Kassandra Rothenstadt
submerged in everyday life( Bakardjieva 2009). The Internet reinforces existing patterns of offline political participation, while at the same time, mobilising a new pattern of online political participation( Nam 2012); it promotes political discussion, which in turn leads to greater political and civic engagement( Zhang et al. 2010), and most importantly, it overcomes distance and time barriers to create communities, raise consciousness and mobilise people for offline activism( Harlow and Harp 2011). In the context of online activism, emotions of group‐based anger about collective injustices shared online is an important motivational force in collective protest participation( Leach, Iyer & Pedersen 2006).
In the Occupy case, while it was widely considered to have been“ born on the Internet, diffused by the Internet, and maintained its presence on the Internet”( Castells 2012, p. 168), the evidence suggests that social and other online media failed to turn sympathisers into actual participants and acquired salience only in the subsequent sustainment phase being used as‘ mediascapes’( referring to electronic creation and dissemination of both information and images) to create interest in the occupations and invoke a sense of solidarity between‘ physical occupiers’ and‘ internet occupiers.’ And while Occupy was initially conceived as a Twitter movement, it failed to elicit an emotional connection with the public, gaining momentum only after“ a redefinition of its identity as a popular( rather than countercultural) movement representing the‘ 99 %’”( Gerbaudo 2012, p. 102), where the 99 % Tumblr blog“ came to constitute a point of emotional condensation: a wailing wall on which the identity of a new‐born movement might coalesce”( p. 118).
5. The power dynamics of digital activism
Critics have warned that shifts in the structure of empowerment are always accompanied by shifts in the power structure, which appropriate the tools for its own ends. Castells’ grounded theory of power( 2009), which provides the background for the understanding of such contemporary social movements as the Occupy, is based on the premise that power relations are constitutive of society because those in positions of power fashion the institutions according to their values and personal interests. Power is exercised either through coercion or through symbolic means, that is, the construction of meaning in individuals’ perception. Symbolic power functions by persuasion, by altering the cognitive and emotional perception and reasoning of the individual and directing them towards desired ends. This has proved the most effective means to dictate the fate of the institutions, norms and values on which societies are organized, explicating“ why the fundamental power struggle is the battle for the construction of meaning in the minds of the people”( Castells 2012, p. 5).
In the contemporary‘ network society’( Castells 1996),“ power is multidimensional and also organised around networks, which exercise their power by influencing the human mind predominantly( but not solely) through multimedia networks of mass communication. Thus, communication networks are decisive sources of powermaking”( Castells 2012, p. 7). Those who wield power are, therefore, those who have the capacity to set the agenda, identified by Castells( 2012) as the programmers and the switchers. The former manage the programming of each of the main networks on which individuals depend( government, the military, finance, science and technology, media, etc.), while the latter exploit the network connections( interactions and reciprocal action between financial, political, media, business and academic elites, etc.)
Chomsky has repeatedly warned about the role of mass media as a propaganda tool for manufacturing consent in contemporary politics, stating that they are“ effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system‐supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self‐censorship, and without overt coercion”( 1988, p. 306). He also underlined that“ it’ s not the case, as the naïve might think, that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy, rather […] it is the essence of democracy”( Achbar & Wintonick 1992). The Internet can be used for liberatory ends, assist activism, provide access to information which would otherwise be unavailable, but it can also be used for surveillance, coercion control and propaganda by corporations as well as by government( Newsnight 2011).
The Internet’ s privacy and security is, consequently, increasingly questioned. McLuhan was probably among the first who recognised the developing pattern of commodification of privacy, stating“ privacy invasion is now one of our most important knowledge industries”( McLuhan & Carson 2003, p. 335). As Cammaerts’( 2012a) analysis of potentials and constraints of mediation in the cases of such‘ online’ political sites as WikiLeaks and Anonymous“ exposes serious structural constraints to the over‐reliance of( radical) protest movements on market‐based internet or mobile platforms. These platforms are not secure and the companies that run them can, for whichever reason, decide to close down an account, delete the content, withhold funds and / or violate
619