1
Political Facebook Groups:
Micro-Activism and the Digital Front Stage
José Marichal, Ph.D.
California Lutheran University
The growth of social networking sites (SNS), like Facebook, has caused many to
rethink how we understand political activism and citizen engagement. In 2010, 43% of
Internet users reported using social networking sites “several times a day,” a sizeable
increase from 2009 where only 34% reported using social networking at the same rate
(Pew 2010).
Research on digital activism has emphasized the use of websites, listservs, and
other forums by formal organizations to raise awareness for their specific causes
(McCaughey and Ayers 2003; Van de Donk 2004). Information communication
technologies (ICT’s) have been regarded as particularly effective tools in mobilizing
disparate, resource-poor counter-spheres in collective off-line activity (Van de Donk 2004).
In recent years, scholars have moved away from viewing information
communication technologies (ICT’s) as simply a tool for formal activist organizations.
Breindl (2010) argues that on-line digital activism has largely been examined through a
classic “social movement paradigm.” She calls for scholarship that looks at how the
meaning and structure of activism has been transformed by ICT’s.
One key way it has been transformed is by allowing for small scale, many-to-many
forms of politically oriented communication, what I conceptualize as a new term:
microactivism. Examples include the formation of political Facebook groups, re-tweeting of
articles of political interest and sharing politically relevant videos on YouTube. These acts
reflect micro-level intentions and are not necessarily geared towards mobilization like
more traditional forms of digital activism.
This microactivism has helped bring about a radical reformulation of the political
arena. One major change that emerges from the ease of many-to-many communication
brought about by SMS is the reduced incentive to join social movements (Earl and
Schussman 2003). These new applications encourage movement entrepreneurs (Garrett
2006) not affiliated with formal social movements but interested in fomenting social
change. The ease with which individuals can create content and connect with one another
to share content is viewed by others as a harbinger of a more democratic and egalitarian
society (Benkler 2006, Jenkins 2007, Shirky 2010).
Salter (2005) argues that sites like SNS’ provide new radical public spheres that
provide additional spaces for voice cultivation and political citizenship formation. More
importantly, in his view information technologies help shift political discourse to more
informal venues that are less subject to elite control (Dahlberg 2004).
Social critics like Morozov (2009) suggest, however, that microactivism might do
more harm than good. Morozov (2009) refers to the ease with which individuals can create
and join communities of interest as slacktivism. He suggests that this ease of membership
2
and identification detracts from more serious and coordinated efforts to affect social
change. The positive feeling associated with affiliating with a movement might satisfy one’s
need for social connection without them engaging with formal political power.
Additionally, small acts of microactivism have been seen by some as counterproductive.
Zuckerman (2009) contends:
there’s a case to be made that the actions taken by US supporters of the
Green Movement were counterproductive – they added credence to the
regime’s case that US and UK forces were attempting to topple the Iranian
government and that the Green Movement was an external, not grassroots,
domestic force. There’s also a case to be made that there’s nothing online
activists could do in the face of a determined repressive government and that
we shouldn’t have expected any change to come from online activism (June
2010, online).
White (2010) faults activist organizations themselves for this shortcoming. He
decries an obsession with marketing techniques, what he calls clicktivism, for the decline in
the power of left activism:
The end result is the degradation of activism into a series of petition
drives that capitalise on current events. Political engagement becomes
a matter of clicking a few links. In promoting the illusion that surfing
the web can change the world, clicktivism is to activism as McDonalds
is to a slow-cooked meal. It may look like food, but the life-giving
nutrients are long gone.
Despite the debate around the efficacy of microactivism, very little empirical work
exists on the subject (Breindl 2010). This paper seeks to expand our understanding the
dynamics of political SNS’s by means of a content analysis of 250politically oriented
Facebook groups. Using Google Translate, I examine Facebook groups from 32 different
countries in 23 different languages. Using grounded theory (Glazer and Straus 1967) and
Goffman’s (1978) work on dramaturgy, I develop a theory of a digital front stage that helps
explain how and why Facebook users create groups. This digital front stage is maintained, I
argue, through the use of four sets of signifiers (expressivity, identity, signifiers and text
length). Because Facebook is a nonymous (as opposed to anyonmous) environment, actors
can seek to construct “hoped for possible (political) selves” (Markus and Nurius 2006).
Political Facebook groups allow for the performance of these “possible selves” through the
formation of idealized political identities. In the conclusion, I discuss the implications of
SNS applications like Facebook groups for the future of digital citizenship.
Facebook and Microactivism
Facebook groups have grown exponentially in the past year. The social networking
application provides citizens with powerful tools for expressing their political views and
aggregating interests around issues of common concern. A Google query of Facebook
groups conducted in August, 2010, yielded 397 million hits. The website allfacebook.com,
3
which tracks Google’s indexing trends, reported that Google had indexed 620 million
Facebook groups in February of 2010. The same website reported that Google had indexed
52 million groups in October of 2009, a 12 fold increase in a matter of months.
(allfacebook.com).
