Well, this has been quite the experience. Some experiences I have thoroughly enjoyed while others have been more of a challenge. Ultimately, I have learned a lot about myself, my expectations for education, the comfort I have developed in classrooms, and the process of challenging myself to learn differently. From the beginning of the semester I struggled with the amount of work that was required. It was not the amount of work necessarily, but the form that the work took. In a classroom, I discovered, I could easily contribute and participate in the dicussion. It seems I am more comfortable building upon and expanding the ideas of readings and peers when a synchronous conversation is occuring rather than presenting my ideas and waiting for responses. I think I am better able to articulate my perspective when the conversation is ongoing without interruption unlike the discussion forum which required me to think, stop, think, stop, think, stop. This was an uncomfortable experience and I increasingly became frustrated with the feeling of being disconnected from the conversation. Also, to be honest, in a classroom I can discuss for three hours. Once I leave the classroom, I move on to a new task. For the English class, it felt as if I had to be engaged constantly in the discussion in order to participate adequately. It was exhausting and eventually I had to cut myself a break and not contribute the ideal amount. I did what I could with the time I had. While this might have been an uncomfortable and frustrating experience, it did make me realize how taken-for-granted I took my comfort of classroom discussion. I think this is an important thing to realize because it also tells me how I have been socialized into education. The experience I enjoyed the most was learning new technologies like Windows Live Movie Maker and Prezi. I plan on using both of these technologies while teaching COM 335: Rhetorical Methods next semester. I am not sure I would have thought to integrate these into the classroom had I not been encouraged to do so through the English class. I feel as if the implementation of new technologies such as these will liven up the experience, teach the students about new ways of learning, and challenge them to venture outside their comfort zone. Furthermore, it teaches them unique perspectives and possibily presents arguments that would otherwise be unknown with tradtional classroom instruction. The final version was defintely the most enjoyable experience. I could have written a traditional paper, but felt like I needed the challenge. I have written papers-many many many papers. It was not easier to make a video. Not in the least, but it did allow me to use my brain and creativity in a unique way. I became more interested in the project than I had been before and I was able to avoid the pitfall of repeating research that I had already conducted about online activism. I was "forced" into considering online activism from another perspective by creating a project in a different format than the traditional seminar paper. I am proud of the outcome and hope to develop it into a conference presenation and possibily write a paper about the process.
There are some things I would do differently:
- Learn the technologies before beginning the class. The first few weeks were extremely uncertain and frustrating because I had never used wiki, twitter, etc. I immediately felt behind because of my lack of knowledge.
-Set aside a day to just work on English work. I kept finding myself at the end of the week rushing to finish my work and not having the energy to contribute as much as I wanted to.
Some things I would suggest for the class if it is taught again:
-The discussion forum was sometimes too overwhelming. Some students posted such lengthy responses that I could not sift through all of the posts. I simply did not have the time to read, reflect, and respond to all of the posts. I am not sure what the fix is to this problem, but I believe the discussion forum should have regulation as to how long a post should be, etc.
-I did not gain much from reading outside blogs. The readings for the class were sufficient in allowing me to gain a new perspective or reinforce things I already had learned. I felt as if the outside reading blogs were more of a task than a learning experience. I would encourage a reconsideration of including this part of the class requirements.
Ultimately, I am glad to have learned the things I have about myself and about digital rhetoric. I do feel lessons were learned that would have not been otherwise. Best of luck to the rest of my peers careers!
