DIGITAL ACTIVISM: ADDRESSING SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE. Colin Sibbernsen

DIGITAL ACTIVISM: ADDRESSING SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE by Colin Sibbernsen A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Approved: Claudio Holzner Supervisor James Gosling Chair, Department of Political Science Matthew Burbank Department Honors Advisor Sylvia D. Torti Dean, Honors College May 2012

ABSTRACT Technological progression in the area of information and communication technology allows for expansion of prior social movement theorizing. The ways in which social movements are organized and carried out today need to be carefully analyzed and discussed to identify new methods of organization and mobilization of social movements as influenced by progression in information and communication technology (ICTs). This paper addresses how progression in ICTs is affecting social movements. In order to do this, I describe the evolution and progression of social movement theory beginning in the early twentieth century. This discussion illustrates how social movements and subsequent social movement theories reflect their socio-historical context and intellectual climates. I establish a broad framework based on mobilizing structures, opportunity structures, and framing processes to consider how digital forms of activism fit within existing social movement theories. Next, I describe various forms of digital activism and show how these new forms have implications on costs of participation, necessity of copresence and importance of social movement organizations (SMOs). I describe how new forms of digital activism beckon consideration of a new digital repertoire of contention. Ultimately, I conclude that progression in ICTs and the ways they are employed by activists create a continuum of possibilities for social movements today and into the future. On the one hand, advanced knowledge of ICTs and their possibilities allows for more technologically savvy activists to create fundamentally new means of protest. On the other, integrating these technologies into theoretical frameworks strengthens and builds upon existing social movement theories.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii INTRODUCTION 1 DISCUSSION OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY 5 PARADIGM SHIFT: THE SIXTIES 9 CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL ACTIVISM 18 THE DIGITAL AGE: WHAT IS DIFFERENT? 21 Reduced Costs of Participation 26 Digital Activism and SMOs 29 Reduced Importance of Co-Presence 31 DIGITAL REPERTOIRES OF CONTENTION 34 CONCLUSION 37 REFERENCES 40

INTRODUCTION The year 2011 was dubbed the "year of the protester" by Time (2012). Amidst a long-standing, dictatorial regime, a 26-year old street vendor by the name of Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in front of the provincial-capitol building to protest the oppressive, overly-bureaucratic Tunisian government. This event set off a series of increasingly violent demonstrations throughout the country. Protest movements subsequently spread throughout the Arab world including Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and beyond. Several months later, individuals from across the United States migrated to New York City to engage in a similar style of occupation to protest corruption and greed by the wealthy. The occupy Wall Street movement would soon grow to a global scale as occupations were established in a large number of countries. It would seem the spirit of protest spread across the globe. In an article for Al-Jazeera, Joseph Stiglitz noted: Globalization and modern technology now enables social movements to transcend borders as rapidly as ideas can. Contemporary cases of social activism reveal that something is different in the way social movements are being organized and carried out today. Online petitions accomplish in a matter of days what would take months or even years by more traditional means. Additionally, online social networking sites allow activists to connect, organize and mobilize without physical co-presence. While participation in social movements has traditionally been limited to activists, today general citizens who may not consider themselves activists are participating in online mobilization (Hara, 2008). There is a debate over whether these changes exist at the fundamental level of social movement dynamics or if they are merely reinforcing existing dynamics. Additionally, some

contend that no substantial impacts of technology on social movement theory are evident at all (Earl & Kimport, 2011, p. 23). The key difference is that the tools social activists are employing today are products of the digital age. As we continue to be inspired and fascinated by cases of digital activism, we must seek to discover the fundamental forces that allow these actions to unfold. I argue that progress in information and communication technology (ICTs) requires an expansion of prior social movement theorizing. Digital activism has several implications on social movements and social movement theory. These implications are best approached as a continuum. The degree to which digital tactics are employed in social movements determines the degree of departure from traditional models of social movements. As activist continue to gain understanding of digital technology and its influence on social movement dynamics, this degree of departure will increase. It is important to note that while technological progression has offered new opportunities to engage in social and political action, this does not necessarily mean social movements have become a more powerful force in society. The ways digital technology has influenced social movements to organize and mobilize today, however, require an evolved understanding. Social movement theory, a subset of sociology, has been around for centuries seeking to explain why individuals aggregate to address their collective social grievances. According to Tarrow, social movements are understood to be collective challenges (to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes) by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities (1994, p. 18). For the purposes of this paper, it is important distinguish social movements from more

