Connective action

Bennet and Segerberg (2012) offer a new perspective on digital activism. The idea of connective action shows how social media communication becomes the organizing force and structure in contemporary social movements, replacing traditional (political) organizations. This idea is based on several arguments:

-       Declining the power of traditional organizations: Unlike collective action, people do not rely on or need traditional organizations to coordinate and mobilize their activities. People require joining collective actions with established groups or ideologies. But the logic of connective action is more inclusive, flexible, and open. In fact, people may still join actions in large numbers, but the identity reference is more derived through inclusive and diverse large-scale personal expression rather than through common group or ideological identification (p. 744). In short, this theory argues that Connective action networks are typically far more individualized and technologically organized sets of processes that result in action without the requirement of collective identity framing or the levels of organizational resources required to respond effectively to opportunities (p. 750).

-       Social media communication as the organizing force: But the lack or declined role of traditional organizations should be compensated in some ways. Social movements do not happen in a vacuum or spontaneously. Bennet and Segerberg mention Tilly (2004, 2006) and his suggested criteria for any social movement: Worthiness, Unity, Numbers, and Commitment. They continued that social media communication replaced traditional organizations. At the core of the logic of connective action is the recognition of digital media as organizing agents (p. 752). In fact, there is increasing coordination of action by organizations and individuals using digital media to create networks, structure activities, and communicate their views directly to the world. This means that there is also an important degree of technology-enabled networking (Livingston & Asmolov 2010) that makes highly personalized, socially mediated communication processes fundamental structuring elements in the organization of many forms of connective action (p. 749).

-       Amplifying and sharing Personal Action Frames: How does social media communication provide such organizing resources and potential? The answer lies in the fact that social media help create, amplify, and share PAFs. PAFs are ‘the self-motivated (though not necessarily self-centered) sharing of already internalized or personalized ideas, plans, images,   and resources with networks of others’ (Poell and van Dijck, 2018). Collective action frames are conceptualized as an alignment of meaning structures such as experiences (Benford & Snow, Citation2000, p. 623), or claims about injustice, agency and identity (Gamson, Citation1995). By contrast, the logic of connective action emphasizes the sharing of personal action frames on digital media networks and does not presuppose frame alignment.

In fact, people frame events based on their own beliefs and desires regardless of organizational and group interests. These personal frames are generally easy to share and have symbolic inclusiveness. A significant difference between collective and connective action frames is the former requires somewhat more elaborate packaging and ritualized action to reintroduce them into new contexts (p. 747). In other words, conventional collective action typically requires people to make more difficult choices and adopt more self-changing social identities than DNA (digitally networked action) based on personal action frames organized around social technologies. The spread of collective identifications typically requires more education, pressure, or socialization, which in turn makes higher demands on formal organization and resources such as money to pay rent for organization offices, to generate publicity, and to hire professional staff organizers (p. 748).

Unlike them, the more personalized, digitally mediated collective action formations have frequently been larger; have scaled up more quickly; and have been flexible in tracking moving political targets and bridging different issues (p. 742). Bennet and Segerberg emphasize that these digitally mediated action networks often seem to be accorded higher levels of WUNC than their more conventional social movement counter- parts.

Here is the significant role of social media. Connective action entails technology platforms and applications taking the role of established political organizations. Personal action frames do not spread automatically. People must show each other how they can appropriate, shape, and share themes. In this interactive process of personalization and sharing, communication networks may become scaled up and stabilized through the digital technologies people use to share ideas and relationships with others. These technologies and their use patterns often remain in place as organizational mechanisms (p. 746).

Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661

Networked publics

The idea of networked publics is based on the traditional concept of publics. In media studies, the term public, as imagined communities (Anderson, 2006), historically refers to the fragmentation of the mass media audience into many interest-based publics (Jungherr, 2017). Livingstone (2005) constructs “public” as a collection of people who share “a common understanding of the world, a shared identity, a claim to inclusiveness, a consensus regarding the collective interest” (p. 9). She also uses the term to refer to a group bounded by a shared text, whether a worldview or a performance. The audience produced by media is often by its very nature a public, but not necessarily a passive one (boyd, 2010, p. 40).

Mizuko Ito extends this line of thinking to argue that “publics can be reactors, (re)makers and (re)distributors, engaging in shared culture and knowledge through discourse and social exchange as well as through acts of media reception” (Ito, 2008, p. 3). From a different perspective, Nancy Fraser argues that publics are not only a site of discourse and opinion but “arenas for the formation and enactment of social identities” (Fraser, 1992).

Networked publics exist against this backdrop. Mizuko Ito introduces the notion of networked publics to “reference a linked set of social, cultural, and technological developments that have accompanied the growing engagement with digitally networked media” (Ito, 2008, p. 2). Ito emphasizes the networked media, but boyd believes we must also focus on the ways in which this shapes publics—both in terms of space and collectives. In short, boyd contends that networked publics are publics that are restructured by networked technologies; they are simultaneously a space and a collection of people (p.41). Based on this understanding, boyd defines  Networked publics are simultaneously (1) the space constructed through networked technologies and (2) the imagined collective that emerges as a result of the intersection of people, technology, and practice (p. 39). She emphasizes that while networked publics share much in common with other types of publics, the ways in which technology structures them introduces distinct affordances that shape how people engage with these environments. The properties of bits—as distinct from atoms—introduce new possibilities for interaction. As a result, new dynamics emerge that shape participation.

Here, boyd refers to bits as the basic elements of SNS architecture. The word “architecture” is used in technical circles to refer to the organization of code that produces digital environments. Boyd cites Papacharissi who argues that architecture can serve as an important conceptual lens through which to understand structural differences in technologies in relation to practice (Papacharissi, 2009). Physical structures are a collection of atoms, while digital structures are built out of bits. The underlying properties of bits and atoms fundamentally distinguish these two types of environments, define what types of interactions are possible, and shape how people engage in these spaces (p. 42). Lawrence Lessig (2006, pp. 1–8) has argued that “code is law” because code regulates the structures that emerge. James Grimmelmann argues that Lessig’s use of this phrase is “shorthand for the subtler idea that code does the work of law, but does it in an architectural way” (Grimmelmann, 2004, p. 1721). Nicholas Negroponte (1995) mapped out some core differences between bits and atoms to argue that digitization would fundamentally alter the landscape of information and media. He pointed out that bits could be easily duplicated, compressed, and transmitted through wires; media that is built out of bits could be more easily and more quickly disseminated than that which comprises atoms. During that same period, Mitchell (1995) argued that bits do not simply change the flow of information, but they alter the very architecture of everyday life. The city of bits that Mitchell lays out is not configured just by the properties of bits but by the connections between them.

The unique bit-based structure of networked publics introduces new affordances and dynamics. Boyd lists the new affordances as below:

Persistence: Online expressions are automatically recorded and archived.

Replicability: Content made out of bits can be duplicated.

Scalability: The potential visibility of content in networked publics is great.

Searchability: Content in networked publics can be accessed through search.

While we can challenge this pure understanding of SNSs affordances, it is not the aim of this writing. For instance, with the development of social media, persistence is not guaranteed anymore. Social media platforms could remove accounts and content permanently or temporarily. Also, users could do that themselves.

Boyd also discusses the following as the dynamics of networked publics: 

Invisible audiences: Not all audiences are visible when a person is contributing online, nor are they necessarily co-present.

Collapsed contexts: The lack of spatial, social, and temporal boundaries makes it difficult to maintain distinct social contexts.

The blurring of public and private: Without control over context, public and private become meaningless binaries, are scaled in new ways, and are difficult to maintain as distinct.

 boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge.