From the early social movements like the Fall of Berlin Wall in 1989, to the WTO protest in Seattle during 2009, to the recent “#BlackLivesMatter” movement in 2013, it is not hard to find that the evolution of activism passed through two stages. Before the emergence of information and communication technologies, revolutions and protests were held using traditional technologies at hand, including telephone, radio, newspapers, etc. The use of traditional media is the feature of early activism. The first stage of evolution was triggered by Internet technologies. The political use of the Internet and the expanded communication channels became the feature of activism at that time. The second stage of evolution was facilitated by the proliferation of social media in recent years. Social media enables faster communication by citizen movements and the delivery of local information to a large audience.
Based on the evolution of activism, Sandoval-Almazan et al. named activism at three different stages as activism, cyberactivism 1.0, and cyberactivism 2.0 (Sandoval-Almazan & Ramon Gil-Garcia, 2014). In my opinion, a combination of these three kinds of activism is similar to what Chadwick suggested as a hybrid mobilization movement. Political activists today, as Chadwick pointed out, increasingly hybridize older and newer media in order to shape news and policy agenda (Chadwick, 2013). When discussing how 38 Degree activity serves as an example of a hybrid mobilization movement, Chadwick noted that Internet and 38 Degree’s strategic organizational leadership provide a coherent and efficient set of mechanisms enabling members to have an influence on emerging policy agendas (Chadwick, 2013). His point echoes with Sandoval-Almazan et al.’s point that social media allows activists to organize in a decentralized fashion and without central authority. When talking about how cyberactivism 2.0 benefits the activists, Sandoval-Almazan et al. mentioned that social media helps stakeholders of revolutions to observe previous decisions and interact (Sandoval-Almazan & Ramon Gil-Garcia, 2014). This point can be linked with what Chadwick suggested as the norm of reactivity. Chadwick argued that in a hybrid media system, it is a duty of activist organization to engage with the public on a real-time basis (Chadwick, 2013). The interactive nature of social media helps activists fulfill this duty, and thus enables them to convey to the public their organization’s responsiveness and authenticity.
In short, Chadwick seems to have a very optimistic view of the hybrid model of mobilization movements. Similarly, Sandoval-Almazan et al. feel positive about the future of Cyberactivism 2.0. However, different from their views, some researchers seem to hold a critical attitude towards social media’s political role.
In Lee et al.’s article, they stressed that social media indirectly caused polarization through increased political engagement. More specifically, political engagement online such as sharing political news and engaging in political discussion will lead the users to develop a more extreme political attitude over time. What’s more, increased political awareness and participation can also crystalize individuals’ political opinions and move them further away from the moderate position to the extreme (Lee et al., 2018). Therefore, activism in a hybrid media system that involves much work on social media may possibly harm the health of democracy.
Some other researchers also pointed out the problem of political trust in the age of social media. In recent years, the legitimacy of the mainstream media is contested from various perspectives and by various actors, including Donald Trump, who declared the media as the “enemy of the people”. But his criticism of the media seems paradoxical given his dependency of the media. According to Enli and Rosenberg, the power of mainstream media is contested in light of new media platforms and new user patterns. Nowadays politicians have been provided with a new arena from which they can criticize the media, contest their power, and undermine their trust (Enli and Rosenberg, 2018). But many politicians are still dependent on both editorial and user-generated media formats to get their message across, and their messages are constructed in a cross-media environment. According to Chadwick, in a hybrid media system, voters are presented with politicians’ performances on various media platforms and across different genres, and they are thus able to evaluate the trustworthiness of the politicians in the context of various media environments (Chadwick, 2013). However, if traditional media are gradually losing the trust among the public, a hybrid model for activists may not work so well.
In conclusion, a hybrid media system can benefit both activists and participants in a lot of ways, but whether it is really good for the health of democracy and the building of political trust among the public is still worth further discussion.
Refrences
Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power (Oxford studies in digital politics). New York: Oxford University Press.
Enli, G., & Rosenberg, L. (2018). Trust in the Age of Social Media: Populist Politicians Seem More Authentic. Social Media Society, 4(1).
Lee, Shin, & Hong. (2018). Does social media use really make people politically polarized? Direct and indirect effects of social media use on political polarization in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 245-254.
Sandoval-Almazan, Ramon Gil-Garcia. (2014). Towards cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the use of social media and other information technologies for political activism and social movements. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 365-378.