sporadic examples of contentious politics. Contentious politics, which includes the numerous forms of activism to be discussed later, are only aspects of social movements. Social movements crystallize when contention taps into the existing social networks and other structures to produce action frames and collective identities that sustain this contention against the targeted elite. Traditional and contemporary social movements employ techniques that create networks, bringing together masses that are necessary in order to achieve the desired change. I begin with a historical assessment of social movement theory to illustrate how theories evolve with changing intellectual climates and real-world events. During the early part of the twentieth century, social movement theories focused on the irrational, extreme behavior of activists and movements. A theoretical shift occurred in the 1970s among social scholars that recognized rational choice theory and would provoke subsequent models of resource mobilization, political opportunity, and framing to emerge. Where prior theories had focused on the why of collective action, new theories resource mobilization, specifically focused on how (Melucci, 1988). Theories from then on would be concerned with the ways social movements aggregate resources and take advantage of political opportunities. This new understanding is helpful in recognizing the role information and communication technologies play in contention and social movements. Next, I outline a framework based on mobilizing structures, opportunity structures and framing processes that can be used in discussing the implications of ICTs in social movements. I will discuss the variety of characteristics that define the contemporary environment and discuss several ways that digital activism is carried out. The digital age

allows for lower costs, lessened importance on social movement organizations (SMOs) and minimizes the importance of physical co-presence. With these important changes, I will discuss the potential for considering a new repertoire of contention in the digital age. Repertoires of contention, social networks, and cultural frames lower the costs of bringing people into collective action, induce confidence that they are not alone and give broader meaning to their claims (Tarrow, 2012, p. 33). Progression in ICT augments these aspects of social movements and the future of social movements will be certainly be affected by such continuing progression. The integration of new tools and novel practices is having a significant effect on the way social movements organize, mobilize and institutionalize. Throughout the paper, I use the term "digital activism. In Digital Activism Decoded, Mary Joyce explains the utility of this term: Digital activism is not the consensus term for the use of digital technology in campaigning and social movement. But because the speed, reliability, scale and low cost of the digital network are what enable the great scope and reach of contemporary activism, this phenomenon is what we focus on. This term is both exhaustive and exclusive. Exhaustive in that it encompasses all social and political campaigning practices that use digital network infrastructure and exclusive in that it excludes practices that are not examples of this type of practice. (2010, p. 3) From the spread of printed text, to electronic megaphones, to VHS tape recorders, social activists have always employed the available technology as effective means towards their desired goal. It is important to notice the interplay between newly emerging technologies and the ways we come to understand them. This is effectively displayed in the introduction in printed literature and the subsequent spread of literacy that was crucial to the rise of popular politics. Ultimately, "we adopt those tools that amplify our capabilities and we modify our tools to improve that amplification Revolution does not

happen when society adopts new technologies--it happens when society adopts new behaviors" (Shirky, 2008, p. 160). DISCUSSION OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY Collective action and social movements pre-date their scientific analysis. Initially, early theorists were most interested in three facets of movements that they feared the most: extremism, deprivation, and violence (Tarrow, 2012, p. 8). This negative conception of social movements was influenced by early writings of sociologist Emile Durkheim who understood social movements to be the result of anomie--a sense of lawlessness and chaos. Durkheim contended individuals--feeling unhinged from their traditional roles and identities--join social movements to escape the anomie of a mass society. This historical context was characterized by Italian fascism, German Nazism, and Soviet Stalinism and fit the image of earlier extremism that had occurred in the French and Industrial Revolutions. Early twentieth century theories on social movements were greatly motivated by existing nineteenth and early twentieth century European theories on collective behavior. Although he never studied social movements explicitly, Karl Marx is often considered the earliest of social movement theorists. Early theories understood collective action to be rooted in a larger social structure. Marx believed people will engage in collective action, when their social class reaches a class consciousness as provoked by its antagonist. Marx used a concept of a false consciousness or an inability to recognize class consciousness to account for inaction by oppressed individuals. Marx s theories, however, were inadequate in accounting for leadership, activist culture and political opportunities. Similar to Marx, the 19th Century German philosopher Max Weber is not