Monday, May 17, 2010
Final Version of Project
For the final version of the project, I decided to expand the video I made for the second version. Originally, I planned to write a typical seminar paper; however, as I was writing the paper I realized how much I enjoyed the video making process and wanted to challenge myself to continue with that project. It defintely was not easier than writing a paper. The making of the video probably took more hours combined than a seminar paper would have. But, I feel that I learned a lot more about the subject matter, digital rhetoric, and my own research abilities/limitations than I would have otherwise. Some things I learned:
-It is difficult to synthesize a paper into a video. I kept experiencing uncertainty at how much text to include, what sources were most pertinent, in what order did the text make the most sense, and what images reinforced the written ideas. I, also, had to pay attention to the timing: did the music connect with the written and visual ideas, could the observer comprehend the message in the time that I was alloting for the slide, what was too redundant, and what needed expanding. While a paper's organization comes quite easily to me by this time in my career, the argumentative side of the video was an entirely different story. I wrestled with different organizations and time allocations. I wrestled with images and music. I wanted the music to reinforce the powerful message of the images while simultatenously communicating the overall argument, but I didnt want the music to be too much of a distraction. I, also, had a lot of photographs I could use, but had to keep reminding myself that it was not the photographs that were the argument but instead the screen shots of the digital spaces (Twitter and facebook). It is interesting to me how difficult the video making process was in comparison to a paper. I kept asking myself "is this video length comparable to a 15 page paper?" I didn't want to create a 30 -min video. I was afraid my audience would become bored and disinterested in the information, thus, I had to figure out how to summarize the arguments I would make in my paper into a 10-min video. That was hard. Ultimately, the experience of making the video for a final project was a huge challenge but was the most enjoyable experience of the class. I really learned the different ways rhetorical arguments can be presented depending upon the format that the rhetor chooses. I hope you enjoy the video. I plan on developing this experience into a paper/presentation for a conference. I want to discuss the process of rhetorical arguments in digital formats such as video-making and the challenges a writer faces. Of course, I will have to put that project on the backburner until the summer or possibly next semester. Please provide any feedback that you think would be helpful for developing this future endeavor.
Here is the final version link to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZunUIxyDpw
-It is difficult to synthesize a paper into a video. I kept experiencing uncertainty at how much text to include, what sources were most pertinent, in what order did the text make the most sense, and what images reinforced the written ideas. I, also, had to pay attention to the timing: did the music connect with the written and visual ideas, could the observer comprehend the message in the time that I was alloting for the slide, what was too redundant, and what needed expanding. While a paper's organization comes quite easily to me by this time in my career, the argumentative side of the video was an entirely different story. I wrestled with different organizations and time allocations. I wrestled with images and music. I wanted the music to reinforce the powerful message of the images while simultatenously communicating the overall argument, but I didnt want the music to be too much of a distraction. I, also, had a lot of photographs I could use, but had to keep reminding myself that it was not the photographs that were the argument but instead the screen shots of the digital spaces (Twitter and facebook). It is interesting to me how difficult the video making process was in comparison to a paper. I kept asking myself "is this video length comparable to a 15 page paper?" I didn't want to create a 30 -min video. I was afraid my audience would become bored and disinterested in the information, thus, I had to figure out how to summarize the arguments I would make in my paper into a 10-min video. That was hard. Ultimately, the experience of making the video for a final project was a huge challenge but was the most enjoyable experience of the class. I really learned the different ways rhetorical arguments can be presented depending upon the format that the rhetor chooses. I hope you enjoy the video. I plan on developing this experience into a paper/presentation for a conference. I want to discuss the process of rhetorical arguments in digital formats such as video-making and the challenges a writer faces. Of course, I will have to put that project on the backburner until the summer or possibly next semester. Please provide any feedback that you think would be helpful for developing this future endeavor.
Here is the final version link to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZunUIxyDpw
Monday, May 10, 2010
Reflecting on the third version
My deepest apologies for the delay of the third version. It is finally up on my blog. In this version, I found myself fighting with the research questions that I have posed before about online activism. I wanted to continue to go in the same direction as I had originally when I began researching online activism, however, that was not the topic I committed myself to for this class. I have pieced together old and new research, but have yet to include class readings to make it more relevant to the course. Any ideas on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I hope to build upon the research that I have already conducted and make a stronger case for online activism. Academia, especially the communication discipline, is lacking in credible research and analysis about the way in which online activism is enacted in digital spaces with divergent digital rhetoric. I hope to fill this gap by the end of this semester.
Whew...third version
I am including my third version of the final paper. It is a work in progress. I have yet to add in readings from this particular class, but plan on adding in notions of control as indicated by Harriman. I am not sure what the best way is to make this text available. I have seen others copy and post so I will do the same.
Activism has taken a variety of forms including protests, sit-ins, and rallies. Based on a particular ideology, people band with one another as activists, attempting to fight for the dissolution of privilege and power. Forming a united front, these individuals actively pursue social change, fight for social justice, and encourage the end to social disparities.
The emergence of the Internet has complicated and redefined the way in which social activism is enacted. Protests, sit-ins, and rallies are but one type of activism. Now, with the Internet’s ability to transcend boundaries, activism has transformed from solely a behavioral action to acts performed within an online community. Whereas, in the past, groups were developed through physical, face to face interaction, the Internet now allows activist communities to enact resistance with their online discourse.
