Political participation on social media platforms in Sweden today ...

MCP 10 (3) pp. 347–354 Intellect Limited 2014

International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics Volume 10 Number 3 © 2014 Intellect Ltd Commentaries. English language. doi: 10.1386/macp.10.3.347_3

Jakob Svensson Uppsala University

Political participation on social media platforms in Sweden today: Connective individualism, expressive issue engagement and disciplined updating In my recent work, I have studied political participation on social media platforms in today’s Sweden in different projects and on different levels (Svensson 2011a, 2012, 2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c). The overall research aim has been to understand what motivates political participation on social media platforms. In this short commentary, I will summarize some general findings. My research has not been representative of all political participation on social media platforms in Sweden today. What I offer here are qualitatively grounded observations across different landscapes of participation online. My aim is to elaborate these observations in future work. I have approached political participation from where it is initiated and to where it is directed. In this way I ended up with a delineation consisting of three levels: parliamentary, activist and popular cultural participation. Parliamentary participation is initiated from within the Parliament. Activist

347

Jakob Svensson

1. For O’Reilly, social media are websites where the user himself or herself has the opportunity to contribute to the content on the site. 2. Ellison and boyd define social network sites as web-based services that allow the user to create a (semi-) public profile and then connect this profile to other users whose contacts are then made available to the user by the service.

348

participation is initiated outside of Parliament but directed towards it. Finally, popular cultural participation is initiated from outside the Parliament and not directed towards it (for an elaboration, see Svensson 2011b). Out of this delineation, I have conducted in-depth ethnographic case studies on all levels. First, I researched a politician campaigning on social media (among other things) during the 2010 elections (see Svensson 2011a, 2014b). Second, I followed a neighbourhood group in southern Stockholm using social media with the aim of saving their local bathhouse from destruction (see Svensson 2012, 2014c). And finally, I participated in political discussions in so-called forums and clubs in a gay online community (see Svensson 2013, 2014a). I have approached social media as communication platforms where the user is able to contribute to the platforms’ content. Here, I rely more on O’Reilly’s (2005)1 general definition of Web 2.0 than Ellison and boyd’s (2007)2 popular, but more specific, delineation of social network sites. In my research, it has been important to include both interactive and networking functions of social media (what is often referred to as the ‘social’ of social media) without downplaying their broadcasting functions that continue to be central for social media usage. In all of my cases, social media were used both to network with like-minded people (such as fellow party members, cause-sympathisers or people with the same sexual and political orientation) and to spread information about a political position or an upcoming demonstration or event. In a way, this approach resembles Jenkins et al.’s (2013) recent description of social media as ‘spreadable’. Indeed, spreading/broadcasting I believe is a more accurate description of what is happening on social media than the often used verb ‘sharing’. But in contrast to Jenkins et al., I am more critical of the supposed empowering potential of social media (see also Fuchs 2014 for an in-depth criticism of Jenkins’ account). It has been important in my research to acknowledge that media usage not only brings new techniques for communicating, but also contributes to the shaping of our everyday life, offering assumptions about who we are and our place in society. As such, social media are not neutral. My cases show, for example, that they privilege those who are connected, active and recognized. To further elaborate on the non-neutrality of social media, I have approached them as intertwined with the time in which we live. The media we use and the society we live in cannot be studied apart, as also accounts of ‘mass society’ and ‘network society’ underline (see van Dijk 2006). I suggest describing our time as digital late modernity since both the media we use and our society can be understood in terms of today’s increasingly important trends of individualism and reflexivity. We see, for example, how users on social media negotiate themselves as unique and yet connected individuals. Given all the possibilities for self-presentation that are offered, and indeed pushed for, on social media, this might not be surprising. Individuality is connected to other users, brands and practices. Van Dijck (2013) describes this as a connective culture, a culture that is thriving on social media platforms and that is underpinning the business models of today’s social media conglomerates. The individual becomes central for the communication and exchange on social media platforms. These are platforms where other users, groups and communities play a pivotal role in how these individuals reflexively explore themselves, their self-image and their biographies. Hence, individuals cannot be disconnected from larger groups and collectives. This has been discussed as networked individualism (Wellman 2001) or networked collectivism

