign-born, allowing the discourseto be captured from two culturally different perspectives.

Adopting a discourse analysis approach, the focus group discussions and questionnaire responseswere treated as discursive practices that are situated in a special social, cultural, and historical context(e.g. van Dijk, 1991). Hall (1977) defined discourse as ‘‘sets of ready-made and preconstituted‘experiencings’ displayed and arranged through language’’ that are used to provide meaning for reality(p. 322). Specifically, the two authors first independently conducted a discourse analysis on thematerials, identifying preliminary themes and patterns that emerged, before further interpreting thefindings within a broader cultural context. The authors then discussed their respective interpretationsto reach a consensus.

Analysis

Several prominent themes regarding the use of digital communication tools in immigrant activismemerged from the group discourses of both focus groups: the different dimensions of use for communi-cation tools in immigration activism, the advantages and disadvantages of digital communication tools,the digital divide, and ‘‘perceived’’ versus ‘‘real’’ activism.

Different Dimensions of UseIn general, immigration activists or advocates who participated in the focus groups said their choice oftools – whether telephone, radio, television, e-mail, Skype, Facebook, YouTube or word of mouth – isbased on what audience they are trying to reach and what message they are trying to disseminate, asTable 1 shows. In other words, which tools they use when are particular not just to a place and time,but also to a purpose.

General publicParticipants said SNS like Facebook and Twitter and other Internet tools frequently were used tocommunicate with the general public to raise awareness, recruit participants, mobilize, and coordinateoffline and online actions. Maile said that when the Workers Defense Project tried to get the CityCouncil to pass a resolution granting construction workers water breaks, English at Work used digital


Table 1 Overview of the Different Uses of Communication Tools in Immigrant Activism

Targets Purpose Communication Tools

General public Raise awareness, recruit, mobilize,seek donations and signatures,share information, coordinateoffline and online actions

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, e-mails,blog, organizational website, textmessaging, independent videos, TVand newspapers

Activist organizations Build connections; shareinformation

Facebook, Twitter, Listserves,organizational website

Officials/authorities/power holders

Influence legislation, work withinthe judicial system

E-mail, Skype, face to faceconversation, conference calls

Immigrants orrefugees

Share information; recruit,mobilize, involve them asactivists

Word of mouth, face-to-faceconversation paper fliers, radio,independent video workshops,Facebook

media tools to post messages of solidarity on the organization’s website, Facebook page, and Twitterfeed. For immigrant shelter Casa Marianella workers, digital tools are useful for reaching potentialfunders, Stacy said. To spread the word about the house’s ‘‘On Your Feet’’ benefit, she sent out textmessages and electronic invitations via Facebook, E-vite, and other similar sites. Matt, an independentfilmmaker, said SNS and blogs are efficient tools to coordinate online activism, such as the onlinepetitions against the Arizona anti-immigrant law, and offline activities, like marches or protests.

For some participants, traditional mass media were perceived as more efficient than digital tools forreaching their clients. To Chris and Maile, traditional media, such as an article in the local newspaperor an interview on local TV, are the best way to reach the most people.

Activist organizationsFocus group participants said digital tools facilitate communication among activist organizations. Chrisand Kayvon said they used organizational websites and listserves to ‘‘connect with other organizationsaround the country or internationally to help (their) cause.’’ Maile also mentioned that English at Workallies with activist organizations via SNS to be part of the ‘‘communication chain.’’

Officials/authorities/power-holdersWithin the field of legal activism, Chris and Kayvon said they communicate with clients and judgesusing mostly old-fashioned means, such as paperwork or face-to-face conversations or conference calls.

Kayvon: In terms of our ability to lobby . . . social media really hasn’t had that much of a role becausein order to get anything of that magnitude (done), like a federal law passed or a federal amendmentpassed, there needs to be a huge amount of sacrifice by the people who are fighting for it.

Immigrants or refugeesConsidering that a great number of immigrants or refugees lack access to the Internet and digitaltechnologies, these activists and advocates said they primarily rely on traditional means such as word


of mouth or paper fliers to serve immigrant communities. Sometimes, radio can be the best way forreaching immigrant communities, Lindsay said. One outreach project to rural immigrants in northeastTexas brought in clients based entirely off a PSA that ran on a local Spanish radio station, she said.