This change, however, has sparked controversy amongst critics who argue that online activism should be viewed only as a tool for prompting physical acts or a preliminary step for forming groups. Through this alternate viewpoint, critics insinuate that the Internet is simply a means to an end, a medium for physical action, and, by itself, an inauthentic form of resistance. One critic, D’Amelio (2005), states that sites utilizing online discourse as activism are successful if “their words can result in offline actions. Knowing the technology and having a website does not automatically translate into success” (p. 15). Chamberlein (2004) further supports this view by explaining that “cyberactivism happens online and that it is a process. We also know that offline actions count as cyberactivism if they are a result of online motivation” (p. 139). In this statement, the researcher is not explicitly clear on whether online discourse can be considered cyberactivism without the offline interaction. Yet, it is implied that cyberactivism is a step in achieving an offline action. Another argument is that online discourse is not sufficient in producing valid activism. Garrett (2006) argues,
Finally, technology-enabled additions to the repertoire of contention also potentially limit activists. By formalizing the role of participants, automated tools supporting online action offer a constrained set of actions, thereby excluding important opportunities for collective action (p.13).
From this perspective, activist sites have a tendency to be unreliable in provoking action that will actually motivate social change.
While there are researchers that support the continuance of online activism, there is a limited amount of information regarding cyber discourse as a viable form of activist action by itself. Thus, the central question that is at the forefront of the entire discussion about online activist is “can online activism be considered an equally effective mode of advocacy?”
The following project seeks to answer this question by arguing that online activism is indeed an effective form of resistance to social inequities. In fact, the introduction of the Internet in social advocacy requires a reconceptualization of activism. Without redefining the meaning of activism, society fails to adapt with the changing social world. Technology’s inclusion in the public sphere continues to gain authority in everyday life; therefore, we as a society can no longer resist the changing landscape of reality. Instead, it is vital to the success of our goals as advocates that we reconsider the meanings of activism. It is the author’s intention to call for a redefining of activism that includes online discourse as a viable form of advocacy.
I argue that the discourses embedded within this particular movement communicate a specific collective identity which is specifically represented depending upon the digital space. Vegh’s (2003) three classifications of cyberactivism assists in elucidating the purposes of different digital spaces in order to understand the role digital rhetoric plays in constituting a particular identity.
This essay examines three divergent digital spaces used by the Anti-Eviction Campaign (AEC) of South Africa: an organization website, Twitter, and Facebook. In analyzing the disparate and similar digital rhetorics of each site, the intended representation of the AEC movement and the ways in which online activism is being used becomes apparent. This study’s importance lies in its ability to provide an example of how a contemporary social movement is utilizing popular websites to promote advocacy for a specific cause. Furthermore, it illustrates the different strategies used for online activism.
Collective identity is often discussed in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this paper, Melucci’s (1996) definition seems to be the most appropriate. He defines collective identity as “an interactive and shared definition produced by several individuals and concerned with the orientations of action and field of opportunities and constraints in which the action takes place” (p. 44). Foster (1996) further communicates a similar idea when discussing identity within cyberspace,
Community, then, is built by a sufficient flow of "we-relevant" information. The
"we" or the collective identity that results is structured around others who are seen
as similar to the "me." In this sense, community, like any form of communication,
is not fully realized without a conception of self. (p. 25).
The following section will claim that the establishment of a group identity within online discourse enables the agents of the interaction to promote a specific viewpoint of reality and, thus, enacts a form of activism through discourse. With the Internet, rhetors utilize a divergent medium than that of the traditional, physical performance and instead call forth a reconsideration of authentic activism.
The presence of virtual communities is an ever-increasing trend. Besides breaking the barriers provided by distance, users have a wider range of accessibility to information, disparate perspectives, and a different sense of responsibility; however, online advocacy sites are dependent upon the establishment and continuation of an inclusive identity. Mobilizing an activist group requires that the foundation of the group includes a shared sense of reality. This similar perspective is unable to flourish unless a virtual community is established. Foster (1996) states:
Relating community to the symbolic act of communicating is useful in that the contingency of community is linked to the contingency of identity, and identity, as has already been demonstrated, is dependent upon the means by which we communicate it (p. 35).