often seen as a social movement theorist, but his ideas provide strong contributions to social movement theory. He believed in the natural processes that cause organization to result in institutionalization and bureaucratization of collective action. Weber noticed that when cracks in the facade of authority become visible, social movements have much greater potential to formulate. Marx s conception of collective action was formalized in many of the strain and relative deprivation models of the early and middle twentieth century. Relative deprivation refers to the perceived discrepancy between value expectations and value capabilities; the former refers to what people believe they are entitled to, and the latter refers to what they believe they are capable of attaining (Buechler, 2011, p. 97). By the 1960s this logic was a significant aspect of most social movement theories. Tarrow (2012) noted that American sociologists traditionally conceived of social movements as occurring largely outside of the normal institutions of society. Many theories at this time understood the integration of social structure, culture and personality systems as the foundational structure of societal order. The strain or disintegration of this structure can set dysfunctional processes in motion. This model was used to explain the appeal of McCarthyism and other right wing movements of that time. Additionally, political movements such as the labor movement and civil rights movement were understood in terms of social strain and deprivation. Advancements in ICT such as the advent of television projecting images of first world affluence throughout the world greatly contributed to the relative deprivation model. Similarly, the structural-strain theory places social and structural strains as the underlying motivation for social movement activism. Social tensions are caused by the gap between

cultural goals and the means people have available to achieve those goals. In a wellintegrated society the means to achieving such goals are readily available. When they are not, however, it is more likely that an individual or a group of individuals will resort to more deviant behavior. One of the more important works to emerge out of the strain and deprivation theories came from theorists Robert Ezra Park and Ernest Burgess. Their work, An Introduction to the Science of Sociology, was one of the first recognized contributions to the new field of sociology. Park and Burgess (1921, p. 72) asserted: collective behavior is the behavior of individuals under the influence of an impulse that is common and collective, an impulse, in other words, that is the result of social interaction. They were particularly interested in the concept of irrationality in regards to social movements. They argued that the irrational crowd was the template for collective behavior. Again, this perspective strongly illustrated the sociohistorical context of the time. Little attention, however, is paid to mass social movements beyond the characteristics of crowd behavior. Their broad, yet unfocused assessment of sociology was better formalized through Herbert Blumer s contributions to this theory. Blumer provided a more detailed and analytical assessment of social movements through acknowledging stage-theory in social movements. Social unrest is the primary mechanism of elementary collective behavior, where people are psychologically unstable, suffering from disturbed impulses and feelings (Blumer, 1969, p. 173). Theorists Turner and Killian (1972) represent another perspective of this school. They repudiated the presumption of irrationality that was so strongly criticized in the first Chicago School. However, they were unable to formulate their theory in a way that

acknowledged differences between elementary forms of collective behavior and mass social movements. Social movement theories up to this point were mostly sociological, but the boundaries between political science and sociology would begin to become more distinguishable. Sociology analyzed collective behavior as an apolitical phenomenon and political science studied politics as an institutional system; neither was conceptually predisposed to examine the politics of social movements (Buechler, 2011, p. 76). Political sociology, as a subfield of sociology, was key to the progression of social movement theory. In his book on social movement theory titled Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, Doug McAdam (1982, p. 123) noted: Despite variations, they [traditional social movement theories] rest on a general causal sequence in which some background condition of structural strain provokes a disruptive psychological state that leads to social movement. Critics also addressed how these models cast a negative light on collective behavior where social order is understood positively and protest aggression negatively. Buechler noted, The rebranding and decentering of strain theories occurred because of critiques that emerged in the 1970s in conjunction with the emergence of new paradigms (2011, p. 105). Early social movement theories were incapable of addressing some major questions in social movement scholarship. For one, prior theories could not specify the mechanisms that led to aggregation of aggrieved individuals. Additionally, Marx and other subsequent strain and deprivation models tended to under specify the mobilization process. These explanations of movements paid little attention to the political conditions necessary for resource-poor individuals to mobilize.

The evolution of social movement theory is best understood as existing theories being rebranded and decentered not abandoned as new understandings emerge over time. As evidence-based critiques begin to emerge, existing theories are marginalized and require reconsideration. Relative deprivation and strain models were restructured and reanalyzed from a new perspective, focusing more on particular aspects than others. Critics argued concepts of frustration and tension were too vague and do not account for the rational and political nature of social movements. Additionally, as sociologists began approaching collective behavior from a more scientific perspective they found traditional approaches suffer numerous empirical difficulties. These frustrations would lead to the emergence of new approaches including: resource mobilization and political process. These theories dismiss breakdown but emphasize opportunity as a cause of collective action. The difference lies in valuational bias. These new theories would cast a positive light on the appropriateness of collective behavior while preserving a means of analyzing structural change that facilitates collective action. PARADIGM SHIFT: THE SIXTIES The sixties refers to the period between the 1950s and mid-1970s that saw some of the most significant waves of protest in U.S. history. This period offered a brand new basis from which to analyze and understand social movements. Both in Western Europe and in the United States, the decade of the 1960s revitalized the study of social movements. All shifts in scholarly focus depend in some way on the historical conditions in which they emerge (Tarrow, 2012, p. 23). These new theories contrast prior conceptions of social movement theory in several significant ways. First, this paradigm shift allowed theorists to shift focus from collective behavior to social movements as the

