Fridays For Future: a study of digital activism in a leaderless era - Sophie Christine Wandzilak 12277118 MA Media Studies: New Media and Digital ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Fridays For Future: a study of digital activism in a leaderless era
Sophie Christine Wandzilak
12277118
MA Media Studies: New Media and Digital Culture
June 23rd, 2020
Supervisor: Dr. M.P. Stevenson
Abstract
This thesis explores the departure from centralised leadership as observed by the online
behaviours and practices of the digital climate activist group Fridays For Future. The chosen
movement is unique as its collective efforts and apparent leaderlessness are positioned around
Greta Thunberg as a figurehead rather than the leader of the movement. To understand
decentralised and centralised forms of leadership, a qualitative content analysis was conducted
on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Each platform was analysed according to a coding agenda
consisting of categories reflecting the overall aim of the movement, decentralised leadership
(based on the ideology of horizontalism and the soft leadership form) and centralised,
hierarchical leadership. Results of the qualitative content analysis indicate that the category
reflecting the overall aim of the movement consists of approximately 40% more codes than
leadership forms, supporting that Fridays For Future is operating within a new hybrid form of
leadership. Moreover, although codes reflecting centralised leadership were detected, the
analysis suggests that some of the online practices identified during the research support the
distribution of the soft leadership form. Fridays For Future remains a successful digital activist
group. The movement is inclusive rather than exclusive and, despite being founded at the end
of 2018, has proven to overcome geographic barriers through online connectivity facilitated by
social media platforms.
Keywords: Fridays For Future, digital activism, leadership, (cyber)populism, participatory
culture and social media platforms.
2
Acknowledgments
First and most importantly, I want to thank my supervisor Michael Stevenson, who
guided me in the most constructive way throughout this writing process. His advice and input
helped in ensuring I remained on the right tracks, pushed me to develop my thinking-and-
research skills and made the thesis writing enjoyable. Thank you, Michael!
I would also like to thank my mother. She helped me in remaining motivated to
persevere during challenging times.
Further, my boss Marlie who has supported both my academic and professional career
over the course of these past months.
Finally, I am thankful for Stephanie allowing me to call her spontaneously to discuss
my ideas and encouraging me when I doubted myself.
3
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 | Introduction 6
1.1 Activism in a digital world …………………………………………………… 6
1.2 Fridays For Future, digital activism and leadership ………………………….. 7
1.3 Research questions and hypotheses …………………………………………... 9
1.4 Structure of this thesis ………………………………………………………… 9
Chapter 2 | Practices of contemporary digital activism 10
2.1 The digitisation of activism: social media, affordances and #MeToo ……….. 10
2.2 What affordances enable in the context of digital activism ………………….. 14
2.3 Summary and next steps ……………………………………………………… 17
Chapter 3 | Networked and leaderless organisation of digital activists 17
3.1 The umbrella of digital activism: cyberpopulism …………………………….. 17
3.1.1 Shared leadership: horizontalism …………………………………… 19
3.2 The aesthetics of collective and connective action …………………………... 20
3.3 Participatory culture and the spreading of user-generated content …………... 21
3.3.1 Practices of participatory culture: memes ………….......................... 23
3.3.2 Limiting leadership to a ‘soft’ form …………................................... 25
3.4 Genres of digital activism for research purposes ………….............................. 26
Chapter 4 | Methodology 28
4.1 Research questions and research design ……………………………………… 28
4.1.1 Deductive category application …………………………………….. 29
4.1.2 Inductive category development …………………………………… 30
4.2 Data collection ……………………………………………………………….. 31
4.3 Data analysis …………………………………………………………………. 33
4.4 Ethical considerations and limitations of the approach ……..……………….. 34
4
Chapter 5 | Results 35
5.1 Results from deductive category application on each platform …………........ 35
5.2 Results from inductive coding of each platform …………............................... 36
5.2.1 Facebook …………………………………………………………… 37
5.2.2 Instagram …………………………………………………………… 39
5.2.3 Twitter ……………………………………………………………… 42
5.3 Results after combining each dataset ………………………………………… 45
Chapter 6 | Analysis of results and a discussion of their significance 46
6.1 Genres of digital activism on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter …………….. 47
6.2 Coding to understand leadership, the overall aim of the network and
the significance of a participatory culture ………………………………… 51
Chapter 7 | Conclusion 54
Chapter 8 | Bibliography 57
5
Chapter 1 | Introduction
During a recent conversation with former NASA astronaut Rusty Schweickart, he told
me about his experience in testing the life support system of spacesuits. As part of the Apollo
programme, he ensured that Neil Armstrong was able to safely walk on the moon’s surface.
Rusty emphasised the Earth’s fragility with its thin, blue ozone layer and the importance of
protecting it. To achieve this, Rusty wants to raise awareness about preserving our planet for
future generations. This conversation inspired me to choose Fridays For Future and climate
activism as research topics for this thesis.
1.1 Activism in a digital world
With social media practices having such an influential role in the digitisation of cultural
and social practices, the concept of leadership is also changing. As social media plays a vital
role in everyday tasks, the importance of platforms grows, forms of leadership therefore adapt
and nowadays become more inclusive. Fridays For Future departs from the lineage of
traditional leadership and instead created a new hybrid form of networked organisation with
the Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg as figurehead of this movement. By using Thunberg’s
name and transforming it into a symbol to represent 21st century climate activism, the
movement Fridays For Future can leverage her popularity to increase the spread of messages
and gain global media attention whilst operating as a leaderless movement. To frame this
research objective, this thesis will study digital activism of Fridays For Future in a leaderless
era.
