Abstract
The current research explored a new social movement network in the northeastern United States in order to build on past research concerning a Resistance Performance Paradigm (RPP). In particular, I found that the network in the northeastern community displayed characteristics of RPP but did not construct a “multiplex” of coordinated resistance as had emerged in past RPP research. I interviewed 20 activists in order to assess how the northeastern network was different from previous RPP research, and whether such differences accounted for the lack of a multiplex of coordinated resistance. The interviews revealed that the network was fractured over (a) what issues to address and (b) how to approach/protest any such issues. Further data analysis revealed that the fractures stemmed in part from activists' uncertainty about a listserv used by all of the activists in the network. Such findings constitute an additional characteristic of RPP: the capacity of a network to efficiently circulate narratives to all points in a network.
Notes
Names of people or organizations have been changed to protect the anonymity of participants. Erie City is a large city in the United States northeast with a population of 150,000; the population of the metropolitan area is 500,000.
See Denzin (Citation1997) for a complete discussion on participatory and lay audiences.
Atkinson and Dougherty (Citation2006) claim that the radical lay audiences use of alternative media was like that of a mass audience as described by Abercrombie and Longhurst (Citation1998), in that media content was mere background noise. Therefore, they termed the radical lay space of performance a café rather than a theatre.
For a complete description of the four theatres, see Atkinson and Dougherty (Citation2006).
Activist #3 was affiliated with the reformist lay theatre.
Activist X, the Web site and listserv coordinator, was contacted to verify that each of the listservs were still in use. Activist X confirmed that each listserv was still functional but refused to take part in an interview.
I use “(s)” in my discussion about the OBA listserv(s) because the perception among activists was that there was a single listserv, whereas there were actually four listservs produced by OBA.