Political participation on social media …

(Baym 2010). Inspired by Bennett and Segerberg (2012) and van Dijck (2013), I suggest the term connective individualism. I will return to this further on. But what I want to underline here is that the delineation between individual and collective identities that has been at the centre of some theoretical debates (see e.g., Mouffe 2005 in her criticism of Giddens and Beck) needs to be reconsidered. I have been inspired both by late modern theoreticians who put individual biographization at the centre of political participation (such as Giddens 1991 and Beck 1997) and political theoreticians who emphasize collective identifications for the political (such as Mouffe 2005). However, I do not consider these approaches mutually exclusive. Approaching individualism as connective, a bridge can be built between those who understand individualism as constructing personal life stories and those who understand individuals as consisting more of group identifications. Indeed, to negotiate yourself as a politically interested individual is intertwined with connecting yourself/selves to larger ideologies, political groups and collectives. For example, in both the bathhouse battle (Svensson 2012, 2014c) and the online gay community case studies (Svensson 2013, 2014a), larger us–them identifications (often along established lines of the left versus the right) were used to make participation meaningful, as well as personal life stories. When it comes to politics, I have departed from a broad definition of it as those issues and practices that concern the organization of society and our coexistence in it. This is a common definition that goes back to Dewey (1927), Arendt ([1958] 1998) and Foucault ([1973] 1994/[1988] 1994), among others. Here, conflicts between different groups over how the common resources of society could/should be divided become important, together with ideas of equality and justice, for motivating people to participate in issues regarding the organization of society and our coexistence in it. As Mouffe (2005) has highlighted, conflicts also entail that participants come to negotiate/see themselves as part of a larger group, an ‘us’ against a ‘them’. In this way, processes of connectedness are important if the aim is to understand motivations of participation. In our time of a changing media and communication landscape and of political change, it is of prime importance to try to understand how emerging social media platforms and the communication within these intertwine with the time in which we live and the motivations behind political participation. Hence, it is the reciprocity between social media, late modern societies and political participation that has guided me in my research. Discerning common trends here has not been easy since political participation varies, as do the social media platforms we use. Still, I would like to suggest some processes that stand out in my material across the different levels of political participation studied. Given the non-neutrality of social media platforms, they facilitate certain forms of participation above others. Communication is indeed more reflexive, driven by getting attention for the information that is posted. Users want their messages to spread online, to go viral. Other users should be able to identify with the message posted so that they are willing to connect this to themselves, something users do when they spread other users’ messages on their own social media profiles. In the field of political participation, this has been labelled ‘easy-to-personalize action themes’ or ‘memes’ that travel through personal appropriation and spreading. Bennett and Segerberg (2012) define this as connective action and thus highlight personalized and socially mediated communication processes as fundamental for structuring many of the

349

Jakob Svensson

new forms of participation we witness today (e.g., the Occupy movement and the ‘Indignados’). Political participation in digital late modernity can partly be understood in terms of the connections social media users have and can mobilize to spread a message. Indeed, connectivity has become a resource in today’s society (van Dijck 2013) for negotiating individuality as well as mobilizing participation. The mutuality between connectivity, individualism and political participation was apparent in all the cases I studied, from the spreading of ‘memes’ to the connection of individuals to political causes and statements. I use the term connective individualism since it describes this mutuality as well as the mutuality of collective and individual identifications (as discussed previously). These processes of connective individualism seem to become increasingly underlined in digital late modernity. What I have also witnessed in my studies is a type of expressive issue engagement. Engagement in single issues is expressive in the sense that these are issues that are reflexively chosen and therefore intertwined with the selfnegotiation on social media platforms. Single issues motivate participation, and some issues more than others, as Verba et al. (1995) highlighted with their notion of issue engagement. With the idea of expressive issue engagement I want to underline that issues are not only motivated by individuals’ political convictions, but they are also important for expressing and sustaining the story of the self – in my cases, as politically interested persons with particular political orientations. For example, the politician I studied wanted to express herself as a hardworking liberal (see Svensson 2011a, 2014b). The bathhouse supporters negotiated themselves as local grass roots democracy activists (see Svensson 2012, 2014c). And the participants on the gay forum positioned themselves as either to the right or to the left of the political spectrum (Svensson 2013, 2014a). Hence, participation on social media seems to be driven by expressing political identities and connecting the political self to other groups, collectives and issues. Therefore, participation becomes catchy, short and perhaps more caricature-esque. Examples in my cases are how people online use easily understood frames of the political, such as the left versus the right, to quickly orient themselves and others in the political landscape, as well as to give meaning to the quick and short updates online (Svensson 2013, 2014a). It is interesting how the right–left scale stands out in my material on all levels. That ideologies should have become irrelevant as Bell predicted in 1960 seems not to be the case. An increasing focus on negotiating yourself-image and biography has not made ideology-based participation history (as Giddens and Beck have argued for). On the contrary, the political positions we express on social media platforms largely follow established ways of conceiving the political. It seems we need these established ways to understand and make sense of the quick, short, expressive political participation on social media, and to connect it to ourselves and to others. Bennett and Segerberg (2012) underline that issues may resemble older political movements and topics. What is different today is that participation has become more easily personalized and social media help in spreading such personalized action themes (memes). Bennett and Segerberg talk here about inclusive personal expressions rather than ideological identifications. What is important to underline though is that individuals cannot negotiate themselves without others. To share a political identification you need others to share with, others who at the same time acknowledge you and your identity. Thus, through connective individualism,