With new waves of activism currently unfolding in the world – the most recent one
triggered by George Floyd’s death on 25 May 2020 – leaderless forms of activism are growing,
proving to be very successful and a worthy topic for research (“George Floyd is remembered
around the world,” 2020). When the unarmed Afro-American Floyd died because a Caucasian
police officer knelt on his neck, the video footage taken by onlookers rapidly circulated the
Internet. The event quickly made global headlines and reignited the Black Lives Matter
movement. Since then, with Floyd as figurehead, protests erupted across the world to address
racism and police violence, whilst demanding justice for Floyd and others who had the same
or a similar fate. People utilise social media and follow the protests of the Black Lives Matter
movement; millions of tweets and Instagram posts have been published to express outrage. On
Instagram, the hashtag #georgefloyd was used 2.3 million times in the first two weeks after his
death, “already nearly as often as #metoo (2.5m times since October 2017)” showing how
6
rapidly the group and its impact are growing (“George Floyd is remembered around the world,”
2020). It is hard to detect who is leading this wave of the Black Lives Matter movement and
not yet clear what it will achieve, but the immediacy and reach of online technology makes
socio-political activism very powerful.
Centralised versus decentralised forms of leadership have been the objects of research
in the past. As will become clear in this thesis, there are various ideologies and practices that
describe different waves of contemporary activism that are identifiable in both offline and
online settings. However, there is a lack of research on how internationally dispersed activist
groups can feed into a larger cause, when strategically positioning an individual as a figurehead
of the movement. Therefore, this thesis will investigate (cyber)populist leadership forms by
focusing on the online behaviours and practices of Fridays For Future through conducting a
qualitative content analysis on the movement’s Facebook, Instagram and Twitter pages.
1.2 Fridays For Future, digital activism and leadership
When Thunberg started a school strike on Fridays to raise awareness about climate
change, she may not have foreseen that she launched a global socio-political movement
which changed the perception of climate activism. Thunberg rose to fame as a climate
activist over the course of the last two years and, during this short period, she was invited
to speak at the United Nations General Assembly, was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize
and has continued to receive attention and support from people around the world (Beeler,
2019). Her impact has grown from that of a young local, Swedish activist to an international
climate activist of world renown. The movement founded by Thunberg is now called
Fridays For Future and involves over 13,000,000 people globally across 7,500 cities
dispersed on all continents (“Fridays For Future,” n.d.). Fridays For Future has developed
into a global activist movement where followers can register their countries within the
network and form local, country-specific groups. Thus, the movement consists of a
collection of sub-groups that are spread throughout countries and create impact on a local
scale. Fridays For Future is a collective movement, not a non-governmental organisation
(NGO). The dispersed movement uses “word of mouth” enabled by platforms to coordinate
protests and is “getting traction, even though they don’t have the resources, expertise, or
professional organizing structures of major NGOs” (Hall et al., 2019).
Fridays For Future falls into the category of a digital activist group, which is defined
as a “form of activism that uses the internet and digital media as key platforms for mass
7
mobilisation and political action. Digital activism has proved to be a powerful means of
grassroots political mobilization and provides new way to engage protesters” (Fuentes,
n.d.). As digital activism does not require people to physically go to a location, “online
actions can be important in countries where public spaces are highly regulated or are under
military control. In such cases, online actions are a better option than possibly physically
dangerous “live” actions” (Fuentes, n.d.). Therefore, through making use of social media
platforms, digital activism makes local voices heard and provides a measure of relative
physical safety in totalitarian or autocratic regions. However, digital forms of activism also
have limitations due to the dependency of the Internet and technologies to connect
individuals to a forum of discussion and expression. Thus, there are constraints and
opportunities that users – and activists – have at their disposal which guide what can and
cannot be done (Gillespie, 2010). In online settings, affordances represent sociotechnical
behaviours, referring to actions that can be carried out between technology and users. To
explore the impact of social media platforms, the next chapter will introduce different
contemporary waves of activism, and explain how digital activists position themselves
around affordances and the design of platforms.
Technology and social media platforms have played a role in decentralising
hierarchies and redistributing leadership roles. For 2020, it is predicted that 3.08 billion
people will use social media globally and, by 2021, the number is expected to rise to 3.21
billion users (“Number of Social Media Users Worldwide 2010-2023,” n.d.). Particularly,
social media provides a unique opportunity to target audiences, increase the number of
followers and potentially create a network that has the ability to attract attention at a global
scale. Digital activism and social media enable followers to become part of the
organisational forces of a movement. By using social media to promote the cause of Fridays
For Future, this movement is able to bypass the governmental, regulated channels, and by
doing so, the roles of leadership are reallocated and encompass horizontal and soft
leadership dynamics (Gerbaudo, 2012). “Horizontalists believe that thanks to the
availability of modern technologies of communication social movements do not need a
kind of linear command structure” because “everybody is a leader” (Gerbaudo, 2012, p.
134). As networks are the forces and voices of socio-political change, tasks must be
distributed amongst all leaders based on their skill set, describing the concept of soft
leadership. To frame the aim of this thesis, and to position the objects that will be studied,
research questions and hypotheses are needed.
8
1.3 Research questions and hypotheses
Thunberg continuously emphasises the “we” of her movement. She therefore employs
the principles of horizontalism and ‘soft’ forms of leadership, shaping the movement to operate
as a unified network. Thus, this thesis will explore the apparent leaderlessness of Fridays For
Future and poses the following research question and hypothesis:
RQ1: How is decentralised leadership enacted by the Fridays For Future
movement?