Thus, in order to sustain the communication between users, individuals rely upon the similar ideologies of the members constituted within the online discourse. The communicative acts performed within this interaction illustrate the characteristics of the users, which have prompted them into the development of a unified front. Therefore, the group’s continued existence is reliant upon the members’ ability to resonate with other individuals by discussing social issues in a way that is attractive to the larger public (Carty & Onyett, 2006).
Foster (1996) further argues:
If we view the public as a communally shared life-form, the ideal of this sharing can only be obtained through communicative action-the ability of individuals to engage in substantive public discourse. The public sphere can then be seen as an ideal speech community, one which is not obtainable if individuals are excluded from involvement in the public discourse. (p. 30).
Advocacy in Digital Spaces
The discourses provided within the online websites have a purpose and a goal that is specific to each group. “Online activism is comprised of proactive actions to achieve a certain goal or of reactive actions against controls and the authorities imposing them” (Vegh, 2003, p. 71). Vegh (2003) classifies three types of online activism based on the activists’ goals: awareness/advocacy, organization/mobilization, and action/reaction. Awareness/advocacy, for example, includes websites that are attempting to access information, which might otherwise be unattainable because the powerful gatekeepers forbid accessibility (Vegh, 2003). Organization/mobilization, on the other hand, involves an attempt to carry out actions offline, perform actions that are more easily performed online, or actions that are limited to the Internet (Vegh, 2003). Finally, action/reaction refers to an active performance of cyber defacement, online resistance, and cyberattacking (Vegh, 2003). While these three disparate categories are a sufficient beginning for understanding online activism, it fails to define one form that is increasing in prominence.
In this paper, I employ Vegh’s categorization of online activism as my theoretical foundation for understanding the way in which the AEC utilizes different digital spaces to represent their collective identity.
Online activists seek to raise the public’s awareness about the disparities of power embedded within societal institutions through online communication. Langman (2005) reinforces this argument, “although general social movements still pursue traditionally conceived social and political goals, more paramount to NSMs (New Social Movements) is the construction and legitimization of collective identities for coherence and to articulate resistance” (p. 8). With this claim in mind, it is ineffective to evaluate the authenticity of online activism based on traditional measurements of successful advocacy. The change in technology and emergence of the Internet within the public sphere requires critics to analyze the practicality and viability of online activism groups as a separate entity from offline activism.
Categorizing Online Identities
Melucci (1989) claims that understanding the identity of a group will assist in identifying the purposes and goals of a social movement. He outlines three components for discerning the collective identity of a group: cognitive definitions, network of relationships, and emotional investment. Taylor and Whittier (1992) build upon these categorizations by creating three other distinctions of collective identity evaluation: boundaries, consciousness, and negotiation. For the purpose of this essay, both sets of categorizations will be utilized to analyze the collective identity of the CharactersUnite movement. All three theorists individually provide an array of choices for identifying a group’s identity; however, when used comprehensively the evaluation is more thorough. For example, Melucci’s network of relationships refers to the strategies that groups employ to associate and form a communal bond with other members whereas Taylor and Whittier’s idea of boundaries indicates a collective’s formation of insiders versus outsiders. Thus, separately both focus on a different but similar aspect of building a community with a collective identity; however, taken together one can understand that creating boundaries is utilized by social group’s as a strategy for establishing relationships within a social movement. Ultimately, the combination of both conceptual categorizations assists in providing a more thorough and complete picture for evaluating an online group’s identity as influential in provoking the collective action of building a community with dialogue.
Networking with Boundaries
Melucci (1989) argues that one of the most pertinent tasks for a social movement is to establish a collective identity. It is with the formation of a group identity that collective action can happen. The identity of a social collective communicates the purpose of the group, the goals set forth by the group, and the expectations of members. With this identity, members are able to identify why they are acting, what they are trying to achieve, and how they are supposed to act. In answer these key questions, the group is capable of moving forward as a collective instead of individuals. Melucci (1989) further argues against viewing the effectiveness of new social movements in terms of traditional social activism. He claims that evaluating groups from “an exclusively political view centered on the ‘instrumental’ dimension of action regards “as ‘expressive’ or residual the self-reflective instruments of the movements” (p. 73-74). In other words, a group’s ability to create a community and maintaining membership is a feat in itself, and salient to its success. New social movements then promote collective action that “functions as a new medium which illuminates the silent and arbitrary elements of the dominant codes as well as publicizes new alternatives” (p. 63).