center of analysis. Whereas social movements were traditionally understood as noninstitutional events, new theories addressed them as enduring, patterned and quasiinstitutional. Finally, new social movement theories sought to reverse prior understanding of movements as irrational and replace this understanding with a positive perspective of normality, rationality and political institutionalization. Key to these new approaches is the rational actor model. In this model, humans are understood as rational actors and through employing cost-benefit analysis of participation, self-interest is the primary motivator for collective action. Within this economistic perspective, however, lies the free-rider problem. Rational actors will ride free on the actions of others in the hopes of maximizing their benefits and minimizing their costs (Olson, 1965). Therefore, the question becomes, why should anyone engage in collective action? Although the solutions varied, there is a general approach to this occurrence. The classical model of movements saw grievances and masses as independent variable leading to movements that then generated leaders and sought resources. The new model reverses this logic, seeing entrepreneurial leaders and resource availability as independent variables leading to movements that then frame grievances and recruit membership to suit their purposes (Buechler, 2011, p. 114). Where classical models predict less activity in prosperous time, the new approach, focused on resource availability and selective incentives, predicts more activity in prosperous times. These initial critiques were aggregated under the generic name resource mobilization in the early 1970s. Again, this was the first time in sociology that social movements were considered the center of analysis. Although resource mobilization began as a large number of strands of thought, eventually they came together as an

institutionalized approach. The seminal piece representing this theory came from McCarthy and Zald (1977). They stated: This approach emphasizes both societal support and constraint of social movement phenomena. It examines the variety of resources that must be mobilized, the linkages of social movements to other groups, the dependence of movements upon external support for success and the tactics used by authorities to control or incorporate movements. This new approach depends more upon political sociological and economic theories than upon the social psychology of collective behavior. (1977, p. 121) Resources in these terms are understood to include: knowledge, media, solidarity, money, media legitimacy and both internal and external support groups. The central contention of resource mobilization theory is that while grievances are ubiquitous, movements are not. As a result, there must be intermediary variables that translate individualized discontents into organized contention (Wiktorowicz, 2003, p. 196). Scholars using resource mobilization questioned the previous understanding of the causal relationship between deprivation and social movements on both logical and empirical grounds. In this new view, grievances should be seen as secondary to action because they often are created or manipulated by already-existing organizations. This view helps to explain why some deprived individuals are able to organize while others are not. In predicting likelihood of action, the resource mobilization approach places the majority of emphasis on the level of organization and integration of populations in social movements. It was during this time that social movement organizations (SMOs) began to receive more attention. This approach views movements as a hierarchical structure similar to business firms with a variety of industries and sectors. Members are recruited via networking and commitment to a cause is maintained through establishing a

collective identity. Longevity and ultimate success of a movement requires resources and continuity of leadership. In line with the rational actor model, the resource mobilization approach contends that individuals and organizations must not only secure resources but also consider the costs and benefits of action. It is the organizers themselves that catalyze transformation from collective discontent into actual movements. This theory also captured the historically unique social context of the sixties and the abundance of available resources at that time (e.g. interest groups, lobbying associations, political parties, labor unions). Similarly it is important to recognize that the existing repertoires of contention in a given socio-historical context will shape the activities of that particular movement. For example, access to the television in this era resulted in extensive use of TV media. The resource mobilization theory, however, was also subject to critiques. By the 1980s the lines between varying aspects of resource mobilization had become much more rigid, allowing for more nuanced approaches to emerge. Similarly, the political process theory came as a critique of classical social movement theories, seeking to reorient such theories to rationally grounded, resourcebased political interpretations of collective social action. Charles Perrow (1979) made a significant critique of resource mobilization arguing that it downplays the influence of politics and political interests. Social movements do not operate in a vacuum; they belong to a broader social milieu and context characterized by shifting and fluid configurations of enablements and constraints that structure movement dynamics (Wiktorowicz, 2003, p. 200). The political process model is similar to resource mobilization theories but places greater emphasis on the political component of social