On the other hand, New Immigrants Centers, where Michael works, provide free digital literacyclasses to immigrants and refugees so they can learn basic computer and Internet skills. Matt, thefilmmaker, conducts independent video workshops teaching immigrants how to make their own videosto advocate for their own communities.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Digital Communication ToolsKeeping in mind that digital tools are employed depending on the message and the audience, focusgroup participants also discussed what dimensions of activism they feel technologies best support, andwhich dimensions are best left to traditional, offline tools. In general, they said digital tools, whileefficient, lack the ability to create a sense of community, and instead serve to create a ‘‘spectacle.’’

Most participants agreed that the Internet’s ability to reach a mass audience instantly makes digitaltechnologies efficient for sending messages or raising awareness. Chris said digital tools provide greateraccess for more people to participate: I think social media is conducive to staying engaged with a causefrom a distance . . . Maybe it creates access for people who don’t have the time and energy to devote hours oftheir week to it.

Nevertheless, oftentimes many people who engage with a cause online will not go to the marchoffline, as many participants said. Matt cited a Facebook page that was created as part of a campaignto release families from a local immigrant detention center. He said: Thousands of people joined (theFacebook page), but then thousands of people didn’t show up at rallies and other things. So what does thismean? On the other hand, though, it was effective because a year after that campaign started, the practicedid end. It wasn’t that it was a cause on Facebook, but maybe even if 10 people of those thousands of peopledid take a more active role then, maybe it’s just one small piece of a movement or activism.

Interestingly, during discussion about activism’s dependence on personal connections, participantsfrom both focus groups mentioned a recent Malcolm Gladwell article in the New Yorker, ‘‘TheRevolution Will Not be Tweeted.’’ Cassie said that something ‘‘had to happen outside that social mediarealm’’ to make a person participate offline. Social media are good for organizing, she said, ‘‘but I don’tthink that community feeling can be created there.’’

Matt: I believe technology is a great and very important tool; it needs to be seen as just that—a tool.Not the core of activism and organizing, which is people.

Beyond lacking that sense of community, another downside of digital tools, focus group participantssaid, is that they contribute to the ‘‘spectacle-ization’’ of activism.

Stacy: It seems for the rallies and things, we’re only gearing it toward the media and I hate that. Theywant to have a beautiful picture, a good shot, a good little sound bite and they want it to be in themedia . . . Not even the important things are driving what we do.

Maile said it is about catering to what the government wants, as 3,000 people can sign a formulaice-petition, or a few can put in the effort and ‘‘spend three hours crafting the letter to Lloyd Doggett,’’but in the end all that matters is the number of signatures, suggesting SNS are ‘‘spectacle-izing’’ activismand burying the issues.


Digital Divide in Immigration ActivismThe advent of new digital communication tools, particularly SNS, added momentum to activism in the21st century while also putting those populations without technological access and expertise at a furtherdisadvantage, many participants said. As such, the ‘‘digital divide’’ emerged as another important themeduring the focus group discussion. Participants said they confront digital divide-related obstacles bothwithin their organizations, and when trying to reach out to the communities they serve.

Though digital communication tools might provide an easy way for activists to reach their targetcommunities and allies, the successful employment of these tools largely depends on whether theorganization has the professional expertise and adequate resources to implement the technologies.Participants said some volunteer-driven organizations could not afford technology staff, so that theycannot fully take advantage of digital communication tools in their work.

Further, participants discussed the digital divide among immigrant communities. When commu-nicating with their immigrant clients, participants said, they turn to the most basic communicationmeans – word of mouth, fliers, and door-knocking.

Lindsay: We can tell one person that HEB gift cards are being given out at Caritas and I guarantee thenext day everyone will be there. The information is dispersed.

Michael: To get to the new immigrant, you can have all the social networking sites, you could be allover the web, but if they’re not connecting to that, then just a simple paper flier is as effective as a socialnetworking site for your desired audience.

Consequently, when digitally literate advocates use Facebook or Twitter to speak on behalf of theimmigrant community, their interests could be misrepresented, Maile said, as meaning is always lost intranslation.