Collective action, then, is dependent upon the group’s ability to create a “we” or a unified identity. The continued construction of the collective identity is particularly reliant upon individuals’ ability to establish relationships within the group. With these relationships, members are able to identify as an insider, as a member playing a role, and as an actor within the movement. Melucci (1989) writes, “Only if individual actors can recognize their coherence and continuity as actors will they be able to write their own script of social reality and compare expectations and outcomes” (p.58). However, in order to identify one’s membership within the collective, he/she must recognize their status as an insider.
Taylor and Whittier (1992) expand the abovementioned concept by claiming that collective identities are communicated through the formation and illustration of boundaries. Wall (2007) explains, “Boundaries mark the territory of the group – who is part of the movement and who is not” (p. 262). With boundaries, one understands who the characteristics that define a group members including any shared ideologies (dell Porta & Diani, 2000). Furthermore, the boundaries of a collective identity assist in creating trust amongst the members, which eventually helps reinforce a member’s commitment to the overall goal. This communication resource aids the group in ensuring that collective action can occur as a result of the communal bond that the boundaries encourage.
This essay will utilize both concepts, network of relationships and boundaries, to evaluate the collective identity that has been established within the CharactersUnite rhetoric. However, the term that refers to the conceptual combination is “boundaries.” By understanding the characteristics of its members and strategies for creating relationships, the purpose and goals of the website are illuminated.
Framing the Group’s Consciousness
Recognizing the shared understanding that is embedded within the group identity helps to identify the ways in which groups define social inequities and the issues that they adopt as central to their purpose. Melucci (1989) claims that collectives participating in a social movement create cognitive definitions, outlining problems salient to the group. Taylor and Whittier (1992) created a similar concept that focuses on the group’s consciousness that “encompasses the creation of cognitive frames or schemas for interpreting reality” (Wall, 2007, p. 262). Thus, in indentifying a social group’s frame, one can distinguish the pertinent issues that shape the collective identity as well as the lens in which reality is interpreted.
The following essay combines these concepts as denoted with the term “frames.”
Negotiating Emotional Investment
Melluci’s (1989) final categorization is emotional investment. Members become emotionally invested in the collective identity, strengthening their devotion to the group’s social movement by helping them to “recognize themselves in each other” (p. 35). Individuals, then, understand their membership with the collective by situating the group’s identity within one another. They identify similar ideologies, members’ roles, and expectations of the group by observing the communication of other members. Taylor and Whittier (1992) expand upon the concept of emotional investment by proposing that individuals of a collective actively negotiate their identity. Wall (2007) explains, “Members often must resist dominant evaluations of themselves and their values and offer alternative means of thinking and acting in both public and private spheres” (p. 262).
From these two concepts, it can be determined that groups involved in social movements often have members that are dependent upon others to illustrate the expected cognitive and behavioral actions. Understanding if and how a group negotiates emotional investment are particularly important to identifying the collective identity of a group in regards to the members’ expectations, characteristics, and action. For simplicity sake, the conceptual combination will be referred to as “emotional investment” in the analysis. By identifying these components, one can examine the strategies that groups employ to avoid the pitfalls of oppressive and dominant behavior enacted by outsiders.
The combination of Melucci’s foundational components with Taylor and Whittier’s additional categorizations assists a critic in identifying how a collective identity is established for a particular artifact. Also, it illuminates the specificities that comprise the collective identity. From here, one can also understand the collective action that the group hopes to invoke, and ultimately their efficacy as advocates. The following analysis describes an online community’s role in promoting and enacting activism. The research will illustrate the site as a form of advocacy by analyzing the ways in which different elements are utilized to establish a collective identity that are geared toward an implied audience.
Activism has taken a variety of forms including protests, sit-ins, and rallies. Based on a particular ideology, people band with one another as activists, attempting to fight for the dissolution of privilege and power. Forming a united front, these individuals actively pursue social change, fight for social justice, and encourage the end to social disparities.
The emergence of the Internet has complicated and redefined the way in which social activism is enacted. Protests, sit-ins, and rallies are but one type of activism. Now, with the Internet’s ability to transcend boundaries, activism has transformed from solely a behavioral action to acts performed within an online community. Whereas, in the past, groups were developed through physical, face to face interaction, the Internet now allows activist communities to enact resistance with their online discourse.