H1: The movement forms a collective identity based on their common goals. When
examining the overall network, Fridays For Future is predicted to employ forms of
leadership that distribute skills to share responsibilities, enabled through the networked
connections social media platforms make available.
Further, platform design and affordances impact social media use through
observable patterns; this leads to the following question and hypothesis:
RQ2: What does a qualitative content analysis on social media platforms of Fridays
For Future (Facebook, Instagram and Twitter) reveal about differences per platform and
per audience?
H2: The Fridays For Future movement is globally dispersed but unified through
social media platforms. In this thesis, it is expected to identify online behaviours and
practices that indicate how the three social media platforms Facebook, Instagram and
Twitter serve specific purposes for the digital climate activist group. Facebook is going to
be used for the organisation and mobilisation of events and strikes. Instagram is positioned
as a platform to create awareness and raise advocacy whilst Twitter is expected to be
implemented for reactive measures.
1.4 Structure of this thesis
This thesis consists of chapters that guide the reader through the core topics and
arguments. The introduction, chapter 1, outlines the research objects, explains their
significance and presents the research questions and hypotheses. Chapter 2 describes how
various contemporary practices of digital activism developed by positioning themselves
around social media platforms and their affordances. Chapter 3 argues that (cyber)populist
activists represent the will of the people. Further, by taking a horizontal and a ‘soft’ form
of leadership, tasks can be shared with members of a movement, providing equal
opportunities to contribute to the collective goal(s) based on the capabilities of individuals.
9
Chapter 4, the methodology, explains the qualitative research method employed to answer
the research questions; the results will be described in chapter 5. The subsequent chapter 6
analyses the results in light of a horizontal, ‘soft’ form of leadership and the prevalence of
these online practices on Fridays For Future’s Facebook, Instagram and Twitter pages.
Chapter 7, the conclusion, will reflect on the research and summarise the main findings of
this thesis.
Chapter 2 | Practices of contemporary digital activism
This chapter introduces the discourse and the practices of digital activism. Prominent
21st century examples will be described to position the common theme of forgoing centralised
leadership in favour of networked participation. The aim is to describe the digital landscape of
socio-political activism and discuss different waves of activism that are all enabled through
digital media and their affordances.
2.1 The digitisation of activism: social media, affordances and #MeToo
With the rise and continued integration of technologies, activism has evolved to make
use of digital media to amplify a cause with more ease and shift networked participation from
a hierarchy to a horizontal form. The digitisation of activism increases the accessibility of
information, providing a mechanism to reach a larger audience through the Internet’s global
network. According to the researcher Karatzogianni (2016) “digital activism has transformed
political protest in the last two decades” by digitising activities that previously were carried out
offline. Consequently, many people are now able to contribute to the overall goal of their
network and share responsibilities, enabled through affordances of digital media. Due to the
digitisation of activism, it now encompasses characteristics of decentralised leadership or
leaderlessness.
By identifying the opportunities that digital media offers, the discourse of digital
activism is very effective and “can be used to defend human rights, improve governance,
empower the poor, promote economic development, and pursue a variety of other social goods”
(McCafferty, 2011, p. 17). Digital activists are making use of various online opportunities such
as blogs, social media and apps to increase the awareness of the general public about an issue
(McCafferty, 2011, p. 17). By using online tools, there is a “constant flow of narratives” and
an acceleration of news due to the instantaneous, global reach that is made available by the
Internet (Poell, 2019, p. 4). Through a mix of online actions, digital activism depends less on
10the geographic location of members, allowing an activist group to engage with audiences in
countries at any given time. To feed the continuous flow of narratives, all members of a
network are needed to spread their mission and share their organic will. Thus, the connected
global network of digital activists needs a decentralised and horizontal structure in order to
continuously produce, share and repurpose content. A globally dispersed network depends on
many people’s active participation to fuel the overall goal of a movement. Through evaluating
individual’s skill sets rather than employing traditional leadership tactics, leaderless
organisation and rapid content circulation enables networks to produce high impact campaigns
and gain attention globally.
The role of interconnectivity has to be acknowledged, as the Internet and social media
platforms have produced a new environment of “political possibilities for social movements”
that facilitates the development of networked leaderlessness (Barassi, 2017, p. 407). I suggest
that the effective, global spreading of information is not attainable through a centralised
hierarchy or a defined set of leaders in the context of digital activism. As online tools and social
media platforms grow, the distribution and participation of the overall group requires more
people to actively take on a role in content creation, sharing and distribution. The organisation
of activism relies on technologies and their affordances, thus activists position themselves
around these. As the two media scholars Bucher and Helmond state, “[t]he concept of
affordance is multivalent” but, generally, it is “used to describe what material artifacts such as
media technologies allow people to do” (Bucher & Helmond, 2018, p. 3). One important
example of effectively using affordances on social media platforms is the hashtag and the so-
called rise of “hashtag activism”.