structures. In addition to forming a collective consciousness and organizational strength, the political process theory supplements political opportunities in accounting for social movements. Such opportunities will arise as the result of a number of events: growth of political pluralism, ineffective repression, disunity among elites, widened access to institutional participation in political processes, and support of a movement by rival elites. The political process theory is helpful in its ability to account for the issue of timing and emergence of particular movements where other existing theories could not. Often deprived individuals or groups of individuals can create a collective consciousness, but a lack of political opportunities will not allow them to act on their grievances. Social theorist Charles Tilly was an original proponent of this model. He was particularly interested in the implications social structures have on social movement dynamics. Tilly used a polity model to illustrate how certain members of society maintain routine, low-cost access to political processes through power holders and decision makers while the rest of society does not. In order for those non-polity members to gain representation they are required to seek coalitions with polity members. Tilly also placed emphasis on group interests and organizational inclusiveness as they have direct bearing on organization, mobilization and other aspects of opportunity for mobilization. Recognizing the rational actor model, Tilly understood the importance of cost-benefit analysis in social movement mobilization, but was also aware of the dynamic nature of social movements that can drastically alter these costs and benefits throughout the life of a movement (1978, p. 119). Doug McAdam (1982) furthered the political process theory by more explicitly critiquing McCarthy and Zald s resource mobilization approach. He argues: Resource

mobilization affords a useful perspective for analyzing organized reform efforts initiated by established polity members. It is less convincing, however, as an account of social movements (McAdam, 1982, p. 34). Similar to Tilly, McAdam contends resource mobilization does not effectively recognize the key differences between excluded groups and established polity members. In addition, McCarthy and Zald fail to recognize the number of resources that are available to the mass base. Resource mobilization also over emphasizes the importance of elite sponsorship in movements as such sponsorship is not always available. Finally, McAdam argues that the subjective aspects of grievances are as important as the objective aspects. That is, where resource mobilization merely recognizes that grievances are constant throughout time, the political process model also recognizes the subjective process of interpreting them which helps explain the episodic, dynamic nature of social movements. McAdam further formalized the political process theory using access to political institutions as a means for social movement mobilization. This access, however, is neither readily available nor static. As political opportunities come and go, the power discrepancy between challengers and elites also changes. Additionally, McAdam paid particular attention to the importance of organizational strength through effective aggregation of members, incentives, communication and leaders. Pre-existing forms of organization are ideal as they promote a stronger sense of solidarity and cohesion. Communication networks are another key aspect of organizational strength. The degree in employment of communication techniques can have a crucial effect on the outcome of any particular movement. Finally, McAdam discusses the crucial mechanism of cognitive liberation, which is relinquishing the belief that an authority is legitimate.

Cognitive liberation is strongly reinforced through pre-existing organizational structures, but not all social movements begin with such structures. Sidney Tarrow is one other significant contributor to this theory. Tarrow was successful in combining movement theory, history and empirical research. Tarrow was interested in the generalizability of life-cycles of movements. He found that cycles are often more similar in their origins than in their outcomes. Political opportunities come and go due to changing conditions. These opportunities are subject to a number of social and political variables such as: destabilized ruling authorities, emergence of influential allies, or division between ruling elites. When these changing conditions are exploited, social movements are more capable of mobilizing effectively. Tarrow contends: The major power of movement is exerted when opportunities are widening, elites are divided and realignments are occurring. On such occasions, even movements that are poorly organized can take advantage of generalized opportunities (1994, p. 150). Critics of the resource mobilization and political process theory argued these approaches paid too much attention to formal organization, while disregarding the importance of emotion and grievances. Additionally, they were interested in how individuals construct or frame their participation in movements. Framing and culture theories focus on the importance of movement cultures. Frames represent interpretive schemata that offer a language and cognitive tools for making sense of experiences and events in the world out there (Wiktorowicz, 2003, p. 202). This theory explains the necessary emotional aspect of social movements. Successful movements are required to establish a cultural framework that implicitly and explicitly reveals injustice to activists and potential activists. Ultimately, successful frames must be capable of convincing

participants that their cause is just, important and achievable. Such a framework is based in shared cultural understandings that can motivate activists and promote longevity in a movement. Snow and Benford (1988) argue that the creation of frameworks within a group of individuals is the catalyst for group making. Framing efforts are promoted or constrained by several conditions. Snow and Benford (1988, p. 53) noted, the robustness, completeness, and thoroughness of a framing effort must be diagnostic to identify the problem, prognostic to suggest solutions and motivational to identify rationale for action. In order for a movement to move from mobilization potential into actual mobilization requires effective framing that resonates with potential participants. Frames must appear relevant to the participants as well as inform them. Individuals in a movement will certainly vary in their overall understanding of a movement and therefore frameworks must be effective in supplying information that is empirically credible. The authors argue that once someone has created an effective frame or set of frames, it is possible to see large-scale changes in society. Another important idea formalized during this period was the idea of repertoires of contention. Tilly (1978) introduced the concept of repertoires of contention to capture the set of tactical forms from which social movement actors can choose at any given historical moment as well as denote the common characteristics shared by the set of available tactical forms in a historical moment (Earl & Kimport, 2011, p. 16). Taylor and Van Dyke (2004) recognized people do not simply act collectively. Rather, they vote, petition, assemble, strike, march, occupy premises, obstruct traffic, set fires, and attack others with intent to do bodily harm. There are two components of this term to