This change, however, has sparked controversy amongst critics who argue that online activism should be viewed only as a tool for prompting physical acts or a preliminary step for forming groups. Through this alternate viewpoint, critics insinuate that the Internet is simply a means to an end, a medium for physical action, and, by itself, an inauthentic form of resistance. One critic, D’Amelio (2005), states that sites utilizing online discourse as activism are successful if “their words can result in offline actions. Knowing the technology and having a website does not automatically translate into success” (p. 15). Chamberlein (2004) further supports this view by explaining that “cyberactivism happens online and that it is a process. We also know that offline actions count as cyberactivism if they are a result of online motivation” (p. 139). In this statement, the researcher is not explicitly clear on whether online discourse can be considered cyberactivism without the offline interaction. Yet, it is implied that cyberactivism is a step in achieving an offline action. Another argument is that online discourse is not sufficient in producing valid activism. Garrett (2006) argues,
Finally, technology-enabled additions to the repertoire of contention also potentially limit activists. By formalizing the role of participants, automated tools supporting online action offer a constrained set of actions, thereby excluding important opportunities for collective action (p.13).
From this perspective, activist sites have a tendency to be unreliable in provoking action that will actually motivate social change.
While there are researchers that support the continuance of online activism, there is a limited amount of information regarding cyber discourse as a viable form of activist action by itself. Thus, the central question that is at the forefront of the entire discussion about online activist is “can online activism be considered an equally effective mode of advocacy?”
The following project seeks to answer this question by arguing that online activism is indeed an effective form of resistance to social inequities. In fact, the introduction of the Internet in social advocacy requires a reconceptualization of activism. Without redefining the meaning of activism, society fails to adapt with the changing social world. Technology’s inclusion in the public sphere continues to gain authority in everyday life; therefore, we as a society can no longer resist the changing landscape of reality. Instead, it is vital to the success of our goals as advocates that we reconsider the meanings of activism. It is the author’s intention to call for a redefining of activism that includes online discourse as a viable form of advocacy.
I argue that the discourses embedded within this particular movement communicate a specific collective identity which is specifically represented depending upon the digital space. Vegh’s (2003) three classifications of cyberactivism assists in elucidating the purposes of different digital spaces in order to understand the role digital rhetoric plays in constituting a particular identity.
This essay examines three divergent digital spaces used by the Anti-Eviction Campaign (AEC) of South Africa: an organization website, Twitter, and Facebook. In analyzing the disparate and similar digital rhetorics of each site, the intended representation of the AEC movement and the ways in which online activism is being used becomes apparent. This study’s importance lies in its ability to provide an example of how a contemporary social movement is utilizing popular websites to promote advocacy for a specific cause. Furthermore, it illustrates the different strategies used for online activism.
Collective identity is often discussed in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this paper, Melucci’s (1996) definition seems to be the most appropriate. He defines collective identity as “an interactive and shared definition produced by several individuals and concerned with the orientations of action and field of opportunities and constraints in which the action takes place” (p. 44). Foster (1996) further communicates a similar idea when discussing identity within cyberspace,
Community, then, is built by a sufficient flow of "we-relevant" information. The
"we" or the collective identity that results is structured around others who are seen
as similar to the "me." In this sense, community, like any form of communication,
is not fully realized without a conception of self. (p. 25).
The following section will claim that the establishment of a group identity within online discourse enables the agents of the interaction to promote a specific viewpoint of reality and, thus, enacts a form of activism through discourse. With the Internet, rhetors utilize a divergent medium than that of the traditional, physical performance and instead call forth a reconsideration of authentic activism.
The presence of virtual communities is an ever-increasing trend. Besides breaking the barriers provided by distance, users have a wider range of accessibility to information, disparate perspectives, and a different sense of responsibility; however, online advocacy sites are dependent upon the establishment and continuation of an inclusive identity. Mobilizing an activist group requires that the foundation of the group includes a shared sense of reality. This similar perspective is unable to flourish unless a virtual community is established. Foster (1996) states:
Relating community to the symbolic act of communicating is useful in that the contingency of community is linked to the contingency of identity, and identity, as has already been demonstrated, is dependent upon the means by which we communicate it (p. 35).