The #MeToo movement is a powerful example of how one affordance shaped the
organisation of a movement. “Hashtags serve as an indexing system on social media which
allows users to sift through the cacophony of voices online to identify relevant topics and
conversations” (Boatwright et al., 2019, p. 12). As shown by the success of the #MeToo
movement, hashtags have become increasingly influential in activism by enabling participation
“in conversations around social and political issues” through the “act of fighting for or
supporting a cause with the use of hashtags as the primary channel to raise awareness of an
issue and encourage debate via social media” (Boatwright et al., 2019, p. 12). Using the hashtag
for strategic purposes reflects the wave of Do It Yourself (DIY) culture that facilitates civic
engagement to favour networked leaderlessness, by changing leadership from a centralised top-
down approach to a horizontal, decentralised tactic (Boatwright et al., 2019, p. 12). The impact
11of the #MeToo movement depended on millions of people sharing their stories, contributing to
a collective goal, in this case addressing the pervasiveness of sexual harassment (Garcia, 2017).
If the #MeToo movement would operate within a centralised hierarchy, a second party would
be responsible for choosing which stories to post, reducing the amount of accounts posted
under the hashtag. The success of #MeToo depended on anyone being able to share a story.
The affordance of the hashtag continues to offer members of this movement the freedom and
opportunity to contribute anytime.
The #MeToo movement remains a vital example of a socio-political form of activism.
Through sharing sexual abuse experiences, the network grew from a grassroot initiative to a
global network, contributing towards reducing the stigma surrounding sexual harassment
(Boatwright et al., 2019). By doing this, the archive of stories grew and people – predominantly
women – from various races, economic backgrounds, religions and cultures shared their
experiences. The #MeToo movement operated without a leader figure – although the founder
of the movement is well known – and much like Fridays For Future also uses social media
platforms and affordances to spread stories and organise collective action to raise awareness.
Despite prosecution of some sexual offenders, for example Harvey Weinstein, the purpose of
#MeToo was to give survivors of sexual abuse and harassment a voice and supportive
environment to share their experiences. Anyone was welcome to contribute through #MeToo.
Building upon this, the movement urged society to engage in broader and more complex
discussions about sexual misconduct.
Using affordances and “virtual networks [that] accelerate the exchange of ideas” is very
effective (Boatwright et al., 2019, p. 12). But the efficiency of digital activism depends on more
than the strategic use of affordances and social media platforms to produce, organise,
coordinate and communicate. Boatwright et al. identify three reasons why social media and
digital activism form a ‘well-oiled machine’ (Boatwright et al., 2019). The first reason is that
platforms “allow for rapid information exchange and dissemination beyond geographical
boundaries”, thus enabling the spreading of content to occur within seconds (Boatwright et al.,
2019, p. 12). The second reason is that social media allows users to generate their own content,
express their opinions, share information within networks and “form communities based on
personal relationships, shared characteristics, and interests” (Boatwright et al., 2019, p. 12).
Third, social media allows for socio-political discussion and participation to occur through
facilitating interactivity amongst members of a network (Boatwright et al., 2019). Thus,
12technologies contribute towards paving “the way for social movements” and enable networks
to operate within decentralised hierarchies (Pelini, 2019, p. 13).
The #MeToo movement and the Arab Spring protests have one thing in common -
retroactive global recognition. The term ‘MeToo’ was originally created by Tarana Burke in
2006 (Garcia, 2017). Her aim was to raise awareness and point out the pervasiveness of sexual
assault and harassment (Garcia, 2017). Nine years later the actress Alyssa Milano popularised
the term ‘MeToo’ which developed into a worldwide globally acknowledged and known
movement. Similarly, journalist Marc Lynch established the term ‘Arab Spring’ in his article
about the volatile situation in many North African and Middle Eastern countries, one month
after the first uprising in Egypt and Tunisia in 2010 (Toumi, 2011). These are two examples of
activism and national level protests that spread due to the use of social media and developed
into international movements. Fridays For Future always references the movement by name
and links to social media pages (specifically Facebook) so that people can access organisational
information of offline actions. The uprising in the Arab world also used social media platforms
and affordances – such as the hashtag – for organisational purposes only, as depicted in the
figures below. The protestors did not name themselves Arab Spring but mainly used Facebook
as an organisational tool to share information about offline actions by directing people to the
platform and creating hashtags to access protest information. Compared to #MeToo and
Fridays For Future, the Arab Spring movement did not create and promote a name for the series
of protests.
13Figures 1, 2 and 3: Posters used during the Arab Spring. Members of the Arab Spring protests use Facebook
and hashtags for organisational purposes to link to information about offline actions. Unlike Fridays For Future
and the ‘MeToo’ movement, protestors did not name themselves Arab Spring, as can be seen in the lack of
including any name in posters. Figures 1 & 2 retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com, 2017. Figure 3 retrieved
from https://globelynews.com/, 2020.
2.2 What affordances enable in the context of digital activism
The digitisation of activism has led to new waves of online activism, passive or active.
A passive form of activism entails a spectrum of online practices such as a thumbs up (‘like’)
or signing a petition but are only present online. In comparison to the examples discussed in
the previous section, the digitisation of activism also results in passive engagement, explaining
so-called “slacktivism”. Morozov (2009) describes this phenomenon “where our digital effort
makes us feel very useful and important but have zero social impact. When the marginal cost
of joining yet another Facebook group are low, we click “yes” without even blinking, but the
truth is that it may distract us from helping the same cause in more productive ways.
Paradoxically, it often means that the very act of joining a Facebook group is often the end –
rather than the beginning – of our engagement with a cause, which undermines much of digital
activism” (Morozov, 2009). “Slacktivism” is a term that describes the act of purely engaging
with activists online, there is no interaction offline. From an etymological point of view, the
14term infers a lack of impact due to insufficient effort and respective engagement or
participation in a movement.
