When Social Movements meet Social Media

The Black Lives Matters movement lists its founding date as 2013 though some would argue that the politics which led to its creation had been looming over the country long before then. The outcry that developed from the “hands up, don’t shoot,” “I can’t breathe,” and “Black lives matter” can be largely attributed to the availability of video footage of police brutality made possible with cell phones and social media (Taylor 2016). This and other social movements born in recent years have something to combat the localization which restrained fringe movements before them: mobile technology. Our social reach in the world is unfathomably larger than it was before the mediums we so crucially rely on today. We are living in an era where Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook followers provide us with an infinitely large audience with an audience of their own. One Tweet or one video can go viral and reach millions of people in each of the social media platforms through followers and our followers’ followers. Videos have been an especially powerful force in the Black Lives Matter movement. 

It is this incredibly formidable means of communiation which can propel a collective action incident into becoming a full-fledged social movement. This paper advances our knowledge of the technological impact of mobile devices on the growth and the rate of growth of social movements. Despite the benefits of technology in social movements, at the core of my argument is the idea that today’s technology inhibits the successful consolidation of the movement because potential supporters are overwhelmed with information and social causes to undertake. In this study, I discuss the evolution of technology and its role in social movements. Taking a point of departure from Heidegger’s warnings of technology’s dangers, I also explore the benefits and drawbacks of today’s technology.

A precursor to Black Lives Matter?

Leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement differ starkly from the Civil Rights movement in the most basic ways: they are mostly women, some are gender non-conforming, others are members of the LGBTQIA community, and yet the causes of both movements are different iterations of the same struggle. It is almost never useful to compare eras but, in this case, there are continuities between the present and the past which remind us that the past is not yet in the history books. The words of leaders of the Civil Rights movement, including Martin Luther King Jr.’s, could easily apply to the emergence of the Black Lives Matter protest movement. Today’s movement has some parallels with the 1960s movement but it does not replicate them. The current movement is demanding that attention be paid to the attack on the very rights the leaders on the 1960s fought for. In short, the Black Lives Matter movement is an extension of the Civil Rights movement with the agenda of re-establishing the rights which have continuously deteriorated and the demand for the valuing of Blacks in America as human beings. 

The American Civil Rights movement had a lasting influence on social movements around the world and has since been studied extensively (Andrews 2004; McAdam 1999; Morris 1984). International and domestic pressures in the United States were critical to the emergence of this movement. At the international level, the Cold War deprived America of the ability to be compared to the Soviet Union through civil rights violation. A point of departure between the heydays of the Civil Rights movement and the current state of the Black Lives Matter movement is that it seems to be stuck in its infancy and domestic and international pressures are not propelling it with the same intensity. Additionally, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities helped pressure American officials to express support for civil rights policies (Jenkins et al. 2003; Skrentny 1998). These institutional pressures are not as prevalent in today’s movement. At the same time, cotton and share-cropping were in decline, which resulted in large-scale migration to urban centers including northern industrial states (McAdam 1999). This move to northern states also created an untapped voting bloc, which led to heightened interest in them by both parties. While Blacks lacked the same electoral impact in southern cities, they were able to support their own institutions and organizations. These changes and pressures were the political opportunities which increased perceptions that change could occur and the shifts in organization made possible through these opportunities helped in mobilizing the black community (McAdam 1999). The Black church, for example, provided immense support as the civil rights movement emerged through the provision of leadership, locations for meetings, and other cultural resources. Based on perceptions of political opportunities, organizational resources, and cultural understandings, the movement was able to develop a set or “repertoire” of strategies which were critical in its success (McAdam 1999; Staggenborg 2016). Some scholars argue that the rights frame used by the movement has been important in influencing other social movements (Morris 2000; Tarrow 2011). 

Collective Action

Before social movements are formed, they begin as incidents whereby there is a localized collective action by people which the authorities are willing to and do end by force (Tilly 1984). Once these incidents become a series of incidents which show endurance, we arrive at a more complete conceptualization of the social movement. Social movements are "collective challenges, based on common purposes and social solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents, and authorities"(Tarrow 1994). Movements are dynamic and hard to control because they are a loose association of individuals. Internally, the movement cannot control its participants. Externally, political opportunities and constraints continue to shift and affect the decision-making process of people who involved or might participate. These are only some of the challenges encountered by organizers of social movements but they are the most crucial in determining if collective action succeeds and are discussed in greater detail in the section of challenges in collective action. 