While it is next to impossible to determine the percentage of these sites that are
political or activist in nature, it is not far-fetched to presume that they rank in the tens of
millions. The ubiquity of Facebook, coupled with the ease with which a group can be
formed, makes this tool a convenient form of political expression. Compared with blogs,
social networking sites like Facebook have seen significant growth in the past year. As of
July, 2010, Facebook had amassed 500 million users, a gain of 300 million users in 15
months (blog.facebook.com, 2010). By contrast, a recent Pew survey found that only 14%
of teens blog, compared to 28% in 2006 (Pew, 2010).
Because Facebook is still a relatively recent phenomenon, the literature on groups
using the technology for political purposes is limited. However, there is little doubt that the
Facebook application has had broad social effects. By facilitating the formation of social
networks, Facebook provides movement entrepreneurs with an accessible audience from
which to express political views. A recent Pew survey found that nearly one-third of young
people aged 18-29 used SNS’s for political purposes (Lenhart et al. 2010).
Early scholarship suggests that Facebook use had some positive effect upon political
engagement. Park et. al. (2009) found for primary motivations for participating in a
Facebook group: socializing, entertainment, self-status seeking, and information. The
authors found that students who used Facebook to engage in information seeking or
socializing were more likely to participate in political group activity. However, those who
used Facebook for entertainment were not any more likely to engage in political activity
than those who didn’t use Facebook at all. Similarly, Feezell et. al. (2009) found that
participation in a political Facebook group was associated with higher levels of political
engagement. However, they also found that participation in Facebook groups was not
associated with greater levels of political knowledge than those not involved in Facebook
groups. The upshot of this early scholarship is that Facebook might aid in mobilization, but
not necessarily in citizenship development.
Early scholarship on the discursive potential of Facebook groups provides a mixed
picture of its democratic potential. While, Kushin and Kitchener (2009) find generally civil
discourse within politically oriented Facebook groups, Feezell et al. (2009) found Facebook
groups information to be of poor quality and the discourse to be generally un-civil. Jackson
et al. (2009) suggest Facebook group discourse, particularly when initiated by formal
organizations like political parties are characterized by “weak interactivity” in reaching out
to members because of their desire to control their message. An analysis of candidate
websites in the British Parliamentary elections of 2009, led Jackson et al. to refer to
political party Facebook groups as Web 1.5, which they define as the “extensive use of the
architecture of participation, but much less use of the community’s democratic structure”
(2010, 91).
Early research of political Facebook groups has thus far not paid attention to its
impact on identity maintenance. I argue that political participation is as much about
presenting a political self as it is about affecting broad scale social change. Svensson refers
to this desire to negotiate a political self through discourse as a form of expressive
rationality independent of instrumental or communicative modes of discourse (2009).
4
Rather than view talk as serving a direct political purpose, Svensson emphasized the
importance of talk as collective identity formation. This phenomenological approach to
discourse is often undervalued when discussing the role of talk on-line. Perhaps what
explains the increased off-line engagement on the part of Facebook users is not the ability
to affect social change, but the spaces to perform and manage identity on SNS sites.
Constructing a Digital Front Stage
While we have some insight into the effects of Facebook groups on discourse and
political participation, the current literature on the question lacks a broader examination of
the content of political Facebook groups. As a result, I chose to conduct an inductive
qualitative content analysis of a sample of politically oriented Facebook groups. Content
analysis of the 250 Facebook groups revealed four aspects of identity maintenance that
constitute what I call a digital front stage vis-a-vis on-line political activism. A digital-frontstage
provides us with a conceptual framework for assessing how micro-activists on-line
perform political identities on SNS platforms. My goal is to highlight how a digital front
stage (Goffman 1978) is created by microactivists to construct an idealized political
identity.
Theoretical Framework
Goffman defines a front stage as "that part of the individual's performance which....
functions in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for those who observe the
performance" (1978, 32). From this perspective, Facebook group creation is less about
instrumental action and more about exchanging information to perform identity. Goffman
pointed out that a front was part of a broader performance, or “all the activity of an
individual which occurs during a period marked by his continuous presence before a
particular set of observers.” This performance consists of several elements or “expressive
equipment” including:
1) The setting – “items which supply the scenery and stage props for the
spate of human action played out before, within or upon it.”
2) Appearance – “those stimuli which fucntion at the time to tell us of the
performer’s social statuses.”
3) Manner – “those stimuli which function at the time to warn us of the
interaction role the performer will expect to play in the upcoming situation”
This expressive equipment takes on a unique dimension on social networking
sites. Absent are the signs and signifiers that characterize face to face interactions.
In its stead are “digital signifiers” which include text, images, avatars, social
networks, testimonials etc. (boyd and Heer 2006). In this sense, a digital front stage
represents they ways in which micro-activists perform public identities in the
absence of traditional signifiers that characterize identity maintenance.
A digital front stage approach provides a helpful orientation towards the
meaning-making process. While creating a Facebook group is only one of many
ways in which individuals can perform a political identity, it is arguably the most
5
compelling. According to Facebook, the average user is “connected to 80
community pages, groups and events.” (blog.facebook.com). Facebook provides
what Zhou et al. (2008) call a nonymous (as opposed to anonymous environment)
from which to construct identity. Facebook differs from other on-line forums in that
it is predicated on the user revealing themselves to a network of others.