recognize. First, there is the actual set of tactics available given a sociohistorical context. Second, repertoires of contention are defined by the common characteristics shared by that pool of available tactics. In social movement theory, it is often the latter that is most ignored. Tilly recognized two distinct repertoires throughout history. The traditional repertoire was characteristically non-state based. That is, tactics were employed to address issues below the state level. State-based issues, rather, would be addressed by local patrons or authority figures who might represent those interests. Traditional tactics included: food-riots, disruptions of ceremonies, group trespassing, invasion of land and orderly destruction of property. These tactics were: parochial, particular and bifurcated. Parochial because the interests and action involved were confined to a single community; particular because forms of contention varied significantly from one place, actor, or situation to another; and bifurcated because when ordinary people addressed local issues and nearby objects they took impressively direct action to achieve their ends, but when it came to national issues and objects they recurrently addressed their demands to a local patron or authority who might represent their interest, redress their grievances, fulfill his own obligation, or at least authorize them to act. (Tilly, 1995, p. 33) Modern repertoires, on the other hand, tend to be directed at national or state-based targets, used across a range of movements and directed at political elites. Despite distinct differences, there are also several similarities to recognize. Both traditional and modern repertoires of contention require physical co-presence, politically-oriented tactics, and both recognize the enduring nature of protest. With an understanding of the origins and progression of social movement theory it is now necessary to frame these theories in a way that contemporary, digital forms of activism and social movements can be understood.

CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL ACTIVISM One major issue with understanding the implication of new ICTs on existing theories is the diversity of interested disciplines (e.g. sociology, political science, and communication). Garrett (2004) noted the importance of finding an instructive framework that can benefit each of these disciplines effectively and promote a more broad understanding for future developments. This approach greatly enhances the value of social movement research as a whole. In their work Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, McAdam, McCarthy and Zald (1994) offer such a framework. Their aim is to synthesize the variety of disciplines interested in social movements by focusing on three existing, broad sets of factors that are helpful in analyzing the emergence and development of social movements: mobilizing structures, opportunity structures and framing processes. For the most part, the dominant approach has abandoned a focus on strains and discontent in favor of other dimensions, but these factors are still none the less understood as the initial catalyst for movement mobilization (Wiktorowicz, 2003, p. 205). This approach offers a conglomerate of the previously mentioned social movement theories and is helpful in understanding the implications of the digital age on social movements. Mobilizing structures refer to those collective vehicles, informal as well as formal, through which people mobilize and engage in collective action (McAdam, McCarthy & Zald, 1996, p. 3). It is a focus on the networks, groups and organizations that make up the collective building blocks of social movements. Formal configurations might refer to actual SMOs or church organizations while informal configurations refer to friendships or other less-structured networks. Although it is individuals who decide

whether to take up collective action, it is in their face-to-face groups, their social networks, and the connective structures between them that collective action is most often activated and sustained (Diani 2004; Diani & McAdam, 2004). Resource mobilization theory and the political process model both encourage work on the organizational dynamics of collective action. It is not groupness itself that induces mobilization but the normative pressures and solidary incentives that are encoded within networks, and out of which movements emerge and are sustained (Tarrow, 2012, p. 30). Additionally, mobilizing structures refers to the tactical repertoires that activists are familiar with and able to utilize. Existing organizational structures and familiar tactical repertoires will promote more support and strong mobilization. Secondly, political opportunities in social movements are based on the belief that social movements and revolutions are shaped by the broader set of political constraints and opportunities unique to the national context in which they are embedded (McAdam, McCarthy & Zald, 1996, p. 4). According to McAdam (1996), the four dimensions of political opportunities are: (1) the relative accessibility of the political system, (2) the stability or fragmentation of alignments among elites, (3) the presence of elite allies, and (4) the state s capacity and propensity for repression. Clearly, there are a multitude of factors that make up the political opportunities for an activist in any given situation. In addition, the ability to recognize and bypass censorship and other forms of regulation can be crucial to activists. It is very difficult to predict when contentious politics will emerge and therefore political opportunity structures should be understood not as an invariant model inevitably producing a social movement but as a set of clues for when contentious politics will emerge and will set in motion a chain of causation that may