Through societal evolution, collective action began to encompass large-scale demonstrations and boycotts, which led to cosmopolitan repertoires with “modular” tactics (Staggenborg 2016; Tarrow 2011).  This means that they could be easily transplanted to other locations and situations instead of being tied to one situation and place. This change in the nature of repertoires is useful in contemporary social movements as the members of these movements are almost always spatially dispersed. The nature of social movements, however, is not set in stone and could, therefore, change as political conditions change (Tilly and Wood 2013). For example, social movements are becoming increasingly global and this has resulted in greater reliance on Internet-based protests (Bennet and Segerberg 2013; Rheingold 2002). 

Disagreement among scholars of collective action

Scholars have taken issue either with the definition of social movements or of other terms which have been encompassed into social movement theory. Goodwin and Jasper argue that broad conceptualizations of political process theory inhibit its ability to provide a universal model of social movements (1999). They argue that the meanings of strategy, agency, and culture have been washed by process theorists in efforts to make them look more structural. They argue that Tarrow’s definition of social movements is redundant because political opportunity is built into his definition of a social movement (Goodwin and Jasper; 1999). They also argue that McAdams falls short in his definition of political opportunities when the criteria for them are as restrictive as those in his “consensual list of dimensions of political opportunity”. His variables clearly fail to explain the rise of movements as Gamson and Mayer are forced to use additional political opportunities for the context of their studies (Gamson and Meyer 1996; McAdam 1996). Goodwin and Jasper argue that the exclusion of culture from political opportunities is not justified because both opportunities and collective action depend on cultural interpretation (1999). They suggest that process theorists abandon invariant models as the universalizability of these is impossible. Theorists should also avoid conceptual stretching as this undermines the shared understanding of these terms. They urge them to recognize that culture permeates political opportunities and mobilizing structures available to process theorists and, finally, that they begin splitting the different kinds of political opportunities instead of lumping them together (Goodwin and Jasper; 1999). These suggestions do not present a model of any sort and instead hope to clarify some of the muddy waters of social movements and collective action. 

Engendering a Collective Identity

The psychology of social movements posits that coalitions via social movements are crucial in that they garner more attention from the individuals and institutions they are acting against. These coalitions encompass people with a common purpose and solidarity (Tarrow 2011; Klandermans and Stekelenburg 2013). Multiple identities make it inevitable for individual identities to conflict with those of the group. Salient group memberships can emphasize collective identity instead of individual identity (Tajfel and Turner 1979). Collective identity influences people’s moral concerns and their likelihood of participating in collective activities with efforts at attaining social change (Klandermans 2000). 

Collective identities do not exist autonomously, there is an inevitable system of groups with different social-structural characteristics like power asymmetries (Farley 1982). Scholars of social psychology view power as a construct that describes a situation whereby one party has or is perceived to have the ability to impose its will and ensure its interests at the expense of another (Haslam 2001). Social psychologists point to the necessity of approaching social movements of the political contention nature as involving three parties: the opposition, the groups against which they are acting, and the general public (Simon and Klandermans 2001). The first two groups are simultaneously trying to control or enlist members of this third group, and each is should be stressing that it is an important part of this larger group with compatible interests (Simon and Klandermans 2001). These struggles between social groups carry inherently political features. 

A politicized collective identity is a form of collective identity that underlies members’ obvious motivations to participate in a power struggle. Here the collective identity of group members is politicized to the degree that those individuals intentionally and deliberately engage in a power struggle on behalf of their group (Simon and Klandermans 2001). Collective identity and politicizing events must be framed within its social environment; only then is it possible to arrive at an awareness of shared grievances (Simon and Klandermans 2001) and only then can an external adversary be identified. This collective identity fully politicizes when the group seeks to win the support of either the public or a more powerful authority. Politicized collective identity fulfills important psychological functions, namely the functions of understanding and agency (Fiske 2000; Tajfel and Turner 1986). The politicization process promotes both reasoning about and acting in and on the social world. Reasoning about the social world is seen most clearly when group members recognize adversaries concerning their shared grievances. During this stage, group members' collective self-understanding is refined in relation to other groups. This is important because it is here where meaning is given to group members' common fate in terms of a shared interest or ideology. Johnston and Klandermans call this process “consciousness raising” (1995). Later in this politicization process, the agency function is served particularly well by members active struggle for or opposition to social change. Simply having forced society to take sides confers recognition as a social agent on group members; this is true whether groups succeed or are defeated (Johnston and Klandermans 1995; Simon and Klandermans 2001).