Still, some participants said they believed the digital divide is narrowing, as younger generations ofimmigrants have greater access to and skills with new communication tools. Stacy cited some Eritreansin their early 20s who tagged Facebook photos of themselves while on a boat crossing the Panama Canalto the U.S. as undocumented immigrants.

Stacy: That’s not your typical Facebook.

Maile: Hopefully, increased access to and facility with digital communication tools will furtherdemocratize the discussion that happens around immigrant issues. Imagine the time whenundocumented workers have a voice on sites like Salon.com and the major newspapers’ websites/blogs.The conversation will be so much richer.

‘‘Real’’ versus ‘‘Perceived’’ ActivismWhen analyzing the participants’ discussions regarding the impact of new technologies on the future ofactivism and who is an activist, it seems participants believe new technologies create a type of perceivedactivism distinguishable from real activism.

Most participants agreed that doing acts of activism did not automatically make one an activist.For example, Maile said that someone who attended an immigrants rights march, and is interested inimmigration issues, but does nothing else, is not an activist.

However, Lindsay and Cassie, each of whom was in a different focus group, disagreed, arguing thatactivism does not have to be comprised of grand acts.

Lindsay: I guess activism can be very small, it can be micro. I think it doesn’t have to change the world,it can change the moment.


Cassie: I think activism is advocating for something you believe in. I think that a lot of people do thingsof good work; they take care of their family. And when there is a goal in mind, a kind of moral goal, andyou work to achieve that goal, then you will be doing activism.’

Whether small or large, activism requires passion and dedication to a desire to right a wrong orincite change, participants said. The thing about new technologies like online social media, participantssaid, is that they can make people who are interested in a cause feel more passionate, and essentiallytrick them into believing they are activists.

Kayvon: I kind of worry that some of these social media allow people to fulfill their emotional desire . . .

to feel like they’re doing something when they’re really not doing anything.

Lindsay, however, argued that the medium does not necessarily have anything to do with one’s levelof passion or commitment: Anyone brings any level of passionate emotion . . . It’s not just because you’reat a computer that you’re any more or less engaged. You’re probably just multi-tasking more. Maybe that’sthe difference.

When discussing what impact digital communication tools have had on activism, participantsagreed that, while technologies can facilitate participation, they also have lowered the bar for what itmeans to be an activist. While Facebook and online social media sites might mean greater involvement,it is less meaningful.

Kayvon: Somehow in the 21st century social media is creating an ever-lower threshold of activism,which is like Facebook clicking.

Maile: It’s the first step in engaging people. Maybe you’re like a baby activist if you’re just a Facebooker.

Leila: I don’t think that it’s that easy to differentiate between what’s active and what’s passive. BecauseI think that if you have 700 friends and you just posted this article that no one would have heard of, Ithink that is something.

Participants suggested that perhaps easy actions like clicking in fact are inhibiting ‘‘real’’ activismor involvement.

Maile: Is that a powerful enough action to let you call yourself an activist? If you’re just clicking on yourcause, and it takes three seconds, I mean, I think obviously we want those people because a signature ismore important than not having a signature. But can we employ them, can we engage them?

Lindsay said that whereas before she might have been out on the streets working on behalf of acause, now she can do ‘‘crossword puzzles for rice’’ or play some other online game that supposedlywill contribute food or money to a cause. She said: So I did my activism for today, but I didn’t get out anddo anything. I just clicked on a website.

Cassie called these people ‘‘couch advocates,’’ saying: What is activism? Is it commenting? Is it postingan article? Is it getting out of your house and marching? Is it doing something, making something? What isit? . . . It’s different when I get out and do something, and for me, the action in activist is really important.

Maile: It’s like greater participation, but a lessened form.


Chris: OK, 1,000 people on Facebook supported it, but I think people still take that as it’s not asmeaningful as a group rallied together.

Even as they distinguished between ‘‘real’’ activism and online activism, the participants suggestedthat perhaps online and offline activism could be equally effective.

Lindsay cited the success of websites that allow ordinary people in the US to give microloansto people wanting to start small businesses in developing countries. She said: Those kinds of thingschange people’s lives. And it’s a form of activism, and a new form of media or technology that didn’t exist10 years ago.

Maile summed it up nicely: Movements need multiple strategies and multiple delivery methods. Youneed the people that chain themselves to the tree, and you need the people who work for 30 years to save thetree, and you need the people that blah blah blah, so maybe social media is just another strategy that asactivists we can use.

