Networked Protests: A Review of Social Movement Literature and the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement (2017)

Social Movement Theory: Traditional To Digital

Social movement theorists have recognized the significant transition in the discursive patterns and organizational aspects of collective action (i.e.: social movements) brought about by the rise of digital technologies and proliferation of tools such as social media platforms (Castells, 2009, 2012; Tilly, 2003, 2004; Etling, Faris, & Palfrey, 2010; Murthy, 2012; Hill, 2013). There is a lack of comprehensive research on the impact of the digital (or post-digital) tools that are being used by modern protest actors to spread awareness and ideology, and most importantly, to mobilize support for their cause. Karatzogianni’s “cyberconflict theory” (2001) is an attempt to reconcile collective action events in the digital realm by investigating the underlying context of not only the event, but the nation, culture and society in which the event is occurring. She argues, “In new social movements, the internet linked diverse communities such as labour, feminist, ecological, peace and anti-capitalist groups, with the aim of challenging public opinion and battling for media access and coverage” (Karatzogianni, 2015, p. 15).

This article asserts that contentious collective action and contemporary movements have received an infusion of autonomy and grassroots energy that has been fueled by the internet, digital technologies, and more notably, social networking platforms. Or as Arquilla and Ronfeldt (2001) note, new social movements or contemporary collective action are increasingly dependent on shared knowledge (ideology, goals, messages of movement) and the use of soft power (discursive opportunities that are promulgated from the bottom-up). This adoption of the digital has led to the increasing detachment of movement networks from traditional organizational structures (NGOs, political parties, the State) that focus on resource mobilization and hierarchical forms of power toward more bottom-up, actor-oriented and coordinated protest organizations. Karatzogianni (2015, p. 18) notes that the adoption of digital technologies by activist organizations made “possible mass mobilization without leaders – a digital swarm, by allowing mobilization to emerge from free-willing, amorphous groups, rather than top-down hierarchies”. While Papacharissi also highlights that the “logic of connective action is reflective of contemporary reluctance to associate with formal organizations and the gradual prevalence of large-scale, fluid social networks over group ties” (2015, p. 70).

Social movements are a distinctive form of contentious politics that involve actors making collective claims to social or political action (or inaction), which if realized, would conflict with someone else’s interests; the generally accepted definition of politics denotes the existence of winners and losers, in protest it is the same. Politically, the government factor into the claim-making process, whether as claimants, objects of claims, allies of the objects or monitors of contention (Tilly, 2004, P. 3). It is widely accepted that social movements establish organizations, recruit participants, craft messages, foster collective solidarities, gain publicity, and mount campaigns in order to confront an opponent (Della Porta, 2009). Thus, social movement research is often based upon the assumption that parties engaged in conflict “act instrumentally with respect to their goals and strategically towards each other with the outcome dependent on the balance of power among the relationships” (Johnston, 2009, P. 105).