350


political participation becomes more expressive and single-issue oriented. In other words, expressive issue engagement thrives in digital late modernity. Another practice that stands out in my material is updating. Updating has become the central practice in digital late modernity. We need both to be updated on what is going on in our social media networks (of like-minded people, groups and issues we wish to connect ourselves to) and to update our social media networks on what is happening in our lives and biographies in which political positions and opinion expression matter. The campaigning politician (in Svensson 2011a, 2014b), for example, used social media to update her political image, the political persona she wanted to convey. Similarly, in the gay community, political postings could be understood as a way to update potential dates, to identify what type of people they were and what types of people they were looking for (in terms of political orientation). In the bathhouse cause (Svensson 2012, 2014c), sympathizers needed to be updated to follow what happened in the battle, and if requested, to come to demonstrate and show their support. The bathhouse case is particularly interesting because it underlined how updating practices on social media platforms to some extent were disciplined. Having connected their individual profile to the bathhouse cause on social media platforms, supporter started to get information/updates flowing towards them. Some of this information pushed the supporters to act, for example, to come to demonstrations and protest against police eviction of activists occupying (guarding) the bathhouse. Foucault ([1973] 1994) argued that power is exercised over those who display information that is later used to control them. Connecting yourself to a political cause seems, if not to control, then at least push people to stay true to their displayed identity negotiation and act accordingly. This was visible in all the cases I studied. Hence, the late modern reflexive self adapts, not only to the disciplining gazes of others (as Foucault ([1973] 1994) has argued with the ‘panopticon’), but also to the reflexive gaze of our own selves. And since the negotiation of the self is (semi-)public on social media platforms, the display of a coherent self becomes all the more important. Therefore, I argue that updating and being updated are not only about ‘freely’ and leisurely broadcasting information about yourself (selves) and your doings and checking out those of your friends, they are also about being disciplined. New demands are being placed on individuals in digital late modern societies characterized by social media, as the latter are inhabited by connected individuals expressing their engagement in particular issues. Updating your image and life story becomes a never-ending practice, a necessity that is also pushed by social media conglomerates, not the least since they capitalize on our updatings (van Dijck 2013; Fuchs 2014). Hence, we are disciplined/pushed by ourselves, as well as by the social media platforms we use, to check the information that flows towards us constantly and to contribute to this flow ourselves. In the gay community study (Svensson 2013, 2014a), users talked about being left behind if they did not constantly check what was going on in the forum (especially in threads they had contributed to), whereas in the battle for the bathhouse (Svensson 2012, 2014c) participants talked about feeding the followers with information to stay interested and on the radar for their sympathizers. Social media have made it easier to connect to political causes and being standby in issues that matter for the individual and the ‘you’ expression of the political self (see Hands 2011; Amnå and Ekman 2014). Social media

351

Jakob Svensson

facilitate mobilization of supporters (being on standby) who want to connect their personhood to the political issue they have displayed as being important to them. Social media also make possible an expression of the self and the life story by connecting the individual to that/those he or she wants to be associated with as discussed with the concept of connective individualism and expressive issue engagement. But to do this you need to be standby by being constantly updated. In my studies this was evident in how activists reflexively connected the story of themselves-as-activists to the bathhouse cause by creating, following and liking Facebook pages, Twitter accounts and various blogs. The politician negotiated a liberal political persona and hence connected to fellow party members. This connectedness meant that information started to flow towards them online, information that in turn not only mobilized but also disciplined participation. This was about political interest but also about the credibility of the political image negotiated. Sympathizers outside the bathhouse, for example, expressed that they had no choice but to come to show their support. Having connected online, they received information that then made them act offline. In the end, this concerns how we create meaning with our lives and ourselves. In a late modern society, in which the authorities of modernity have declined in importance, it is increasingly in the creation of our biographies that we create, negotiate and sustain meaning. On social media platforms, we turn to others (often self-selected) to test, see and confirm that the story that supplies our lives with meaning also resonates with how users in our networks conceive us. Being alone can hardly make a meaningful identity; we need others in order to be ourselves. We are talking about disciplining on several different levels here. We are disciplined to self-negotiation in a digital late modern society. In this self-negotiation we are in turn disciplined by the gazes that our social media connections direct towards us. As van Dijck (2013) argues, connectivity derives from a continuous pressure, both from peers and from technology. But it does not stop here. We are also disciplined by ourselves. Staying true to the image we are conveying might then push us towards participation in order. These concepts – disciplined updating, expressive issue engagement and connective individualism – need to be studied further, more eloquently elaborated upon and connected to other trends and research in the field. The concepts also need to be tested in larger samples to see whether they work. I look forward to working with them in the future.