Discussion and Conclusions

The analysis of these focus groups and reflective responses demonstrates that when it comes to adding tothe repertoire of electronic contention, these advocates and activists who work with Austin’s immigrantcommunity are employing digital tools when they are appropriate for a particular setting, message ortarget audience. The tools, they found, are best for raising awareness and are less able to incite peopleto participate in offline activism. In light of most immigrants’ lack of computer access or literacy, then,these activists and advocates did not deem it a priority to reach out to migrants digitally. The participantssaid that in their experiences, technologies could not create the personal connections that are the coreof activism. As such, new technologies are just one more logistical tool, best for communicating withother activists or potential supporters, rather than the migrants themselves. Rather than seeing anelectronic repertoire of contention as signifying a paradigm shift transforming activism, they considerednew technologies to be useful for networking with other activists and raising awareness among thegeneral public – in other words, any electronic repertoire of contention, at least for these immigrantadvocates, is more about communicating than mobilizing a revolution. This finding confirms Tilly’s(1978) argument that a ‘‘repertoire of contention’’ is fixed in a certain time and space and slow toinnovate. In the field of immigrant activism, a new electronic repertoire, including mobilization viasocial network sites, is still used in company with the conventional repertoire rather than breakingentirely with old ways.

In addition, this study found that activists still depend on mainstream media for getting theirmessages out, and mainstream media coverage of protests still follows the ‘‘protest paradigm’’ (Gamson& Wolfsfeld, 1993; McLeod & Hertog, 1999). What is new is that digital communication tools serve toadd new elements to the ‘‘protest paradigm.’’ While mainstream media tend to highlight the numberof marchers and dramatic actions rather than the issues when they covered protest actions (Watkins,2001), in this Digital Era, the dynamics of e-votes or e-signatures via SNS might constitute a ‘‘protestparadigm 2.0.’’ Activism organizers, as some participants said, actively focus on creating the digitalspectacles catering to the mainstream media. As such, the core of the issue might be buried under themillions of Facebook or Twitter signatures. Similar to the traditional protest paradigm, its 2.0 versionmight help the cause by attracting more media attention about the issue, while at the same time hurtthe cause because the media attention is focused on the digital spectacles rather than the issue per se.

The focus group discussions revealed that part of the limitations for using new technologiesin immigration activism is because of the digital divide. Digitally illiterate immigrants hardly can


take advantage of various digital communication tools to use e-mail, let alone participate in onlineconversations or activism. With immigrants on one side of the digital divide struggling to learn how tocreate an e-mail account, ‘‘couch advocates’’ on the other side of the divide are limiting their activismto what can be done via a computer. This disconnection has the potential to further misrepresentimmigrants, as the ‘‘couch advocates,’’ or ‘‘slacktivists,’’ who claim to be working on their behalf perhapshave never met or oven interacted with any immigrants or refugees, whether online or offline. A digitalgap exists between technology-illiterate immigrants and the internet-savvy activists who supposedly‘‘represent’’ immigrants. As such, many focus group participants were hopeful that the digital dividewould be narrowed as younger generations of immigrants become digitally savvy and can thus representtheir own communities online. And once that generation grows up, and future generations also growup digital, then perhaps immigrants and immigrant advocates will be able to employ digital tools foractivism in ways similar as to those used in the Arab Spring. For the time being, however, the participantsviewed digital tools as best for reaching potential supporters and activists, rather than connecting withthe migrants or spurring them to collective action.

Beyond concerns that new technologies were perhaps excluding immigrants, participants fromboth groups also worried that digital tools were diluting activism and creating a new era of armchairactivism or ‘‘slacktivism’’ that lacks the enthusiasm and dedication of people marching in the streets. Tothese participants, being an activist meant donating one’s blood, sweat and tears to a cause. While theydisagreed on whether activists could be involved in small acts or whether only grand, world-changingefforts were worthy of being called activism, they all agreed that passion and commitment were essentialcomponents of both activism and who was an activist. Digital tools, they said, create an easy way ofdoing activism that does not require the same level of dedication. As such, their skepticism about thepossibility of new technologies to fundamentally transform activism for the better is understandable.