Thus, in order to sustain the communication between users, individuals rely upon the similar ideologies of the members constituted within the online discourse. The communicative acts performed within this interaction illustrate the characteristics of the users, which have prompted them into the development of a unified front. Therefore, the group’s continued existence is reliant upon the members’ ability to resonate with other individuals by discussing social issues in a way that is attractive to the larger public (Carty & Onyett, 2006).
Foster (1996) further argues:
If we view the public as a communally shared life-form, the ideal of this sharing can only be obtained through communicative action-the ability of individuals to engage in substantive public discourse. The public sphere can then be seen as an ideal speech community, one which is not obtainable if individuals are excluded from involvement in the public discourse. (p. 30).
Advocacy in Digital Spaces
The discourses provided within the online websites have a purpose and a goal that is specific to each group. “Online activism is comprised of proactive actions to achieve a certain goal or of reactive actions against controls and the authorities imposing them” (Vegh, 2003, p. 71). Vegh (2003) classifies three types of online activism based on the activists’ goals: awareness/advocacy, organization/mobilization, and action/reaction. Awareness/advocacy, for example, includes websites that are attempting to access information, which might otherwise be unattainable because the powerful gatekeepers forbid accessibility (Vegh, 2003). Organization/mobilization, on the other hand, involves an attempt to carry out actions offline, perform actions that are more easily performed online, or actions that are limited to the Internet (Vegh, 2003). Finally, action/reaction refers to an active performance of cyber defacement, online resistance, and cyberattacking (Vegh, 2003). While these three disparate categories are a sufficient beginning for understanding online activism, it fails to define one form that is increasing in prominence.
In this paper, I employ Vegh’s categorization of online activism as my theoretical foundation for understanding the way in which the AEC utilizes different digital spaces to represent their collective identity.
Online activists seek to raise the public’s awareness about the disparities of power embedded within societal institutions through online communication. Langman (2005) reinforces this argument, “although general social movements still pursue traditionally conceived social and political goals, more paramount to NSMs (New Social Movements) is the construction and legitimization of collective identities for coherence and to articulate resistance” (p. 8). With this claim in mind, it is ineffective to evaluate the authenticity of online activism based on traditional measurements of successful advocacy. The change in technology and emergence of the Internet within the public sphere requires critics to analyze the practicality and viability of online activism groups as a separate entity from offline activism.
Categorizing Online Identities
Melucci (1989) claims that understanding the identity of a group will assist in identifying the purposes and goals of a social movement. He outlines three components for discerning the collective identity of a group: cognitive definitions, network of relationships, and emotional investment. Taylor and Whittier (1992) build upon these categorizations by creating three other distinctions of collective identity evaluation: boundaries, consciousness, and negotiation. For the purpose of this essay, both sets of categorizations will be utilized to analyze the collective identity of the CharactersUnite movement. All three theorists individually provide an array of choices for identifying a group’s identity; however, when used comprehensively the evaluation is more thorough. For example, Melucci’s network of relationships refers to the strategies that groups employ to associate and form a communal bond with other members whereas Taylor and Whittier’s idea of boundaries indicates a collective’s formation of insiders versus outsiders. Thus, separately both focus on a different but similar aspect of building a community with a collective identity; however, taken together one can understand that creating boundaries is utilized by social group’s as a strategy for establishing relationships within a social movement. Ultimately, the combination of both conceptual categorizations assists in providing a more thorough and complete picture for evaluating an online group’s identity as influential in provoking the collective action of building a community with dialogue.
Networking with Boundaries
Melucci (1989) argues that one of the most pertinent tasks for a social movement is to establish a collective identity. It is with the formation of a group identity that collective action can happen. The identity of a social collective communicates the purpose of the group, the goals set forth by the group, and the expectations of members. With this identity, members are able to identify why they are acting, what they are trying to achieve, and how they are supposed to act. In answer these key questions, the group is capable of moving forward as a collective instead of individuals. Melucci (1989) further argues against viewing the effectiveness of new social movements in terms of traditional social activism. He claims that evaluating groups from “an exclusively political view centered on the ‘instrumental’ dimension of action regards “as ‘expressive’ or residual the self-reflective instruments of the movements” (p. 73-74). In other words, a group’s ability to create a community and maintaining membership is a feat in itself, and salient to its success. New social movements then promote collective action that “functions as a new medium which illuminates the silent and arbitrary elements of the dominant codes as well as publicizes new alternatives” (p. 63).
