A
portion of the debate with respect to “slacktivism” in our module’s mandatory
readings is centred around whether or not it is possible to achieve political
goals through social media campaigning. However, other readings have hinted at
something even more fundamental, which is the importance of first identifying
what these goals are and then strategically coordinating activities to support
these goals. In other words, successful online advocacy is dependent on a campaigner
or activist setting clear goals and objectives that will bring together
influential stakeholders (Juris 2012; Kreiss, 2012).
Drawing
on Schwartz (2010), Daniel Kreiss points out that “social movements and party
allies at times collaborate and coordinate their activities toward shared
goals. At others, movements engage in the boundary work that protects their
ideological purity, fashioning the party into a target of contentious politics”
(Kreiss, 2012, p. 199). During the Obama campaign, the strategic team’s
“primary objective was to leverage sites in the netroots and new media
journalistic outlets such as Politico
to shape the election narratives of the general interest press;” elite and influential
bloggers and professional journalists were “third-party arbiters” who were
“coveted” and “cultivated;” and the “shaping” and “driving” of the narrative
was done incrementally and reactively (p. 206-212). Kreiss remarked that a key
factor the campaigners needed to take into account was that knowledge is power:
“The campaign had to account for the goals, information needs, and norms of the
netroots movement, members of which were both autonomous and engaging in
electoral politics according to their own political strategy and goals” (p.
217). The difficulty, one could assume, is whether or not the goals coming from
a wide range of stakeholders (lobbyists, social justice advocates, pressure
groups, etc.) were always clear.
In
his theoretically dense reflections on the use of social media by the #Occupy
Everywhere movements, Jeffrey S. Juris argued that a “major challenge
confronting #Occupy Everywhere more generally involves the contentious issue of
goals. Many observers appear perplexed that occupiers can not seem to come up
with a clear and concise list of demands, and ongoing debates rage within
various #Occupy sites, including #Occupy Boston, about whether and how this
should be done” (Juris, 2012, p. 272). Articulating a shared vision and goals
and bringing together diverse individuals is difficult in both the online and
offline worlds, but as Juris points out: “Global justice movement listservs
brought together individuals committed to a common goal, project, or set of
interests, not only helping to build discursive communities or publics but also
constituting a communicative infrastructure for the rise of network-based
organizational forms that allowed groups of actors to communicate and
coordinate at a distance” (p. 266).
The
Advocates for Human Rights last year released a practical advocacy guide in
which they establish a very strong connection between successful advocacy,
coalition building and solidarity among leaders. They define coalition building as follows:
Coalition building is the ongoing process of cultivating and
maintaining relationships with a diverse network of individuals and
organizations who share a common set of principles and values. In addition to
sharing a common set of values, a coalition will often work together towards a
common goal or to execute a specific campaign. Coalition building can happen at
the local, national, regional and global levels. Because organizations bring
different strengths and constituencies, working in coalition can be extremely
effective and important, especially when there are broad goals such as
legislative or policy changes. A crucial aspect of coalition building is
choosing a unifying issue or issues and working together to define clear
goals. (Human Rights Tools for aChanging World: A step-by-step guide to human rights fact-finding,documentation, and advocacy, 2015, p. 101)
The
Advocates for Human Rights pulled this definition in part from the findings of
a consulting group specializing in change management called Coalitions Work,
who poetically define goals as “Dreams with Deadlines”. My main takeaway from
this week’s readings is that successful online advocacy relies heavily on the
clarity of vision and ideological cohesion within advocacy groups and
explicitness regarding the results they desire. After that comes the question
of commitment, which is amply debated in the hacktivism literature.
References
Juris, S. J. (2012). Reflections on #Occupy
Everywhere: Social Media, Public Space, and Emerging Logics of Aggregation. American Ethnologist, 39 (2), 259-279.
doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2012.01362.x
Kreiss, D. (2012). Acting in the Public Sphere: The
2008 Obama Campaign’s Strategic Use of New Media to Shape Narratives of the
Presidential Race. In J .Earl & D. A. Rohlinger (Eds.), Media, Movements,
and Political Change (pp. 195-223), Research
in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Volume 33, Bingley: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved from: http://danielkreiss.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/kreiss_actinginpublic1.pdf
doi:10.1108/S0163-786X(2012)0000033011