Consequently, it is not a space where one can engage in “identity tourism”
(Nakamura 2001).
Zhau et al. (2009) view SNS sites like Facebook as a nonymous, third type of
environment where rather than create new selves, actors seek to express their
“hoped for possible selves” Markus and Nurius (1986) refer to this possible self as
“images of the self that are currently unknown to others.” This aspirant self is an
identity that one seeks to adopt in the world but cannot because of a variety of
different limitations (height, physical attractiveness, shyness, lack of access to
networks, etc.). A nomymoys environment like Facebook provides opportunities for
those excluded from off-line opportunities to realize their hoped for identity.
Methods
I chose to study Facebook groups because the ubiquity of the social
networking application makes it a central forum for the specific forms of
microactivism in which am interested. I conducted a content analysis of 250
politically oriented Facebook groups. When an individual browses groups on
Facebook, they are provided with a drop down menu that provides users with
different genres of groups from which they can browse. One group includes the
category (general interest/politics). Facebook presents users with 550 political
groups from which to browse.
From this group of 550, I randomly selected 250 of them. Facebook
customizes the search results based on groups to which you already belong. As a
result, a selection bias may have resulted if I had used my Facebook account to
collect data on the groups. Instead, I created a new Facebook account without any
friends or group affiliations. This was intended to sidestep Facebook’s tendency to
customize group searches based on a member’s existing group profile. Additionally,
I was able to avoid any bis in sample selection that might inhere in my personal
Facebook social network.
I then analyzed the content of the group main page. Included in this main
page was a description of the group and any news updates the group creator(s)
sought to include. Because this page is the first page one sees when browsing or
searching for groups, it reflects the main purpose of the group’s formation. It
illustrates a digital version of what Goffman (1959) calls the front stage, or the role
we play when others are observing our behavior. Content analysis has some
limitations when compared to conducting in-depth interviews with regard to
analyzing the motivation(s) for the creation of a group. First, it does not provide the
interviewer the ability to pick-up on non verbal cues that contextualize individual
responses. Secondly, content analysis data does not allow the interviewer to ask
follow up probes intended to allow respondents to expand their answers on
individual subjects. However, content analysis data allows for rich accounts at
6
substantially lower cost than in-depth interviews and avoids problems of response
rate and self-selection bias. However, future follow up interviews with creator(s) of
these groups would allow for richer data collection.
From content analysis of the sample250 elements of a digital front stage
emerged along four distinct axes: expressiveness, target, tone and length. Using
these coding categories, I coded the text on the main Facebook group page using
Qualrus, a qualitative software package. Response lengths ranged from one word to
5,433 words. The responses were analyzed using a constant comparative method
(Glazer and Strauss 1967). This method is often used in qualitative analysis to
uncover common themes in data. The advantage of a constant comparative method
is the ability to adjust analytical categories as new theoretical concepts emerge.
Findings
I argue that many microactivists create political Facebook groups as a digital
front stage to perform their “hoped for (political) selves.” When Facebook users
create a new group, they not only seek to raise awareness about a political issue, but
they also take part in meaning-making processes about their roles and
responsibilities via those they encounter. By providing users opportunities to
reveal a political position or an opposition to a candidate, SNS sites help encourage
the formation of activist identities that may force users to reflect more deeply on
themselves as civic beings. It allows them to try an activist identity “on for size.”
The analysis led me to highlight four distinct dimensions of a digital front stage
(expressivity, identity, signifiers, length)
Dimension 1: Expressivity
Svensson (2009) identifies three forms of political discourse: instrumental,
communicative and expressive. My analysis revealed all three forms of discourse in
political Facebook groups. However, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of groups
seemed to have been created to express political voice rather than to seek an
instrumental outcome or to foster dialogue. This corresponds to work Feezell et al.
(2009) have done on the content of wall posts in political Facebook groups. They
found that two-thirds of wall posts on Facebook groups were opinion-based and, of
those, very few were “quality” opinions (i.e., substantiated by evidence).
One way to reframe the information posted on political Facebook groups is to
view them as expressive performance. The content of these groups should be seen
as an intersubjective process, determined in large part by microactivists performing
political identity. Group creator(s) with expressive purposes for creating a group
and providing information are less concerned with the validity of that information
and more interested in how the information assists in identity management.
Surprisingly, few sites were created for the purposes of fostering dialogue.
Of the 250 sites analyzed, only two were expressly created for the purpose of
“creating dialogue” between peoples: one was created to dialogue issues affecting
Moroccan youth and a second sought dialogue about the direction of the Italian
Democratic party.
7
Often groups were formed to advocate for or against a policy position. Many
times these groups didn’t ask visitors to take further action. In some instances,
expressiveness often was reflected in the apparent need to conduct a defensive
performance of political identity. A site called “Legalize Marijuana @ Serbia”
promoting a site called vutra.org, contains a set of arguments in Croatian seemingly
designed to anticipate possible objections to a site/group that advocates the
legalization of marijuana:
Vutra.org NOT promote the use of cannabis, or ANY DRUGS!
Vutra.org a website launched by a group of enthusiasts in order to
contribute to the fight for the legalization (or decriminalization) cannabis-
a….