ultimately lead to sustained interaction with authorities and thence social movements (Tarrow, 2012, p. 33). Finally, framing processes account for the social forces that motivate individuals to become active. Without common forces, it is unlikely that any movement will be successful. Both opportunity structures and mobilization structures lack the ability to address the importance of ideas and sentiments in accounting for social movements. Successful movements take on passionate framing work that construct cognitive frames, ideological packages and cultural discourses--they effectively define the us and them in a movement. The language and narrative of a movement works to justify activists claims and motivate action using culturally shared beliefs and understandings (Zald, 1996). This framework effectively describes what Tarrow (2012) considered to be the dynamics of social movements. That is, people engage in contentious politics when patterns of political opportunities and constraints change, and when by strategically employing a repertoire of collective action, creating new opportunities, which are used by others in widening cycles of contention (Tarrow, 2012, p. 29). Understandings of social movement and collective behavior are always expanding. It is important to approach a better understanding of contemporary social movements through employing a broad framework such as the one proposed by McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald (1996). When considering the current implications of ICTs on social movements, it will be necessary to frame the discussion around how digital forms of activism fit within (or outside of) mobilizing structures, opportunity structures and framing processes. Evidence-based research and analysis of particular movements has prompted theoretical shifts in the past.

The rapidly expanding technology of the digital age remind us that social movement theory will not settle into a familiar, institutionalized pattern any time soon. THE DIGITAL AGE: WHAT IS DIFFERENT? Internet-enabled technology appeared to the public in the late 1980s and the World Wide Web in the 1990s. This event immediately caught the attention of scholars and social theorists fascinated by its implications on society. Long before anyone could understand the potential for this technology, scholars were eager to discuss what exactly was going on. It would take time, however, before the rhetoric could be separated from the empirical evidence. Despite any consensus on what exactly would come from this new technology, it was clear that the Internet would have widespread impact on society. This progression is reaching all corners of the world, not just developed nations. The ability to access the World Wide Web from a mobile phone undoubtedly has implications on the way we live our lives today in contrast to the past. There are no signs of this progression slowing down anytime soon. Tilly noted, It [technological innovation] fits a trend whereby technological developments decrease intrinsic costs of mobilization and organization but increase extrinsic costs of repression (1978, p. 43). Social movements as we know them today began to appear in the course of the eighteenth century. The breakthrough that occurred during this time came from the advent of commercial print media and subsequent models of association. These changes did not in themselves produce new grievances and conflicts, but they diffused new ways of mounting claims across territory and social strata and led ordinary people to think of themselves as part of broader collectivities (Tarrow, 2012, p. 58). The progression from the earliest forms of print technology to newspapers

to mass produced pamphlets allowed common population to become involved and aware important issues and aggregate through both formal and informal networks. Additionally, print and association acted as new channels for promoting contention. Although the Internet is relatively new, it is certainly not the first time technological innovation has impacted collective action. Some of the most obvious forms of digital activism being used today include online petitions, email campaigns and online boycotts. These tactics represent examples of the tactics made available by technological progression. Primary associations and face-to-face contacts provided solidarity for social movements among people who knew and trusted one another. But it took the experience of reading the same journals, associating in the same groups and forming coalitions across class and geographic lines to build the formal connective structures that allowed movements to be diffused to new publics and the scale of contention to mount from the neighborhood and the locality to the region and the nation (Tarrow, 2012, p. 69). Therefore, it will now be necessary to consider the current context of digital media and its potential for social movements. McCaughey and Ayers (2003) identified the fundamental question surrounding digital activism: can the Internet be used for protest, or does it simply support real life protests? Currently, there are no concrete answers, but we can look to examples that support both arguments. It is important to note that each camp in this debate may not necessarily exist in opposition to the other, but rather their unique methodological approach mirrors their own unique interests in social phenomenon. Similarly, from a non-theoretical perspective, technologies don t inevitably lead to specific social or

political changes. People s use of technologies sometimes mundane, and sometimes widely innovative lead to social and political changes (Earl, 2011, p. 31). There are two schools of thought about the effect of technology on social movements (Earl & Kimport, 2011). On one hand, there is the argument that information and communication technology has increased the size, speed, and reach of activism but has not had any definitive effect on the mobilizing structures, opportunity structures, or framing processes underlying activism. Activism has expanded, but the processes enabling organization and participation have not changed. On the other hand, social scientists argue the implementation of new information and communication technologies (namely the Web) may have changed the actual processes of organizing and participating in activism. Paul-Brian McInerney (2011) noted, ICTs change mobilization and protest both quantitatively (bringing out more people) and qualitatively (fundamentally changing the forms of activism and protest). In the first camp, the belief is that the Internet did not produce a different kind of activity the ultimate product of activism remains on-the-ground political action and civil disobedience. It does, however, dramatically facilitate the communication of beliefs, strategy and acceptable tactics (Davis, Elin & Reeher 2002, p. 166). Within this camp there is a focus on those instances of offline activism that are facilitated by online tactics. Additionally, this helps account for movements that have existed for a long time offline but are recently transitioning to employing online tactics. Therefore, this camp is characterized by the belief that implementing the Web and ICTs alters the scale on which activism takes place. Implementing the Web and ICTs adds new audience members, increases the reach and speed of messaging and reduces messaging costs (Van de Donk et