The ambiguity of technology, a theory

The role of technology in social movements is ambiguous where its utility or encumbrance cannot be easily measured without historical and philosophical discourse. Heidegger is perhaps the loudest voice warning of the dangers of technology but before the problems of these inventions are addressed, his basic conceptualization of technology must be understood. Here he is concerned with technology as the instruments, machines, and devices that human beings invent, build, and ultimately exploit. Technology, in short, is a tool that we control as a means to an end and whose essence we neglect. A counter to Heidegger is that technological thinking is just the real-world application contemporary science, the true primary phenomenon of consequence. However, while science might reduce objects to tool means rather than ends, it does not have to behave this way. Instead, science can possess a non-instrumental responsiveness to natural objects as ends instead of as means. 

He argues that technology inhibits our ability to experience things as they are. Technology reduces beings to not-beings, which does away with the awe and wonder in the presence of beings. This is a loss which we are indifferent to because we have found the technological substitutes for that feeling. Further, Heidegger credits technology for the shrinking of all distances in time and space and argues that despite this shrinking, there is no proximity of nearness as it does not lie in a small amount of distance. Nearness, according to him, is one of the things we have become incapable of experiencing and understanding. We treat everything, including human capabilities, as a source of energy which must be organized and later disposed of. In short, everything that presents itself technologically has the tendency of losing its distinctive independence and form. Here the position of contemporary social movements must overcome our propensity to push aside and obscure.  

But not all is negative with technology; Heidegger suggests that a way out of the entrapment of technology through understanding its essence. He suggests that saving ourselves form the shackled of technology can be achieved not by rejecting it altogether but by perceiving the danger it poses. This means that technological things have their own novel kind of presence and connections among parts and wholes. They, like the tools discussed in Being and Time, have their own way of presenting themselves and the world in which they operate. We must see technology essentially as an event to which we belong and as something which holds sway over beings that we do not normally think of as technological, like gods and history. Only in thinking of the essence of technology we are able to avoid the dangers Heidegger warns about. The role of technology in social movements, thus, cannot be treated as a simple tool or means to an end. 

Role of Technology in Social Movements 

In the age of the internet, “e-tactics” like online-based petitions or viral posts on Twitter are useful and involve very little costs for participants (Earl and Kimport 2011). As technology continues to be innovative, it is also becoming increasingly more affordable (Rheingold 2002), this means that it is likely for individuals of varied classes to have the ability to participate in movements through devices. This is not to say that the problem of collective action is solved, movements still require participation from large numbers of people. The dangers of ‘lacktivism’ are most evident after a viral cause fades away without real-world changes in the struggle. Even those which rely on technology to mobilize need to use these tools to get people on the streets for face-to-face protests (Staggenborg 2016). 

The major difference between today’s technology and that of the 1960s and 1970s is the availability of free means of communication. Not only are social networks connecting individuals around the world, applications on smartphones allow for private organizational conversations among movement leaders. Contemporary movements can use online media tools to communicate with supports and members of the public in general. This method of using technology has already been shown to be efficient through the example of the transnational feminist networks provided earlier. The internet allows for quick and inexpensive ways of reaching a large number of potential supporters, especially in situations where these supporters are quite spatially spread out (Rheingold 2002; Schulz 1998; Staggenborg 2016). 

It is important to distinguish between the types of movements made possible through the use of the internet (Earl and Kimport; 2011). E-mobilizations use online tools but result in face-to-face protests by providing potential supporters with information, motivation, and organization (though this last one is not necessary). A recent example of large-scale E-mobilization was the March for Science in 2017, which was caused by the Trump administration’s views on climate change and science. Conversely, an E-movement is organized strictly online and often lacks formal organization (Earl and Schussman 2003). An example of an E-movement is the signing of a petition and though there are more involved internet-based movements, these involve the lowest cost for participants. News-making through the internet, social network platforms, and personal media has allowed individuals and groups to claim the capacity to shape collective action that was once the territory of traditional media (Tarrow 1994). Whether it be E-mobilization or and E-movement, digital media is allowing organizers to bypass mainstream mass media and creates a support for networks that allow movements to spread rapidly (Staggenborg 2016). 