Based on Morozov’s criticism, “slacktivism” has a negative connotation, but the
affordances of social media platforms enable this type of engagement. Moreover, despite his
arguments, the signing of petitions or signifying support through a thumbs up can produce
engagement and participation, only to a lesser degree. There is a consistency how people
engage and respond to actions online. As activism has evolved to make use of online platforms,
the level of engagement has changed: “[t]oday’s activists are highly plugged into social media,
mobile apps, and other digital tools. But does this make a difference where it matters most?”
(McCafferty, 2011, p. 17) The Internet has enabled digital activism to adapt a more horizontal
and leaderless organisation. However, this also poses a threat to digital activism. Following
Morozov’s criticism (2009), affordances and social media platforms make showing minimal
support through clicking a ‘like’ button too easy and produces zero impact. Yet, what
constitutes towards active, meaningful digital activism? According to Gladwell meaningful
(digital) activism “requires strong, robust organizational structure” to empower a cause
(McCafferty, 2011, p. 17). As a result, success requires people to take on shared responsibilities
and also produce a strong offline presence.
In 2013, a study by Philip Howard at the University of Washington revealed the degree
of difficulty in successfully launching and maintaining an online campaign and offline
presence. Out of approximately 2,000 campaigns launched between 2011 and 2013, only 400
to 500 campaigns remained active at the end of this period (Kelley, 2013). The challenge in
gaining attention and continuously engaging audiences over a longer period of time is hard. To
tackle this, extreme actions are sometimes employed to remain relevant and capture the
attention of the public. So-called “hacktivism” is an example of extreme action to gain and
retain audience attention and reflects Gladewell’s criteria that are needed for successful
activism. George and Leidner (2019) define it “hacktivism” as “hacking to achieve social or
political objectives. Hacktivists target governments, organizations, and individuals. Hacking is
triggered by an event or policy or when one group appears to be gaining an advantage over
another” (p. 10). Under the cloak of anonymity and through leveraging online affordances
“hacktivists” engage in extreme and often illegal activities to achieve their demands or
ambitions (George & Leidner, 2019). The goal is not to influence but to “embod[y] direct
action” (George & Leidner, 2019, p. 11). “Hacktivists” see themselves as “cyber-militia” who
can carry out actions and produce results that a government is unable to (George & Leidner,
152019, p. 11). “Hacktivists” are the opposite of a centralised government and, when compared
to a government, are leaderless. The most well-known “hacktivist” group is Anonymous. Not
only does this network use extreme means to gather data (for example, hacking into servers to
gather and publish classified information), but the group positions itself as unstoppable with
limitless access to digital information made available by platform affordances.
Although Anonymous is intriguing, specifically when analysing leaderlessness, little is
known about the group. “The collective has not endorsed any political ideology or stance
although most of its activities point toward a revolutionary orientation. Mobilisation of
people who can speak truth to power seems to be the agenda - one that they seek to achieve
via cyberwars and attacks” (Disha, 2020). Anonymous is perceived as a leaderless group, as
inferred by the logo of the network - a ‘man without a head’. This logo indicates everyone is
equal since the group itself does not have a face or a leader (Figure 4). During public
appearances members of the group wear masks and include voiceovers in their videos to
conceal their identities (Eordogh, 2013). Hacktivism – and Anonymous – aim to create impact,
not receive praise, and through their extreme methods are proving to be successful. As
mentioned earlier, little in know about Anonymous, their portrayal of leaderlessness is inferred
through observing the network. A common thread of so-called “hashtag activism”,
“slacktivism”, “hacktivism” and other waves of digital activism is the strategic use of digital
technologies, the Internet, social media and, most significantly, affordances.
Figure 4: Anonymous YouTube channel. The faceless logo indicates that members are equal, nobody has an
individual face. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/user/AnonymousWorldvoce, n.d.
162.3 Summary and next steps
Digital activism uses social media platforms and affordances as mechanisms to flatten
hierarchies. It is clear that social media platforms have become “a new repertoire of political
action, and that the study of “social media activism” is an urgent topic of inquiry in the social
sciences because it could shed light on the social complexities of contemporary forms of
political participation” (Barassi, 2017, p. 407). To raise awareness about social and political
issues, networked movements are necessary to inform and change the perception of human
actions and their impact on the planet (Castells, 2009). This extensive goal has been broken
down by Fridays For Future to confront society’s relationship with nature. “The way we think
about nature determines the way we treat nature – and the way nature treats us” (Castells, 2009,
p. 305). It is clear that leaderlessness is a relevant socio-political debate that is continuously
changing through new waves of digital activism. Therefore, the next chapter will present
different theories and concepts, the discourse and practices of digital activism as sub-genres of
the ideology of (cyber)populism.
Chapter 3 | Networked and leaderless organisation of digital activists
As the previous chapter shows, digital activism is marked by behaviours and practices
that suggest a leaderless organisation, networked rather than centralised control and overall
participation rather than clearly defined roles for members of movements. To understand these
characteristics of digital activism, in this chapter I discuss the ideologies of cyberpopulism and
horizontalism, before explaining how these ideologies reflect contemporary practices of
connective action. Practices described through the example of memes will be positioned in the
context of broader tendencies of participatory culture as well as forms of soft leadership. By
outlining how the ideologies of cyberpopulism and horizontalism are manifested in specific
practices of digital activism, I set the stage for my own subsequent research of how leadership
is organised by members of the Fridays For Future movement.