For decades a lot of people are mistaken, because an opinion formed on the
basis of prejudice and (unintelligible)…..
Our view is that everyone should decide for themselves and their actions,
and to take responsibility for them…..(translated from Serbian).
In this instance, the creator(s) of the group seems acutely aware that the position
they are advocating is controversial and associated with a deviant behavior. As a result,
they are presenting an identity to visitor of “truth seekers” encouraging visitors to get past
“prejudices.”
Other groups were not advocating socially deviant positions but were rather
providing evidence to support a narrow policy issue. This example of the proposed closing
of a nuclear power plant in Spain required explanation for visitors. In the description of
the site, the creators call for:
…the government to reverse the capricious closure decision. For an energy
policy without ideological prejudice. Because rates will rise. Because CO2
emissions will increase. Because we have to import electricity. Because many
families will lose their livelihood. Mr ZP, forget for a day demagoguery and
explain clearly to all the Spanish what will actually involve the closure of a
Spanish nuclear plant that serves as global references for their good
performance, reliability and safety. (translated from Spanish)
Despite the plea, there is not call to take further action. A few sites were
instrumental in purpose in that they suggested “next steps” for visitors to take. This
suggests a more formal or conventional view of an “activist.” These actors sought direct
social change through their actions rather than simply performing an activist identity by
raising awareness about an issue. Such sites often asked individuals to sign petitions or to
go to a specific website for more information. For example, this Facebook group sought the
impeachment of Argentinian President Christina Kirchner. The group description asks
visitors to write a formal letter to the “Commission on Impeachment of the House” and
provides clear steps on how to do so.
8
These groups are also engaged in constructing a political identity, even if that
identity construction is instrumental in nature. However, these groups fall in line with
what we conventionally think of as political activism. Other forms of instrumental group
formation asked for visitors to engage in off-line activity (boycotts or buycotts or strikes).
Examples of such action included calling for a protest day to save the British National
Health Service and a “counter strike” against a proposed public service union strike in
France in 2009. An example of a boycott action included a boycott of the 2008 Beijing
Olympics because of human rights violations. One microactivist for example called for a
buycott of Catalan-made products:
I always try to buy products labeled in Catalan. If we all do the same, there
will be more. YES stop consuming products that are not labeled…. There are
supermarkets (I do not propaganda) that their products are labeled
exclusively in Catalan (translated from Catalan).
Other site provided detailed instructions on how to show solidarity with the Iranian
protesters during last summer’s Green Revolution. This site provided more detailed
instances of “hactivism” that could be employed to show support.
1. Show your support by changing your profile picture on Twitter to the color
green by clicking Settings >Design>Change Design
Colors>Background>009933. (This may seem trivial, but Iranians have said
every bit of support matters in keeping them going)
2. Help conceal Iranian activists who are on Twitter from the secret police by
changing your location to Tehran, Iran and your timezone to Tehran (GMT
+3:30).
3. Set up proxy servers to help ensure that Iranians can stay connected to the
outside world-
http://extrafuture.com/2009/06/15/how-to-set-up-an-anonymous-proxy-
for-iranians-using-squid-on-mac-os-x/
While many of these sites emerged in the analysis, many more sites were created
without a discernable instrumental purpose. Instead, they seemed to be created simply to
“announce” a position. This turn towards expressive politics fits with Goffman’s
dramaturgical approach. The nonymous nature of SNS sites allows individuals to manage a
political identity in a popular and convenient on-line venue. Rather than articulate these
views in private, group creators sought to put these views out for public consumption
without any corresponding call for visitors to take action.
Often sites would seem to call for action, but then not provide “next steps” for
visitors to take to bring about the called for change. For example an Italian-based group
called “We withdraw the Italian ambassador in Israel” calls for a change in policy, but
doesn’t provide on the description page how the group will go about affecting that change.
It could be that the group creators don’t know how to go about bringing about the desired
9
result. But it could also be that the creator(s) want to “perform political activism” by
making a public call for a policy change.
This group was created to demand the return of our ambassador from Tel
Aviv… racists of all kinds are asked to stay away, we are not anti-Semitic antiZionists.
(translated from Italian)
The narrative allows the creator to assert a policy position on an issue that
potentially has made the group’s creator upset. The group allows him/her/they to signal
that upset to a sympathetic audience of others. At the same time, they are asserting their
public voice, their “hoped for possible self” that takes positions on issues of concern.
Often times discourse on the Facebook groups adopted a rant-like quality with little
connection to taking action formal policy position. One example is a UK Group entitled:
“STOP SHARIA LAW BECOMING BINDING IN THE UK!! BRITISH SOIL= BRITISH LAWS!!!”
In the description of the group, the author simply expresses anger at a possible discussion
had by the government:
The wonderful Labour Government is in talks to bring in Sharia Law. I THINK
NOT!! Our legal system and law and order is in a dire situation as it is without
having another countries law brought in! It's damn insulting! I'd rather have
a new GOVERNMENT though! If the Sharia Law was brought in it would be
used by people to get out of situations by jumping between Sharia Law and
UK law. No one would know what the true law was no more. It's always been
one rule for us and another for immigrants that come into this country. The
segregation gap is bigger than ever!!
