Protest in an Information Society: a review of literature on social movements and new ICTs

Abstract

New Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are changing the ways in which activists communicate, collaborate and demonstrate. Scholars from a wide range of disciplines, among them sociology, political science and communication, are working to understand these changes. The diversity of perspectives represented enriches the literature, providing an abundant repertoire of tools for examining these phenomena, but it is also an obstacle to understanding. Few works are commonly cited across the field, and most are known only within the confines of their discipline. The absence of a common set of organizing theoretical principles can make it difficult to find connections between these disparate works beyond their common subject matter. This paper responds by locating existing scholarship within a common framework for explaining the emergence, development and outcomes of social movement activity. This provides a logical structure that facilitates conversations across the field around common issues of concern, highlighting connections between scholars and research agendas that might otherwise be difficult to discern.

Keywords:

• social movements
• activism
• information and communication technology

Acknowledgements

This paper has benefited from the thoughtful comments of many readers. For recommendations regarding its structure and goals, the author owes thanks to Bruce Bimber, Paul Resnick, Paul Edwards, Jerry Davis and Tasleem Padamsee. The review would not be as comprehensive without the additions suggested by Jennifer Earl. The author is particularly indebted to Genie Deerman for her thorough scrutiny and careful recommendations regarding both content and style. Finally, thanks are offered to the anonymous reviewers at iCS.

Notes

1. It should be acknowledged that though the framework of McAdam et al. provides an effective organizing framework, it does have limitations. For example, scholars have criticized it for exhibiting a structural bias, reducing fluid cultural processes to fixed arrangements (Goodwin & Jasper 1999), and for focusing on meso-level organizational dynamics at the expense of micro-level interpersonal and macro-level societal dynamics (Giugni 1998). Even McAdam, one of its original proponents, sees it as flawed. Dynamics of Contention, a collaboration between McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001), offers a radical critique of the structuralism underlying traditional social movement scholarship. The authors advocate focusing on the mechanisms and linked processes that shape contentious political activity, rather than on static models and general laws. On this view, some analyses may be better served with an alternative analytic perspective. Even in these cases, though, this framework can serve as an effective orienting device, helping to position new scholarship within the existing landscape.

2. This is not an exhaustive list of work published on the topic of cyberprotest or hacktivism; instead, I have chosen to highlight major themes in this literature.

3. For an extended discussion of the relationship between social and technical mechanisms of regulating technology, see Lessig (1999).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

R. Kelly Garrett

R. Kelly Garrett is a Senior Research Fellow in the Center for Research on Information Technology in Organizations (CRITO) at the University of California, Irvine. He is concerned with the ways in which activists and the public are using new Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to shape their engagement with contentious political topics. His recent research focuses on how people's exposure to political information is related to their partisan beliefs. This work was the basis of a report he coauthored for the Pew Internet & American Life Project in late 2004. He has also given invited talks on this topic at the Harvard Law School, the University of North Carolina, and Michigan State University. For more information, see http://www.umich.edu/∼garrettk.