For these participants, the Internet is a mixed blessing: a way to enhance communication and makeit easier to get their message out on one hand, and on the other a type of pacification that might leadpeople to believe they were making more of a difference than they really were. Bolstering Morozov’s(2009a) critique of ‘‘slacktivism,’’ participants viewed digital media as the driving force behind ‘‘couchadvocates,’’ as one focus group member dubbed it. If clicking a link is all it takes to do activism, theyreasoned, then why would anyone sacrifice time and effort in order to join a rally or a march? Eventhough they came up with examples to demonstrate otherwise, such as the 2006 immigrant marches,participants in general doubted whether an online community would be able to create the personal tiesnecessary to prompt offline activism. Alongside with some scholars (e.g., Diani, 2000; Polat, 2005; Vande Donk et al., 2004), participants also questioned the efficiency and meaningfulness of online activism.Still, participants recognized the potential for the Internet to create a mass army of ‘‘slacktivists’’ thatpotentially could increase a cause’s awareness, adding to the number of signatures for a petition ordollars for a funding drive. Technologies also open up the digital public sphere to more potential actors,allowing people to participate who otherwise might never get involved. As one focus group participantsaid, even if only 10 of 1,000 ‘‘couch advocates’’ make the transition from online to offline activism, thenperhaps the Internet can be considered an effective tool for activism. Perhaps, via the Internet, the ‘‘babyactivists’’ on Facebook eventually will mature into ‘‘real’’ activists whose activism occurs equally onlineand offline. As such, in addition to the ways scholars previously have found that the Internet facilitatesactivism (e.g., Norris, 2004), this study suggests another potential effect of the Internet: Encouraginguninvolved people to become ‘‘baby activists,’’ and then transforming some into ‘‘real’’ activists.

This study is limited because it included only two focus groups with just five participants each.However, the specialized nature of the discussion justified the smaller numbers and offered a depthof discussion impossible with a larger group. Further research could include additional focus groupswith more participants, or could be expanded to other causes, such as the environment, to consider


how the usefulness and potential of new technologies for activism changes based on a cause – are‘‘clicktivists’’ limited to the immigration movement? Additionally, it must be noted that this study isnot about the potentials of digital tools for activism in general. Rather, it is limited to the usefulness ofnew technologies for a particular subset of activism – one that advocates for a marginalized communitywith low levels of income, education, and computer access and know-how.

Before Facebook was credited with helping overthrow authoritarianism in Egypt, and before theOccupy Movement spread – both online and offline – across the United States, author MalcolmGladwell in 2010 asserted in The New Yorker that ‘‘the revolution will not be tweeted.’’ At the time, andmore since Egypt’s so-called social media revolution, Gladwell was indicted for underestimating thepotential of a Web 2.0 when he maintained that activists – not their tools – and face-to-face interactionsare what real social change is made of. While Gladwell’s argument might well have been one-sidedand short-sided – after all, even the Egyptian protesters were calling it a Facebook revolution – it isworth questioning whether the Arab Spring or Occupy Movement would have caught on had it notbeen for social media. What if the Egyptians had not had access to Facebook or Twitter? What if theynot only did not own smart phones, what if they did not know how to turn on a computer? As thefocus group participants in this study repeatedly said – even bringing up Gladwell’s article as supportfor their beliefs – any shift in activism because of new technologies is constrained by the digital divide.If all migrants used e-mail and social media, perhaps then they would employ digital tools differently.As stated at the outset, these activists and advocates saw the use of digital tools to be regulated byappropriateness, as different tools are useful according to a particular setting, message or target audience.If the audience is not using these tools, they said, then it is a waste of activists’ efforts to use them.

Thus, this study adds to the growing body of scholarship examining what digital tools mean foractivism. Focus group discussions showed that while digital tools are helping expand the reach ofimmigrant activism in Austin, Texas, the digital divide still is restricting how activists employ electronictactics, as digital tools are more for communicating among activists, rather than spurring collectiveaction or participation. A true electronic repertoire of contention, thus, has yet to take hold among theseimmigrant activists and advocates. Giving credence then, to Malcolm Gladwell’s article in The NewYorker, ‘‘Why the Revolution Will Not be Tweeted,’’ these focus group participants made it clear that,at least in Austin’s immigrant community, any talk of a Facebook or Twitter revolution is prematureas long as so much of the population is excluded from new technologies. This study demonstrates theimportance of considering the limitations of the Internet for social change, especially when workingwith a community on the wrong side of the digital divide. Further, new technologies, while enhancingthe efficiency of activism, also are potentially contributing to its dilution, creating the perception of ananemic activism that requires no more than the click of the mouse. As such, this study raises importantquestions as to what ‘‘clicktivists’’ mean not just for the future of activism, but for social change, equalityand democracy.