The purpose of this site was not to provide information about specific policy
decisions (although the group creator(s) does include links concerning Sharia law). The
main point of the group appears to be to reveal this position to a public. From a
dramaturgical perspective, the SNS provides a setting that gives the impression that one is
“fed up” and “taking action.” Whether the “taking action” occurs in practice is secondary.
Other groups simply asked visitors to “support” a current or historical public figure.
These sites asked nothing of visitors, instead using the platform as a means to express
gratitude or to “honor” a political subject. This honoring may simply be what it purports to
be. In one instance, a group called “Ronald Reagan” was created for:
…all people, Republicans and Democrats alike, who love Ronald Reagan. The
fact is that he was the single most greatest president of our time. His policies,
beliefs, and actions led America to flourish in his time in office. I do believe
that he could get us out of these bad times if he were here today. I also
believe that no matter how many years pass, his legacy will live on forever,
and President Reagan will always have an impact. God Bless!
It very well could be the group creator simply wants to express gratitude for a
public official they cherished. However, the creation of a Facebook page is a very public
expression of gratitude. As a performance, it connects the creator of the group to the
10
subject of the group and those values the subject signified. Creating or joining this group
says very specific things about the members.
Similarly, some groups were created to express support for an idea or a movement.
This site called “ARGENTINA SUPPORTS POPULAR RESISTANCE HONDURAN” is designed
to convey solidarity with a fellow nation going through turbulent times:
This group invites all Argentines to join the cause of the Honduran people,
supporting their protests and demonstrations against the coup. As
Argentines do not ignore a Latin American people that… is experiencing what
we sadly know. (translated from Spanish)
There is no call for the Argentinian government to intervene or otherwise lend
support. The group creator(s) is simply publicly making a statement of support. It is
impossible to know (without asking) the reason for this show of support, however it again
points to performative elements of Facebook group formation.
Expressive discourses also emerged around opposition to a position or candidate.
In this sense, the performance was tied to a specific incident, person/group or policy. Most
of those group pages addressed a specific policy. Examples of Facebook groups designed to
protest a specific action include. This UK based group called “Have you really forgotten
already? Stop the Tories” is described as a site for:
all those who haven't forgotten how bad Tory governments are and are
terrified by what is seemingly an inevitable Conservative win at the next
election...
In all these instances where Facebook groups were created, citizens focused their
attention, even for a brief moment, upon performing as a political self in a public forum.
Deciperhing the motivations for the formation of these groups was not always easy.
However, the presence of the SNS site allowed for an additional space to “perform politics.”
While not the direct activism sought by some, it is creating more spaces for politics to seep
into everyday life. Performing microactivism may help solidify engaging in politics into an
individual’s sense of what it means to be a digital citizen. Whether the intended aim is to
produce immediate political effects, it injects public issues into “everyday politics.”
Dimension 2: Core Identity: resistance/legitimation
The majority of Facebook groups examined suggested an expressive rationale for
their creation. However the subjects of expressiveness varied in interesting ways. Castells
(1996) argues that the radical transformation brought about by the network society
(flattened hierarchies, just-in time production, flexible labor pools etc.) has created a
legitimacy crisis for nation states that find themselves incapable of effectively managing
these networks. The complexity and fragmentation of the network society creates tension
concerning one’s place in the social structure. As Castells points out:
11
In a world of global flows of wealth, power, and images, the search for
identity -- collective or individual, ascribed or constructed -- becomes the
fundamental source of social meaning." (1998, 223).
Castells (1997) argues that social meaning is achieved through the development of
one of three types of identities: legitimating, resistance or project identity. The analysis
reveals examples of the first two identities. I will address each in turn.
1. Legitimating Identity
A legitimating identity, rationalizes the activities of the groups in power and allows
them to extend their dominance over social actors (Castells 1997). The formation of these
types of identities is supported by the infrastructure of the transnational capitalist class,
consisting of “those who own and control the major corporations and their local affiliates,
globalizing bureaucrats and politicians, globalizing professionals,
Given the nature of SNS’ to create alternative discourse spaces (Dahlberg 2006), one
might presume that legitimating discourses are rarer on social networking sites. However
there were instances where individuals created pages that fit Castells’ description of
supporting a “transnational capitalist class”
and consumerist elites”
(Sklair 2002, 144).
Groups that targeted legitimating subjects ranged from pages supporting neo-liberal
candidate such as one supporting the re-election of Colombian president Alvaro Uribe
entited simply “SI A REELECCIÓN DE URIBE.” (Yes to the re-election of Uribe). To sites that
opposed candidate viewed as “communists.” One Mexican-based group opposed the
expansion of a value added tax and an US based group pledged to “stand 1 million strong
against the stimulus.” However legitimating subjects were much less frequent group
targets as compared to resistance subjects.
2. Resistance Identity
Those whose are or perceive themselves to be excluded by the logic of dominant
groups develop a resistance identity (Castells 1997). The struggles often take religious or
nationalistic overtones: “God, nation, family and community will provide unbreakable,
eternal codes around which a counter-offensive will be mounted.” (Castells 1997,66).