Collective action, then, is dependent upon the group’s ability to create a “we” or a unified identity. The continued construction of the collective identity is particularly reliant upon individuals’ ability to establish relationships within the group. With these relationships, members are able to identify as an insider, as a member playing a role, and as an actor within the movement. Melucci (1989) writes, “Only if individual actors can recognize their coherence and continuity as actors will they be able to write their own script of social reality and compare expectations and outcomes” (p.58). However, in order to identify one’s membership within the collective, he/she must recognize their status as an insider.
Taylor and Whittier (1992) expand the abovementioned concept by claiming that collective identities are communicated through the formation and illustration of boundaries. Wall (2007) explains, “Boundaries mark the territory of the group – who is part of the movement and who is not” (p. 262). With boundaries, one understands who the characteristics that define a group members including any shared ideologies (dell Porta & Diani, 2000). Furthermore, the boundaries of a collective identity assist in creating trust amongst the members, which eventually helps reinforce a member’s commitment to the overall goal. This communication resource aids the group in ensuring that collective action can occur as a result of the communal bond that the boundaries encourage.
This essay will utilize both concepts, network of relationships and boundaries, to evaluate the collective identity that has been established within the CharactersUnite rhetoric. However, the term that refers to the conceptual combination is “boundaries.” By understanding the characteristics of its members and strategies for creating relationships, the purpose and goals of the website are illuminated.
Framing the Group’s Consciousness
Recognizing the shared understanding that is embedded within the group identity helps to identify the ways in which groups define social inequities and the issues that they adopt as central to their purpose. Melucci (1989) claims that collectives participating in a social movement create cognitive definitions, outlining problems salient to the group. Taylor and Whittier (1992) created a similar concept that focuses on the group’s consciousness that “encompasses the creation of cognitive frames or schemas for interpreting reality” (Wall, 2007, p. 262). Thus, in indentifying a social group’s frame, one can distinguish the pertinent issues that shape the collective identity as well as the lens in which reality is interpreted.
The following essay combines these concepts as denoted with the term “frames.”
Negotiating Emotional Investment
Melluci’s (1989) final categorization is emotional investment. Members become emotionally invested in the collective identity, strengthening their devotion to the group’s social movement by helping them to “recognize themselves in each other” (p. 35). Individuals, then, understand their membership with the collective by situating the group’s identity within one another. They identify similar ideologies, members’ roles, and expectations of the group by observing the communication of other members. Taylor and Whittier (1992) expand upon the concept of emotional investment by proposing that individuals of a collective actively negotiate their identity. Wall (2007) explains, “Members often must resist dominant evaluations of themselves and their values and offer alternative means of thinking and acting in both public and private spheres” (p. 262).
From these two concepts, it can be determined that groups involved in social movements often have members that are dependent upon others to illustrate the expected cognitive and behavioral actions. Understanding if and how a group negotiates emotional investment are particularly important to identifying the collective identity of a group in regards to the members’ expectations, characteristics, and action. For simplicity sake, the conceptual combination will be referred to as “emotional investment” in the analysis. By identifying these components, one can examine the strategies that groups employ to avoid the pitfalls of oppressive and dominant behavior enacted by outsiders.
The combination of Melucci’s foundational components with Taylor and Whittier’s additional categorizations assists a critic in identifying how a collective identity is established for a particular artifact. Also, it illuminates the specificities that comprise the collective identity. From here, one can also understand the collective action that the group hopes to invoke, and ultimately their efficacy as advocates. The following analysis describes an online community’s role in promoting and enacting activism. The research will illustrate the site as a form of advocacy by analyzing the ways in which different elements are utilized to establish a collective identity that are geared toward an implied audience.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Reflection...to come
Must step away from computer for the night, but will reflect on version 2 tomorrow.
Version 2-Finally
I chose to try a different technological medium for the second version. Using Windows Movie Maker, I linked images, sound, and text to share the story of South Africa's Anti-Eviction Campaign. I published it to YouTube because I thought that would be the easiest way to access it.
My YouTube username is SugarFree0329. Here is the link. Please let me know if you cannot access the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGjkbYkbcpk&feature=youtube_gdata
Oh and make sure your sound is on!
My YouTube username is SugarFree0329. Here is the link. Please let me know if you cannot access the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGjkbYkbcpk&feature=youtube_gdata
Oh and make sure your sound is on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