3.1 The umbrella of digital activism: cyberpopulism
The ideology of populism is rooted in politics and describes giving people – who feel
disregarded – a voice by actively participating in events and shaping the outcome. The broad
and contemporary goals of digital activists are to enact change but to achieve this, the online
environment, the mindset and tools used must reflect the ideology. By integrating online media
and tools – such as social media platforms – into the communication process, a populist
17approach of activism is reflected through behaviours and practices in an offline and online
setting. As an outcome, the organic will of people is shared in communication processes that
once were structured and exclusive, but now facilitate direct and decentralised communication
(Engesser et al., 2017). As cyberpopulism entails a decentralised environment, people who
want to raise awareness about an issue now have the tools and opportunity to do so. In the
context of this chapter, the structure of this thesis and the subsequent research, I use
cyberpopulism to describe the online environment and shared mindset that digital activists
make use of; thus, the ideology is the umbrella that all other arguments fall under.
Engesser et al. (2017) state that populism is a “semantically interrelated” ideology
which has led to misunderstandings about the definition (p.1280). To define the meaning of
this ideology, in the context of digital activism, I refer to Gerbaudo’s description of
cyberpopulism to explain the socio-political circumstances that have contributed in paving a
decentralised and effective online environment for activists. “[C]yberpopulism approaches the
Internet as a “popular space”, a generic space which is populated by ordinary citizens, and
mostly dedicated to non-political activities, such as gossip, celebrity culture, or interpersonal
communication, but which can nevertheless be politicised, and turned towards the purpose of
popular mobilisation” (Gerbaudo, 2017, p. 477). Based on this definition, I suggest that the
socio-political mindset of cyberpopulism creates an opportunity to embody the will of the
people to acknowledge grassroot movements. This challenges traditional politics and creates
two parties – digital activists and politics – that contrast each other through operating as a
decentralised and centralised network respectively.
Castells argues that social media platforms create “mass self-communication” and
networked communication to enhance “the opportunities for social change” (Castells, 2009, p.
8). Social media platforms are user-centric, meaning that individual users are in control of their
own profile by choosing their photo, selecting which pages to follow, what to share and whom
to connect with. To understand how mass self-communication and opportunities for social
change are created and carried out by digital activists, I propose analysing social media
platforms to comprehend the will and mission of a digital network. Based on the online
environment that is described, I now shift the focus to the forms of action and leadership styles
that facilitate networked organisation, decentralised leadership and digital activism. It is
important to acknowledge that social media platforms are continuously evolving; however, by
analysing classic concepts such as leadership and online organisation, invisible processes,
behaviours and practices can be evaluated to understand a space where different challenges
18have the power to unite people (Castells, 2009; Fiore & McLuhan 1967). Throughout this
chapter, I position additional ideologies, concepts and theories under cyberpopulism, based on
my argument that the first step towards success of digital activism rests on the right online
environment and socio-political acknowledgment of behaviours and practices.
3.1.1 Shared leadership: horizontalism
Cyberpopulism points towards new, decentralised forms of networked organisation to
present the organic will of the people. The ideology of horizontalism is a starting point in
recognising forms of decentralised leadership (leaderlessness) which will be explored through
the broader tendencies of participatory culture and soft leadership later in this chapter. The
socio-political ideology of horizontalism suggests equitable distribution of leadership and
power in a digital activist group. The literal description of the word infers that a horizontal line
results in shared leadership, in contrast to vertical or top-down leadership that is regulated by
an authority. Horizontalism describes “networks without centres” and is both identifiable in
online and offline networks, inferring a lack of a centralised leader figure (Gerbaudo, 2012, p.
22). According to Castells (2009), using horizontal communication and mainstream media to
convey messages “increase[s] [digital activists’] chances of enacting social and political
change – even if they start from a subordinate position” (p. 302). Gerbaudo argues that
horizontalists are similar to choreographers whose scene-setting role creates “a degree of
coherence to people’s spontaneous and creative participation in the protest movements”
(Gerbaudo, 2012, p. 13). Thus, horizontal leadership is suggested to predominantly fuel the
organisation of movements, reflecting the approach of networked but leaderless organisation
as a vital practice of digital activism.
Even so, does a network need a core group of actors who continuously remain dedicated
to the cause? Following the logic of “reduction ad unum”, there has to be a “fusion of
individuals into a collective actor” but this does not lead to a lack of leadership (Gerbaudo,
2012, p. 20). Successful collective networks consist of a dedicated group of members who
instead of working as a hierarchy work together as a team. Horizontalists acknowledge that
there must be a sense of togetherness and shared leadership (Gerbaudo, 2012). This
togetherness and shared leadership can entail a range of actions. In general, organisation
depends on the logic of connective action – utilising online means to communicate – because
the spread of messages is contingent on reaching the right audiences. However, someone –
whether it is one person or a group of people – needs to take these decisions. Thus “reluctant
19leaders” must assume a fraction of a leadership role to initiate processes of networked
organisation (Gerbaudo, 2012, p. 13). As a next step, to elaborate how these two contemporary
ideologies align with collective and connective actions in the context of generating a sense of
togetherness, I refer to Bennett and Segerberg’s The Logic of Connective Action (2013) to
highlight the flexibility of social media platforms and the significance of collective and
connective action.
