Social movements and ICTs: profiles and practices

Abstract

Since the Belgian federal elections of May 2014, many waves of protest have emerged from civil society against the austerity plan. Despite all the expectations placed in new digital tools (like for Occupy Wall Street or Indignados), it seems that protestors are still voiceless. In order to understand this phenomenon, this paper develops two analyses: one focused on the communicators (i.e. "how the social profile of activists in charge of communication may configure their communication?") and another one focused on the uses of digital tools (i.e. "how do activists use digital tools in order to enlarge participation and enhance mobilization?"). Concerning the first analytical focus, this paper highlights two parallel trends: the professionalization of social movements (e.g. Powers, 2014, 2015), and the potential democratization offered by digital tools (e.g. Breindl, 2016). The second analytical focus raises important questions for the public sphere (Habermas, 1962). Because of the fragmentation of the public (Dahlgren, 1994), new public spheres emerged (Neveu, 1999). The challenge for social movements is thus to reach every citizen, despite the fact that they do not evolve in the same public sphere. This paper focuses on two social movements: Alliance D19-20 and Tout autre chose. The methodology is based on interviews with activist communicators, on observations during actions and meetings (in order to get a grasp of the activists' communication practices) and on an analysis of their digital tools (websites and social media profiles). The informants are mainly young, highly educated, male, living in the capital region and working for non-profit organizations. While our sample points to the middle-class origin of activists, it also suggests that their ideologies are different (class-struggle oriented for Alliance D19-20 and re-imagination of leftist communication for Tout autre chose). Those activists do not have any diploma in communication. This may be an evidence of the democratization of communication. But some tasks are still considered as difficult (because of the technical or psychological barrier), such as managing a website. Two opposite solutions are put forward by the informants: training/education or outsourcing. Alliance D19-20 mostly uses Twitter, which is explained by the nature of their actions (instantaneity) and their objective to reach out to politicians and journalists. Indeed, Twitter is considered as a political-journalistic sphere in Belgium. On the contrary, Tout autre chose mostly uses Facebook in order to mobilize people and enlarge participation. Internet creates a new public sphere that is more dynamic, diverse, decentralized and effective than the traditional public sphere; it allows more citizens to give their opinions (Benkler et al., 2013). But does it really lead to enlarging participation and improving democracy? More research is needed in order to examine whether ideas do indeed circulate better on the Web or whether they are locked in specific spheres (or bubbles; see Pariser, 2012). Another threat for the public sphere can come from the misuses of online tools, which may undermine democracy, as can be the case with algorithms (passive selective exposure) and Web propaganda.