al., 2004). Despite their ability to be useful tools in various forms of activism, however, their overall usage does not change the underlying processes of activism as they are traditionally understood. This change in scale approach is illustrated in a number of ways. Effective employment of ICTs eliminates traditional media as an intermediary and allows organizers to communicate directly with their intended audience (Rucht, 2004). This type of micromedia allows activists to pass on information to sympathetic audiences independent of traditional media channels. Additionally, this allows for the ability to spread information in hostile climates. The Internet allows activists to circumvent government-imposed barriers to organization and mobilization. This ability is illustrated in recent failed attempts by authoritarian regimes to censor or block access to the Internet. Similarly the Internet facilitates communication across borders. The Web has made prior, offline difficulties concerning the spread of information over large distances largely irrelevant. Theorists also note the significance of the low cost benefits of using technology in organizing social movements. Concerning a study of pro-democracy a movement in Burma in 1999, researchers Tiffany Danitz and Warren Strobel found that not only did the listserv studied enable activists to communicate directly with one another but it also did so cheaply (1999, p. 23). Low costs of participation have several other implications on social movements. The Web creates opportunities to make participation much more potent through quicker dissemination of information from organizers and participants. Additionally, the Web allows organizers to coordinate among themselves while updating participants at little or no costs. Again, this camp recognizes the great effects of speed

and cost effectiveness but maintains the actual processes of organization remain the same to those which take place offline. In contrast, some argue for far more dramatic effects of ICTs and activism. Ultimately, this camp believes that innovative uses of the Web has led to changes that fundamentally alter the processes that drive activism requiring adjustment of current theoretical approaches in order to account for such uses of the Web. There is a focus on activism where organization and participation take place exclusively as one. This builds on the previously discussed understanding of digital activism but carries it one step further arguing movements can behave differently than theories of offline movement processes would predict. Similarly, there are a number of implications on social movements in this regard. Costs for managing social movements are high by traditional means. Organizers have been important in allowing people to produce social and political change while managing the expenses of organizing. ICTs and the Web, however, dramatically reduce organizing costs, ultimately making organization less necessary (Shirky, 2008). Innovative uses of the Web reduce or perhaps even eliminate the need for central movement leadership. An illustration of this is flash activism, which mobilizes rapidly, at a low cost and without a standing membership. In this sense, digital activism can both change the dynamics of organizing in addition to the category of organizers itself. Reduced costs of participation means the processes by which individuals become actual participants are quite different with the employment of ICTs and the Web. Reduced costs have implications on the free-rider problem mentioned above. The implications of ICTs and the Web on existing organization and participation models suggest there will be

much less of a desire for individuals to free-ride in a movement due to the low costs of online participation (Bimber, Flanagin & Stohl, 2005). Therefore, recent, yet rapid, progression of ICTs suggests further analysis of the dynamics of social movements. Working within the framework of social movement theory (mobilizing structures, political opportunities, and framing processes), I address the implications of digital activism. Digital activism affords reduced costs of participation, alters the traditional importance of social movement organizations, reduces the importance of physical co-presence, and ultimately provides new set of tools that can be characterized as a digital repertoire of contention. Digital activism promotes new types of mobilizing structures, increases political opportunities and provides new means of framing and constructing activist cultures--ultimately contributing to new ways of understanding social movement dynamics. These implications may require social scholars to reassess their theoretical models in order to properly understand how social movement processes take place in the contemporary, digital context. Reduced Costs of Participation Historically, social movements have been characterized by people coming together to challenge powerful institutions in society. Regardless of the cause or time period, organizing and participating in social movements requires time, risk and often financial costs. Costs have certainly varied over time with regard to particular forms of protest, but the average cost has remained relatively high throughout history. Costs are not only monetary, but include any potential repercussions of joining a movement. As previously discussed, resource mobilization theorists were particularly concerned with the high costs of social movements. The sociohistorical context when this theory was