3.2 The aesthetics of collective and connective action
Bennett and Segerberg (2013) break down the aesthetics of activism and, by doing so,
characterise movements by observable behaviours and offer a lens to analyse offline
(collective) and online (connective) practices. Historically, collective activism operated within
a hierarchy and therefore depended on a group working as one entity and being – to some
degree – centralised. Using the collective action for research purposes simplifies one group
into roles, such “as [the] ‘propagandist’, ‘agitator’ and ‘organiser’ of collective action” that
reflect centralised organisation (Gerbaudo, 2012, p. 4). Yet, connective action has evolved to
encompass action that goes beyond the evaluation of historical forms of activism. Nowadays,
the organisational success of collective actions depends on connective online action because
the digital environment and the opportunities available and create a connected, digital network.
Offline, collective action depends on connective, online organisation. Thus, treating these two
actions as intertwined processes better describes the overlapping and flexible processes that
social media platforms offer digital activists.
Bennett and Segerberg claim that social media platforms increase connectivity for
social movements, linking back to the ideology of cyberpopulism and the decreased need of
defined leadership. However, as Gerbaudo points out, the affordances of social media can be
used for political motives that represent different incentives. For example, as there is a
continuous growth in issues being addressed, political institutions are unable to respond “to
widespread social grievances” (Gerbaudo, 2012, p. 42). To respond to some of the grievances,
politicians are communicating with people in online (connective) spaces. U.S. President
Donald Trump uses Twitter frequently to voice his beliefs and, by doing so, shifts the function
and organisational purposes of social media to support his political and centralised incentives.
It is important to acknowledge that social media platforms are flexible communication tools.
Moreover, through the endless amounts of platforms that are available, the digital landscape is
oversaturated with information. Thus, collective action provides a lens to show the importance
20of unity that does not exclusively depend on technology as argued by Morozov in his critique
of “slacktivism” (2009). Even so, there is a paradox about the closeness of digital activists as
they depend on virtual proximity and less on physical closeness (Bennett & Segerberg, 2013;
Gerbaudo, 2012). With the quest to remain connected by means of a movement, arguably
people are isolating themselves by living in a “mediated capsule” (Gerbaudo, 2012, p. 35).
However, this mediated capsule has had a positive impact in elevating barriers due to the
combination of collective and connective actions. The overlap between collective and
connective action and horizontalism highlights the importance of participation in a network.
As online content is becoming more user-generated, the producers of online content now have
more control over what users are exposed to and consume in their online experience; thus, the
nature of social media has shifted to encompass a participatory culture as the production
process is fuelled by individual and networked users. By integrating Jenkins et al.’s Spreadable
Media (2013) into this chapter, I will use the concepts of participatory culture and spreadability
to explain the practice of spreading memes. Through these observed practices and their
discussion, the arguments will show that these specific goals of contemporary activism point
towards leadership that is limited to ‘soft’ forms.
3.3 Participatory culture and the spreading of user-generated content
As platforms grow, they become an essential part of everyday life; therefore, the way
people interact and are exposed to content has changed. Content production has also
experienced a shift and nowadays anybody can contribute in the production and circulation of
online materials. The way in which human behaviours and traditions are now represented
online is determined by platformisation, a term that “can be defined as the penetration of
economic, governmental, and infrastructural extensions of digital platforms into the web and
app ecosystes, fundamentally affecting the operations of the cultural industries” (Nierborg &
Poell, 2018, p. 4276). The outcomes of online representations of human practices are the
formation of online cultures that make use of the affordances – functionalities – of platforms
to address economic, governmental, and infrastructural issues (Nieborg & Poell, 2018).
Through the malleable and data driven design of platforms, they are constantly evolving to
meet the ever-growing needs and practices of users and have further reallocated power to users
as important parties of content creation. From a global perspective, the reallocation of power
has decentralised the influence companies and governments have on individual users; instead
of informing society what should be done, the beliefs and practices of users are playing an
21important role in shaping how centralised institutions target audiences with a more inclusive
and neutral approach.
In 1992, Jenkins devised the term participatory culture to “describe the cultural
production and social interactions of fan communities” (Jenkins et al., 2013, p. 2). Nowadays,
audiences “are making their presence felt by actively shaping media flows” which is another
form of power being reallocated through the use of the Internet and social media platforms
(Jenkins et al., 2013, p. 2). Participatory culture defines how a group of people create their own
culture which they actively participate in-and-towards the spreading of key messages. This
“participatory model of culture, … sees the public not as simply consumers of preconstructed
messages but also as people who are shaping, sharing, reframing, and remixing media content
in ways which might not have been previously imagined” (Jenkins et al., 2013, p. 2). Not only
does participatory culture depend on the flexible environment produced by the decentralised
nature of the Internet, but participatory nature itself fuels decentralisation and a horizontal
approach by suggesting that anyone can actively contribute to the shaping of online discourses.
Jenkins’ fundamental claim is that through participatory culture overall participation increases
and has the potential to create meaningful impact (Jenkins et al., 2013). In an attempt to achieve
this, audiences are proactive and make their online presence known (Jenkins et al., 2013). Much
like the ideology of cyberpopulism, participatory culture describes the environment in which
grassroot movements have the opportunity to make their presence known (Jenkins et al., 2013).
Building upon this, participatory culture also defines the collaborative nature that current
activism makes use of (Jenkins et al., 2013).