Technology can be exceptionally useful in engendering a politicized collective identity (Rheingold 2000; 2002). It can create what Rheingold terms “smart mobs,” these mobile ad hoc social networks and require more explanation. Smart mobs are mobile in that cell phones and other devices make communication possible, which allows for informal, “on the fly” organizing. Social networks in this concept of smart mobs are created through people who serve as nodes with links to other individuals. Much like the individuals in traditional forms of collective action, smart mobs are made up of individuals who must make the decision to act. With the age of technology comes the concern for privacy assurances and individuals hesitate to make a move until a threshold is met. Meeting a certain threshold can tip the crown into widespread cooperation (Rheingold 2002). 

Protest movements require heightened feelings of solidarity which in turn is accomplished through shared identities of the oppressed. This solidarity can be felt among individuals who might never meet one another via the use of media. This use of technology as a means to an end leads to my major hypothesis, which is thatthe presence of a viral video showing police brutality against Black American should result in much higher numbers of reported tweets using the Black Lives Matter or BLM hashtags.The growth of the movement will be manifested in the growth of tweets connected to the movement over time and after each incident of police brutality.

Methods and Data

The dependent variable, Tweet, is the number of Black Lives Matter tweets taken from a Twitter Archiving Google Sheet (TAGS) which lets the user setup and run an automated collection of search results from Twitter. As this study is testing the role of technology, my first independent variable is Police Brutality Footage, whereby we are looking at a moment time in time when there is or is not a “viral” video making the rounds on social media. Police Brutality Footage is not a random measure as these are specific points in time. I will begin analyzing the use of tags linked to the movement beginning with the death of Trayvon Martin in the summer of 2012 as this is when the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter began to be used. My analysis will follow the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement through each incident of police brutality which has attained national attention. The content analysis will be use filters to count for original tweets and exclude retweets as this form of engagement is the most minimal form of activism. Each original tweet must contain the hashtags #BlackLivesMatter or #BLM. The tweet searches will be restricted to the first two days following an incident of police brutality with the exception of the Freddie Gray incident which spans from April 12 to April 19, 2015 as his arrest resulted in a coma and, ultimately, his death.

Results

A search of the tags discussed above on in April of 2014 led yielded zero results. The first major incident which caused #BlackLivesMatter to go viral on Twitter occurred on July 17, 2014 with the shooting of Eric Garner with 41 original Tweets. That same year, the days immediately following the deaths of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice resulted in a higher number of Tweets, 40 and 110 respectively. The following year, five months (December) after the incidents of police brutality of the highest profile, the number of Tweets was 61. The incidents of police brutality under study for 2015 were the deaths of Walter Scott (156), Freddie Gray (231), and Sandra Bland (118). The decrease in the number of Tweets for the only woman in this study requires further study. In 2016, five months after and six months before high profile incidents, the number of Tweets about the movement was a low 41 while the number after the deaths of Alton Sterling (July 5) and Philando Castile (July 6) was over than 1000. The analysis of the 2016 cases must be treated with caution as the shooting of police officers in Dallas, Texas at a Black Lives Matter protest is partly responsible for this high number. These findings, especially the disparity of Tweets between January 2016 and July 2016, provide blatant evidence of the less than effective use of technology in social movements. Rather than engender solidarity which translates into activism, social media activists move onto the next trending tag or video fairly quickly.

These findings only begin to address the questions posited in this study. I propose a more thorough analysis of social media usage by supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement. Such a study would expand its scope to include other platforms, including Facebook and Instagram as these attract groups of different ages and backgrounds. A more thorough study must also address the real-world impact of technology, such as the turnout at protests led by the movement after information is disseminated on these platforms.  

Technology is an undeniable part of daily life and it has been so for decades. Innovation has been useful in spreading awareness of incidents and causes but its role in social movements is more complicated than the number of Tweets or Facebook Shares any one movement receives. As previously discussed, this study must be further expanded if the true essence of technology in social movements is to be understood. From Heidegger’s perspective, we must be perceptive of the dangers of technology but we do not have to reject it altogether. In this paper, I suggest that we have failed to perceive these dangers in regards to mobile devices and social networks which in turn has led to its less than optimal utility to the Black Lives Matter movement.