A significant number of sites were built to express solidarity with a nation, group or
cause. Facebook groups appeared to be particularly attractive to nationalist groups
seeking to signal solidarity. An example is a group called “Wherever I Stand, I Stand With
ISRAEL.” The site provided a long list of charitable aid Israel provided to nations around
the world. One group was simply called “PROUD TO BE FRENCH.”
A US based group called “I Support the Students sent home for wearing the
American Flag” served as a site for citizens to express collective outrage over a school in
California’s decision to send students home for wearing the American flag on a traditional
Mexican holiday.
12
For those of you who support the students in California for getting sent home
from high school for wearing Red, White, and Blue on Cinco De Mayo, Please
join this group and help us get the word out about this disgrace to America!
Another example was the UK group “Lets make Saint George's Day a massive
celebration!” The group sought to solidify English identity through the promotion of a
holiday.
Its time for a change, so are English people proud of who they are?
Are you proud to be English or if your not English proud to live in England?
A small minority take offence to Saint George's Day, I say boulderdash to
them, this is England, this is our country, if you don't like it then tough as we
will celebrate our day.
The reference to “our country” in the description of the group signals a keen interest
in forming a resistance identity opposed to multiculturalism and globalization. In both the
“St. George” and the “Flag” groups the creator of the group is adopting the role of rallying a
national identity group to take pride in their heritage.
A key concern for many political scientists is to enhance the quality of deliberation
among citizens. From this perspective, Facebook groups miss the mark. In the above
example, the creator of the site is less interested in discussions regarding multiculturalism
and more interested in expressing in-group solidarity.
One Turkey-based group called simply ATATURK under its description simply
provided a 2,100 word biography of the Turkish leader. Under the “news” section after the
biography begins a section that calls on “Turkish Youth” to: “Turkish Youth! The first task
of the Turkish Independence and the Turkish Republic, is to forever preserve and defend.”
This group is engaged in resistance identity from the other end of the spectrum. The group
calls for preserving a secular Turkey against those who call for a theocratic state.
Dimension 3: Signifiers
A distinct dimension of political identity performance deals with the signifiers one
uses to express tone through words on a screen. One criticism of the role that the Internet
writ large plays in the political process is that it often leads to an impoverished dialogue.
This leads democratic theorists to celebrate the democratic possibilities for ICT’s while
decrying its actual effects.
However there were several ways in which signifiers were used to signal varying
types of political identities. One obvious way that group creators managed their political
identity was through punctuation and capitalization. This group for example, was formed
to oppose the raising of rates for parking in a Slovenian Town: “WE strongly against
introducing Pay parking!
Another UK based group called “ITS NOT RACIST TO WANT THE BEST FOR OUR
COUNTRY” highlights how the use of capitalization signals the intensity with which the
group creator’s views are held:
13
YOU SHOULDNT BE MADE TO FEEL LIKE A RACIST COS YOU WANT WHATS
BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY, IE JOBS FOR BRITS DEPORTATION OF
UNECESARY FOREIGNERS, SUPPORT OF BRITISH LADS FIGHTING ABROAD,
THE WAR ON TERROR SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO OUR STREETS AT HOME,
PULL OUT OF AFGHAN AND POLICE THE TOWNS AND CITIES OF UK, THATS
THE ONLY WAY TO FIGHT HOMEGROWN TERRORISM. F**K POLITICAL
CORRECTNESS ITS JUST HOLDING US BACK WHILE PEOPLE COME TO OUR
COUNTRY AND USE IT AS A WEAPON AGAINST US.
The use of expletives can also be thought of as a signaling device intended to convey
anger and hostility towards a group or policy position.
The insult was another device used to convey anger towards a subject. One Italian
group opposed to the communist party in Italy was titled “The toilet is ALWAYS AT THE
BOTTOM LEFT.“ A Facebook group page called “Traitors: FOR D 'ITALY” expressed
opposition to Gianfranco Fini, a former coalition partner of Italian prime minister
Berlusconi. The page creator uses insults to convey his anger at Fini, presumably for
breaking ranks with the Italian president.
Gianfranco ... no, you are not a schizophrenic but only a low-level whore,
heartless, nor flag, nor ideal.
Other times, expressiveness focused on almost lyrical mechanisms for supporting a
position. A group in Turkey called “No turban to (Turkish)”, attempts to be descriptive in
making its point
young girls who enjoy the wind in your hair around your forehead warm
smile of the sun will disappear when the child lost his brain washes away
that time of innocence, they imprisoned the beautiful head or freedom would
be a piece of cloth attached to the name of the shackles.
While the evocation of images gets lost in translation, the descriptive nature of the
appeal highlights stark differences in how Group creators in different countries use
language to perform political identity on Facebook. Often group creators used poems or
songs. An Italian group called “Children can come out, the Communists are gone” contained
a lyrical homage to the Italian Prime Minister.
There is a big dream
Who lives in us
We are people of freedom,
President we're with you
Thank goodness that's Silvio
In addition to lyrical devices, some groups used satire. One groups was formed to
support for the rock singer Lemmi for Prime Minister of England. Another supported
Walter, a ventriloquist dummy used by comedian Jeff Dunham, as a presidential candidate.