So far, the majority of this chapter has integrated different ideologies and concepts to
explain the various aspects that have contributed towards cyberpopulism. Through
acknowledging the need to create spreadable content, I now discuss a second concept from
Jenkins et al.’s book and focus on a current example of connective online behaviour. This will
exemplify the decentralised nature of social media platforms and how users are able to
contribute towards content creation, publication and circulation. Spreadability refers “to the
technical resources that make it easier to circulate some kinds of content than others, the
economic structures that support or restrict circulation, the attributes of a media text that might
appeal to a community’s motivation for sharing material, and the social networks that link
people through the exchange of meaningful bytes” (Jenkins et al., 2013, p. 4). Spreadability
offers a lens to understand the practices of content distribution; the importance of connections
on social media platforms are amplified and contribute to the overall understanding of the value
22of online connectivity amongst activists. From a production perspective, content that is shared
needs to be appealing to be circulated, seen and repurposed for a wider range of goals. Jenkins
et al.’s claim that participatory culture is a prerequisite to successfully spread messages which
is offered by affordances such as sharing, liking and posting on social media accounts. In order
for effective spreadability, participation is required, and vice versa.
3.3.1 Practices of participatory culture: memes
One of the most important aspects of spreadability is acknowledging the importance of
users (Jenkins et al., 2013). First, practices of online users can be detected by acknowledging
the environment that participatory culture and spreadability occur in. Second, the remixing of
content, by sharing beliefs spreads, the will of a movement. An example of online content that
is very spreadable and engages the participation of online cultures are memes. According to
Gruger, a meme is “an amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or
genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media” (“Definition of
Meme,” n.d.). Memes are controversial to some degree as often taboos or sensitive topics are
represented in a humorous way, but they are successful as many people can relate to them; a
different version of the will of the people is generated through humorous content. One of the
most popular memes of the 2010’s was the grumpy cat meme (please see Figure 5 below)
which “frowned its way onto the Internet” (“Definition of Meme,” n.d.).
Figure 5: Grumpy Cat meme. An example of user generated content that rapidly spreads in the Internet.
Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com, 2017.
The image of Grumpy Cat was edited to include satirical texts of ‘everyday struggles’
that relate and appeal to a large audience. Memes are images which address a topic in a satirical
23manner. By having ironic visual representations of common thoughts, politics and ‘goals in
life’, a highly spreadable media format is produced to address a multitude of topics (please see
Figure 6 and 7 below for further examples). The power of memes lies in the participatory
culture, making memes a mechanism of uniting people across various cultures that have a
shared belief. Moreover, memes can be used to desensitise topics or bring attention towards
issues. Creative audiences emerge and remix messages, and as a result, the range of
communication practices found online are diversifying (Castells, 2000).
Figures 6 & 7: Examples of mainstream media memes. Scenes from Game of Thrones and The Hobbit to
make fun of common thoughts and experiences. Retrieved from https://www.twitter.com, n.d.
Memes exist as a form of self-expression and communication because they address a
real event or issue through critical commentary in contemporary society. As the Internet
evolved, people had to master new abilities and understand the new, technical media landscape.
Technological innovations created a need for users to become media literate in order to access,
understand, create and interact with different formats of media. Through the changing of the
technological and media landscape, online users were able to take on a proactive role in sharing
content with global audiences. It is not surprising that user-generated content started occurring
in 2008, a few years after Facebook became publicly available. The importance of platforms
grew exponentially with the rise of social media and online representations of cultural values
and social practices. By remixing ideas communicated through mainstream media, user-
generated content now spreads to global audiences. Platforms such as YouTube, Instagram,
Twitter and Giphy are fuelled by user-generated content, meaning “any type of content
24information created by users. This can be in the form of videos, digital photos and other types
of media belonging to an online platform which is made available to other end users” (Kang,
2019). This effect produces two outcomes: first, platforms have shifted to be connective and
reflect a decentralised cyberpopulist environment. Second, brands and companies had to adjust
how they target audiences, playing on their interests, to meet corporate economic goals. As
users produce and share ideas, they have the predetermined power to (re)shape the world in
relation to how they are approached and perceived by traditional institutions. The playing
grounds have been balanced, to some extent.
3.3.2 Limiting leadership to a ‘soft’ form
So far, the contemporary practices of digital activists have been explored in terms of
the broader tendencies of participatory culture through focusing on the spreading of memes.
The practice of spreading memes depends on the distribution of tasks which is done by utilising
the skill set of individuals to the advantage of the broader aims of a network. Leadership is not
eliminated by decentralised online spaces where participatory culture is present. Instead
cyberpopulist movements are positioned around the practice of soft leadership. This type of
leadership suggests that there are multiple roles open to members of a network; these roles
need to be filled by individuals who have the right skill set to fill gaps. The distribution of tasks
is allocated by having a qualified person able to fulfil and perform an action with their
knowledge, skills and expertise. As an outcome, soft leaders consider members of their network
partners rather than competitors. Soft leadership has a different priority than traditional
leadership as “[s]oft leadership places emphasis more on people to get the tasks done” whilst
traditional forms of leadership focus on the transaction of tasks (Rao, 2013, p. 144). The goals
of soft leadership are achieved by being people-oriented and not task-oriented (Rao, 2013).
Also, wealth and social status do not come into play in the sharing and carrying out of tasks
(Rao, 2013). As an outcome, this form of leadership operates on people’s skills rather than
status (Rao, 2013).
Analysing skill sets and merits creates a fair opportunity to contribute towards tasks to
produce organisational effectiveness and success (Rao, 2013). On a psychological and
emotional level, these triumphs create meaning in people’s lives. This win-win approach,
which soft leadership is founded on, manages uncertainty and strives towards achieving (long-
term) goals and attaining set tasks through an organisational, near-term operational, individual
and long-term strategic perspective (Rao, 2013). The term soft leadership infers that this
25You can also read