References Amnå, E. and Ekman, J. (2014), ‘Standby citizens: Diverse faces of political passivity’, European Political Science Review, 6: 2, pp. 261–281. Arendt, H. ([1958] 1998), The Human Condition, 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baym, N. (2010), Personal Connections in the Digital Age, Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. (1997), The Reinvention of Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press. Bell, D. (1960), The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bennet, L. and Segerberg, A. (2012), ‘The logic of connective action’, Information Communcication and Society, 15: 5, pp. 739–68.

352


Dewey, J. (1927), The Public and its Problems, Athens: Ohio University Press. Ellison, N. and boyd, d. (2007), ‘Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship’, Computer-Mediated Communication, 13: 1, pp. 210–230. Foucault, M. ([1973] 1994), ‘Truth and juridical forms’, in J. D. Faubion (ed.), Power – Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984 Volume 3, London: Penguin Books, pp. 1–89. —— ([1988] 1994), ‘The political technology of individuals’, in J. D. Faubion (ed.), Power – Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984 Volume 3, London: Penguin Books, pp. 403–417. Fuchs, C. (2014), Social Media. A Critical Introduction, London: Sage. Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press. Hands, J. (2011), @ is for Activism. Dissent, Resistance and Rebellion in a Digital Culture, New York: Pluto Press. Jenkins, H., Ford, S. and Green, J. (2013), Spreadable Media. Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture, New York: New York University Press. Mouffe, C. (2005), On the Political, London: Routledge. O’Reilly, T. (2005), ‘What is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software’, oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-isweb-20.html. Accessed 10 January 2013. Svensson, J. (2011a), ‘Nina on the net – A study of a politician campaigning on social networking sites’, The Central European Journal of Communication, 5: 2, pp. 190–206. —— (2011b), ‘Theorizing citizenships in late modern ICT societies’, Triple C, 9: 2, pp. 277–88. —— (2012), ‘Social media and the disciplining of visibility. Activist participation and relations of power in network societies’, European Journal of E-Practice, 2012: 16, June/July, pp. 16–28. —— (2013), ‘What kind of cultural citizenship? Dissent and antagonism when discussing politics in an online gay community’, in I. W. Casteknovo and E. Ferrari (eds), Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on eGovernment ECEG2013, Reading: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd, pp. 674–80. —— (2014a), ‘Political participation frames in gay community’, in P. Parycek and N. Edelmann (eds), CeDem2014. Conference on E-Democracy and Open Government, Krems: Donau-Universität-Krems, pp. 155–68. —— (2014b), ‘The mediatization of campaign organizations social media practices in the Nina Larsson campaign’, in J. Pallas, S. Jonsson and L. Strannegård (eds), Organizations and Media – Organizing in A Mediatized World, London: Routledge, pp. 205–19. —— (2014c), ‘Activist capitals in network societies. Towards a typology for studying networking power in contemporary activist demands’, First Monday, 19: 8 (forthcoming). van Dijck, J. (2013), The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media, Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Dijk, J. (2006), The Network Society, 2nd ed., London: Sage. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L. and Brady, H. (1995), Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wellman, B. (2001), ‘Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25: 2, pp. 227–52.

353

Jakob Svensson

Suggested citation Svensson, J. (2014), ‘Political participation on social media platforms in Sweden today: Connective individualism, expressive issue engagement and disciplined updating’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 10: 3, pp. 347–354, doi: 10.1386/macp.10.3.347_3

Contributor details Dr Jakob Svensson is Associate Professor of Media and Communication Studies at Uppsala University, Sweden, where he directs the Master Programme in Digital Media and Society. His two main research interests are political participation in the digital age and mobile communication for social change. Contact: Department of Informatics and Media, Uppsala University, Box 513, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected] Jakob Svensson has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

354