14
The use of humor in these groups conveys a sense of absurdity towards the political
process. It signals a critical, yet playful, performance of a political self.
Dimension 4: Length
Groups ranged on the length of their descriptions. One group called “anti-war”
contained the single word “why?” in the description of the group page. Pithy page
descriptions were common among the groups studied. Often groups formed in support or
opposition to an public official were shortest. An anti Hugo-Chavez group called “Odio a
Chavez” (I hate Chavez) had a page description that “ME ALTERA HABLAR DE EL.” (It
agitates me to talk about him).
The pithiness of support/opposition sites held across cultural contexts. The group
“Resignation as President Georgi Parvanov of Bulgaria!” contains the description “ This is
a group (unintelligible) cause "I want the resignation of the President." An Indonesian
group supporting former President Gus Dur had a similarly short description.
The pithiness of this group’s description has to do with the fact that practically all
those who would be interested in the group know the public official in question. Visitors
to the group “Odio a Chavez” know who Hugo Chavez is and have fully-formed opinions
about him. The page thus is intended to signal solidarity with those whose opinion of
Chavez are negative.
Often the pithiness represented the formality of the page. Sites that were created by
a political campaign often featured a brief bio of the candidate or no bio at all. The group
called “Alex Sink for Florida Governor” provided a good illustration of formal political
groups. The description of the group read “Building on the promise of change. Alex Sink
2010.”
By contrast, the Group “REAL FACE OF PKK” (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) provided a
3,572 word essay on the shortcoming of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party according to the site
creator. Sites that sought to bring public awareness to a cause tended to have the longest
responses. Group pages that exceeded 1,000 words in length included a group called
“Herceg-Bosna PROUD HEART” that summarized the effort to make the territory of Herceg-Bosna a
nation state. Other longer sites recounted the Kurdish myth of Newroz and described Greek
opposition to the name Macedonia. Each of these sites dealt with issues of ethnic/national
identity.
Conclusion
Many criticisms have been lodged against the use of SNS is digital activism. The
broad critique can be characterized by Carr’s (2010) clever description of the constant flow
of information we receive on-line as “filling a bathtub with a thimble.” With so many
causes competing for our attention at the same time, it seems impossible for us to be able
to reflect upon all of them simulateneously.
This view of microactivism, however, pays too little attention to politics as a
meaning making process. There is intrinsic value in providing a nonymous space where
microactivists can perform their “would be selves.” That Facebook is providing this venue
is ironic given Mark Zuckberg’s view of eliminating the distinction between a front-stage
and a back-stage. Kirkpatrick (2010) highlights the transformation nature of the Facebook
15
ethos as told to him by the site’s creator:
You have one identity…. The days of you having a different image for your
work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably
coming to an end pretty quickly…Having two identities for yourself is an
example of a lack of integrity.” (Kirkpatrick, 2010, 200).
Indeed it could be possible that instead of eliminating the distinction between “front
stage” and “back stage” identities, Facebook actually enables more spaces for performance
of different types of identities. In this work, I illustrate how Facebook groups enable the
creation of a digital front stage that allows microactivists to construct and manage political
identities.
From a citizenship perspective, having more spaces to perform political identity
helps bind politics to everyday life. It is important to have political spaces on-line,
particularly in an era where digital attention is short. Rather than hold these microactivists
up to the standard of formal activists, we might think of their participation in the political
process as somewhere between a full scale digital activist and a disengaged, atomized
citizen.
However, this microactivism is fraught with challenges. In Dereschiweicz (2009)
insightful essay on friendship, he critiques Facebook for providing individuals with a “sense
of friendship” rather than the actual thing. Undoubtedly micro-activism through Facebook
also provides merely a “sense” of being an activist, not the real thing. There is some
evidence to suggest a truncated view of activism among young people. Scholzman et al
(2010) points out that “young adults are much more likely than their elders to be
comfortable with electronic technologies and to use the Internet, but among Internet users,
the young are not especially politically active” (487).
When teaching a senior capstone course, I assigned the 25 students a “digital
activism” project where they chose which type of project they wanted to take on. The vast
majority of students decided to create a Facebook group dedicated to their specific cause.
The lowered transaction costs associated with “informing” on-line was a potent draw for
students. The ease with which information can be posted and shared also makes it easier
to define your public obligation as “informing.” As Morozov (2009) would predict, the
students were satisfied they had “made a difference” through the creation of a page,
although that claim was seldom substantiated. It is an open question whether this
“informing” turns into more advanced forms of engagement, or does it remain at the level
of a “sense of activism” to paraphrase Dershcewitz.
A more worrying critique is deeper critique is that many Facebook groups
are homophilous. Few political Facebook groups observed in this analysis focused on
developing on cross-cutting dialogues (Mutz 2002). Instead, these groups were polenic,
etiher opposing or supporting a group/idea/cause.
Our efforts should focus on instilling habits of microactivism such that they break
through what Parser (2010) calls the “filter bubble” of content aggregators that inhibit
your exposure to contrasting points of view. The “filter bubble” might help you affiliate
with groups you support, but it doesn’t help with finding instances to have “cross cutting”
conversations that ultimately lead to healthier more vibrant democracies (Mutz 2002).