References

AIRC (n.d.). Who we are. Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition. Retrieved fromhttp://www.austinirc.org/whoweare.html

Benítez, J. L. (2006). Transnational dimensions of the digital divide among Salvadoran immigrants inthe Washington DC metropolitan area. Global Networks, 6(2), 181–199.

Bohnsack, R. (2004). Group discussions and focus groups. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke(Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 214–221). London: Sage.

Bonfadelli, H. (2002). The Internet and knowledge gaps: A theoretical and empirical investigation.European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 65–84.


boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.

Brodock, K., Joyce, M., & Zaeck, T. (2009). Digital Activism Survey Report 2009. Retrieved fromhttp://www.digiactive.org/wpcontent/uploads/Research4_SurveyReport2009.pdf

Cammaerts, B. (2007). Introduction: Activism and media. In B. Cammaerts & N. Carpentier (Eds.),Reclaiming the media: Communication rights and democratic media roles (pp. 217–224). Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business and society. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Cleaver, H. (1998). The Zapatista effect: The Internet and the rise of an alternative public fabric.Journal of International Affairs, 51, 621–632.

Corrunker, L. (2012). ‘‘Coming out of the shadows’’: DREAM Act activism in the context of globalanti-deportation activism. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 19(1), 143–168.

Costanza-Chock, S. (2003). Mapping the repertoire of electronic contention. In A. Opel & D. Pompper(Eds.), Representing resistance: Media, civil disobedience and the global justice movement (pp.173–191). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Diani, M. (2000). Social movement networks virtual and real. Information, Communication & Society,3(3), 386–401.

Downing, J. (2001). Radical media. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Fernandez, V. (2012, Aug. 20). Caravana de ‘sonadores’ va camino a la Convencion Democrata, La

Opinion. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/D8fcQFlick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, and I. Steinke

(Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 178–183). London: Sage.Fowler, G. A. (2012, Oct.5). Facebook: One billion and counting. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.Fuchs, C. (2009). The role of income inequality in a multivariate cross-national analysis of the digital

divide. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 41–58.Gamson, W., & Woldsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. Annals of

American Academy of Political and Social Science 528, 114–125.Garrett, R. K., & Edwards, P. N. (2007). Revolutionary secrets: Technology’s role in the South African

anti-apartheid movement. Social Science Computer Review, 25(1), 13–26.Gibb, C. (2006) Deterritorialized people in hyperspace: Creating and debating Harari identity over the

internet. In K. Landzelius (Ed.), Native on the net: Indigenous and diasporic peoples in the virtual age(pp. 169–185). London: Routledge.

Gladwell, M. (2010, October). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker.Retrieved from http://goo.gl/dtGi1

Goldstein, R. (2007). Contributing to socially relevant public policies on e-governance: The case of thegenesis of the communes in Buenos Aires City. In M. Gasco-Hernandez (Ed.), Latin Americaonline: Cases, successes and pitfalls (pp. 277–318). Hershey, PA: IRM.

Hall, S. (1977). Culture, the media and the ‘‘ideological effect’’. In J. Curran, M. Gurevitch & J.Woollacott (Eds.), Mass communication and society (pp. 315–348). London: Edward Arnold.

Harlow, S. (2012). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justicemovement that moved offline. New Media & Society, 14(2), 225–243.

Juris, J. S. (2005). The new digital media and activist networking within anti-corporate globalizationmovements. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 597(1), 189–208.

Kellner, D. M. (2000). Habermas, the public sphere and democracy: A critical intervention. In L. Hahn(Ed.), Perspectives on Habermas (pp. 259–287). Peru, Illinois: Open Court.

Kenix, L.J. (2009). Blogs as alternative. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 790–822.


Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Malloy, T. (2006, March 24). Immigration rallies draw thousands nationwide. The Associated PressNewswires. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/fzFoC

McAdam, D., & Rucht, D. (1993). Cross national diffusion of social movement ideas. The Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 56–74.

McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). The dynamics of contention. New York and London:Cambridge University Press.

McLeod, D. M., & Hertog, J. K. (1999). Social control, social change and the mass media’s role in theregulation of protest groups. In D. Demers & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Mass media, social control andsocial change: A macrosocial perspective (pp. 305–330). Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Morozov, E. (2009a). Iran: Downside to the ‘‘Twitter revolution’’. Dissent, 56(4): 10–14.Morozov, E. (2009b, March/April). Texting toward utopia: Does the Internet spread democracy?

Boston Review. Retrieved from http://bostonreview.net/BR34.2/morozov.phpNorris, P. (2004). The bridging and bonding role of online communities. In P.N. Howard & S. Jones

(Eds.), Society online: The Internet in context (pp. 31–41). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2008). Immigrants, English ability and the digital divide. Social Forces, 86(4),

1455–1480.Panagakos, A. N. & Horst, H.A. (2006). Return to Cyberia: Technology and the social worlds of

transnational migrants. Global Networks, 6 (2), 109–124.Polat, R. K. (2005). The Internet and political participation: Exploring the explanatory links. European

Journal of Communication, 20(4), 435–459.Postmes, T. & Brunsting, S. (2002). Collective action in the age of the Internet: Mass communication

and online mobilization. Social Science Computer Review, 20(3), 290–301.Raghavan, R. (2009, October 2). Digital activism on YouTube. The official Google blog. Retrieved from

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/digital-activism-on-youtube.htmlRobinson, J. P., DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2003). New social survey perspectives on the digital

divide. IT & Society, 1(Summer), 1–22.Rolfe, B. (2005). Building an electronic repertoire of contention. Social Movement Studies, 4(1), 65–74.Shore, E. (2006, March 25). Immigrant rights protests spread: New chapter in civil rights movement.

New America Media. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/GHj4HTarrow, S. (1988). Power in movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.—— (2005). Introduction to Part II: Invention, diffusion, and transformation of the social movement

repertoire. European Review of History, 12(2), 307–320.Van de Donk, W., Loader, B. D., Nixon, P. G., & Rucht, D. (2004). Cyberprotest: New media, citizens

and social movements. London: Routledge.van Dijk, T.A. (1991). The interdisciplinary study of news as discourse. In K. Jensen & N. Jankowski

(Eds.), A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research (pp. 108–120).New York: Routledge.

Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2009). Cyber-protest and civil society: The Internet and actionrepertoires in social movements. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/NjsTB

Velez, V., Perez Huber, L., Benavides Lopez, C., de la Luz, A., & Solorzano, D. G. (2008). Battling forhuman rights and social justice: A Latina/o critical race media analysis of Latina/o student youthactivism in the wake of 2006 anti-immigrant sentiment. Social Justice, 35(1), 7–27.

Watkins, S.C. (2001). Framing protest: News media frames of the Million Man March. Critical Studiesin Media Communication, 18(1), 83–101.


Wojcieszak, M. (2009). Carrying online participation offline: Mobilization by radical online groupsand politically dissimilar offline ties. Journal of Communication, 59, 564–586.

About the Authors

Summer Harlow (e-mail: [email protected]) is a Ph.D. candidate in journalism at theUniversity of Texas at Austin. A journalist with more than 10 years of experience, she has reported andblogged from the United States and Latin America. Her main research inquiries are related to the linksbetween journalism and activism, with an emphasis on Latin America, digital media, alternative media,and marginalized groups.

Address: The University of Texas at Austin, School of Journalism, 300 W. Dean Keeton, Austin, TX78712–1073

Lei Guo (e-mail: [email protected]) is a PhD student in the School of Journalism at the Universityof Texas at Austin. Her research interests include alternative media, development of agenda settingtheory (network agenda setting model), and international communication and framing.

Address: The University of Texas at Austin, School of Journalism, 300 W. Dean Keeton, Austin, TX78712–1073


Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Will the Revolution be Tweeted or Facebooked? Using...

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Will the Revolution be Tweeted or Facebooked? Using...