16
What should our ultimate aims be in developing digital citizens? To define digital
activism up and focus on it being practiced effectively by a select few (Joyce 2010) or to
define it down and regard everyone and every political act as digital activism. It is worth
thinking about how we provide a middle-level view of political participation on-line that
doesn’t carry with it the obligations of full scale activism but requires political engagement
in a deeper and reflective way.
______________________________________________
Works Cited
Allfacebook.com. 2009. Google Now Indexes 620 Million Facebook Groups. Website.
Retrieved September 1, 2010. [http://www.allfacebook.com/google-now-indexes-
620-million-facebook-groups-2010-02]
Benkler, Y. 2007. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and
freedom. Yale Univ Press.
Bentivegna, S. 2006. “Rethinking politics in the world of ICTs.” European Journal of
Communication 21(3): 331.
Boyd, D., and J. Heer. 2006. “Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on
friendster.”.
Breindl, Y. 2010. “Critique of the Democratic Potentials of the Internet: A Review of Current
Theory and Practice.” tripleC-Cognition, Communication, Co-operation 8(1): 43.
Carr, N. 2010. “The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains.” Wired Magazine.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_nicholas_carr/all/1 (Accessed September
11, 2010).
Castells, M. 2009. The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Castells, M. 2007. “Communication, power and counter-power in the network society.”
International Journal of Communication 1(1): 238–266.
Castells, M. 2007. “Communication, power and counter-power in the network society.”
International Journal of Communication 1(1): 238–266.
Dahlberg, L. 2004. “Net-Public Sphere Research: Beyond the" First Phase".” JAVNOSTLJUBLJANA-
11(1): 27–44.
Deresiewicz, W. 2009. “Faux Friendship.” The Chronicle Review 6.
17
Feezell, Jessica T., Conroy, Meredith and Guerrero, Mario, Facebook is... Fostering
Political Engagement: A Study of Online Social
Earl, J. 2004 and A. Schussman, A., “From barricades to firewalls? Strategic voting and social
movement leadership in the Internet Age.” Sociological Inquiry 74(4): 439–463.
Feezell, Jessica T., Conroy, Meredith and Guerrero, Mario, Facebook is... Fostering
Political Engagement: A Study of Online Social Networking Groups and Offline
Participation (2009). APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1451456
Garrett, R. K. 2006. Protest in an information society: A review of literature on social
movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication & Society, 9(2): 202-224.
Glaser, B. G, and A. L Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Aldine.
Goffman, E. 1978. The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth.
Jackson, N. A, and D. G Lilleker. 2009. “Building an architecture of participation? Political
parties and web 2.0 in Britain.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 6(3): 232–250.
Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU Press.
Joyce. 2010. Decoding Digital Activism. New America Foundation.
Kirkpatrick, D. 2010. The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is
Connecting the World. Simon & Schuster.
Kushin, M. J, and K. Kitchener. 2009. “Getting political on social network sites: Exploring
online political discourse on Facebook.” First Monday 14(11-2).
Lenhart, A. K.Pucell, A. Smith, K. Zickuhr (2010) Social Media and Young Adults. Pew
Internet and American Life Project.
Markus, H., and P. Nurius. 1986. “Possible selves.” American psychologist 41(9): 954–
969.
McCaughey, M., and M. D Ayers. 2003. Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice.
Routledge.
Morozov, E. “The brave new world of slacktivism.” foreignpolicy. com.
Mutz, D. C. 2006. Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy.
Cambridge Univ Pr.
18
Nakamura, L. 2001. “Race in/for cyberspace: Identity tourism and racial passing on the
Internet.” Reading digital culture: 226–235.
Park, N, S. Valenzuela and K. F Kee. 2009. “Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?:
Facebook Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation1.” Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 14(4): 875–901.
Salter, L. 2005. Colonization tendencies in the development of the world wide web. New
Media and Society 7(3): 291-309.
Schlozman, K. S. Verba, H. E. Brady, Perspectives on Politics, Volume 8 Issue 02 , pp
487-509.
Schudson, M. (2004) ‘Click Here for Democracy: A History and Critique of an
Information-Based Model of Citizenship’, pp. 49–59 in H. Jenkins and D. Thorburn (eds)
Democracy and New Media. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
Shirky, C. 2010. Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. Penguin
Press.
Svensson, Jakob. 2009. E-participation and iCitizens: The Expressive Turn of Political
Participation and Citizenship in Convergence Culture. Conference of the ECREA Political
Communication Section, 17 – 18 September 2009, Leeds.
Van De Donk, W. 2004. Cyberprotest: New media, citizens, and social movements. Routledge.
White, M. 2010. “Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism. Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.”
2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-ruiningleftist-activism
(Accessed September 11, 2010).
Zuckerman. 2009. Overcoming apathy through participation? . Blog entry. My Heart’s in
Accra. Posted on 6/30/2010.
Zuckerberg, M. 2010. 500 Million Stories. The Facebook Blog. Retreived September 2,
2010. [http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=409753352130]
Zhao, S., S. Grasmuck, and J. Martin. 2008. “Identity construction on Facebook: Digital
empowerment in anchored relationships.” Computers in Human Behavior 24(5): 1816–
1836.