Nirbhaya, New Media and Digital Gender Activism

Adrija Dey, Athina Karatzogianni

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781787547179
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This title centres around digital gender activism focusing on the implications that the phenomenon of online gender activism has for politics, society, culture and gender relations/dynamics.
On December 16th, 2012, Jyoti Singh, a female psychotherapy student from New Delhi was raped by six men in a moving bus while making her way home with a male friend. After 13 days spent fighting for her life, Jyoti Singh passed away. Abiding by Indian laws, Joyti's actual name was never mentioned by the media and pseudonyms like 'Nirbhaya' (Hindi for fearless) were most commonly used. The brutal attack instantly triggered domestic and global criticism and widespread protests across India over the high levels of violence against Indian women and children, making it one of the biggest gender movements that the country has witnessed. The Nirbhaya case thus became a turning point in the politics of gender justice in India.
The Nationwide protests that followed the case also witnessed one of the first and most extensive uses of digital technologies for activism in India having far reaching changes in how gender activism is conducted. Keeping the Nibhaya case at its core, this book explores and attempts to understand experiences and social constructs and investigate the use of digital technologies and social media by civil society actors, activists and organisations specifically for gender activism in India.

Chapter 1

The Cyberconflict Framework and Conceptual Considerations

Digital activism can be defined as political participation, activities and protests organised in digital networks beyond representational politics (Karatzogianni, 2006). In this chapter, I establish the theoretical discussions and debates around the use and impact of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and social media for contentious activities. McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald (1996) explain the emergence of social movements, along with their development and outcomes, by addressing three inter-related factors, namely, mobilising structures, opportunity structures and framing processes. The cyberconflict framework, developed by Karatzogianni (2006), uses elements of the social movement theory including the mobilising structures, political opportunity and framing process in combination with conflict theory and media theory to understand the use and impact of ICTs and social media on political activism using computer-mediated forms of communication.

The cyberconflict framework forms the theoretical foundation on which this research is built. However, this framework was not built with a gender focus and to understand the use of ICTs – particularly for gender activism – it was essential to mainstream gender in the framework for it to be more critical about gender discourses. Over the years, social movements have evolved, and so has the study of these movements. In this chapter, I discuss the theoretical considerations and the conceptual premise that is of paramount importance in understanding the use of ICTs and social media for the purpose of activism, more specifically, gender activism in India.

Social Movements and ICTs

ICTs and social media have played a massive role in protest activities across the globe in the last decade. The use of new ICTs has changed the way activists communicate, collaborate and demonstrate. The use of ICTs, Internet and social media as a resource or weapon for social and political activism by social movements and political protest groups can be seen as an extension of a long tradition of activism and that has been further amplified by the development of new technological innovations of communication media (Olabode, 2015).

Before discussing the debates and the paradigms around the use of ICTs in social movements, it is important to examine the evolving nature of the study of social movements and the two distinct theories that shaped it. The movements across the globe in the 1960s had a great effect on the study of sociology. However, the most significant effect was the way it led to the reorientation of the study of social movements. In this context, Canel (1997) argues, ‘the older theories assumed that the passage from a condition of exploitation or frustration to collective action aimed at reversing the condition was a simple, direct and unmediated process. The new paradigms, in contrast, proposed that this passage from condition to action is a contingent and open process mediated by a number of conjunctural and structural factors’ (Canel, 1997, p. 189). Explaining individual participation has always been a complex problem in the study of social movements. The movements in the 1960s challenged old beliefs leading to a major shift in assumptions and theories. The formulation of the mass society theory, the relative deprivation theory and collective action theory pointed towards ‘sudden increases in individual grievances generated by the “structural strains” of rapid social change’ (Jenkins, 1983, p. 528).

The two distinct theories that emerged from the studies of the social movements after the 1960s was the European new social movement (NSM) approach and the North American resource mobilisation theories (RMT). Both perspectives concentrate on the various theoretical debates in their respective regions in the post-industrial societies and have reformulated the traditional approaches to collective action which is essential for the study of social movements (Canel, 1997). McCarthy and Zald (1977) argue that social movements are an extension of institutionalised actions that have restricted focus to movements of institutional change attempting to alter elements of social structure. They state that the new approach depends on political, economic and sociological theories rather than the social psychology of collective behaviour. They further argue:

The resource mobilisation approach emphasises both societal support and constraint of social movement phenomena. It examines the variety of resources that must be mobilised, the linkages of social movements to other groups, the dependence of movements upon external support for success, and the tactics used by authorities to control or incorporate movements.

(McCarthy & Zald 1977, p. 1213)

A large body of literature aims to describe the relationship between ICTs and social movements (Ayres, 1999; Cammaerts, 2005; Diani, 2000; Garrett, 2006; Orchard, 2004; Rheingold, 2002; Ronfeldt & Arquilla, 2001; Scott & Street, 2000). However, such descriptions and frameworks often fall short in their analysis as they were created in the pre-Web 2.0 era. New ICTs have a huge influence in the development of sociopolitical movements and there is a need to think about whether Internet mediated activism can be considered as a new model of participation or analytical structures need to be proposed in order to understand these new developments (Mora, 2014). In 2002, Howard Rheingold coined the termed ‘smart mob’ to describe a group of people who could come together and co-operate in ways never possible before because they carried with them devices that had both communication and computing abilities. The mobile phones carried by people not only connected them to other information devices in the environment but also other people (Rheingold, 2002).

At the same time Ronfeldt and Arquilla (2001), started talking about the concept of ‘netwars’ where decentralised organisations used the same combination of social networks and sophisticated communication technologies to start a new kind of political activism. They maintained that netwar was the emerging mode of conflict in which social and political actors, ranging from terrorists and criminal organisations on one side and social activists on the other, used network forms of organisation, doctrine, strategy and technology attuned to the information age (Ronfeldt & Arquilla, 2001). They state that ‘the practice of netwar is well ahead of theory, as both civil and uncivil society actors are increasingly engaging in this new way of fighting’ (Ronfeldt & Arquilla, 2001).

ICTs, mobile phones and other online media platforms have been considered important resources helping to generate mobilisation, solidarity and collective action in contemporary social movements (Eltantawy & Wiest, 2011). The affordability, speed and mobility offered by such technologies make them effective tools for social and political protests. Garrett (2006) argues that ICTs have the potential to alter the flow of political information, reduce the cost of conventional forms of participation as well as create new low-cost forms of participation, which can ultimately lead to an increase in participation in social movements. Bonchek (1997) agrees with this view and states that new low-cost mediums of communication offered by the Internet, mobile phones and social media have helped in the increase of participation levels by facilitating member recruitment by increasing the benefits associated with participation.

ICTs have not only increased participation but also aided civil society actors and activists to participate in advocacy and generate collective action (Shirky, 2010). Access to modern ICTs has greatly enhanced the capabilities to organise and participate in social movements (Eltantawy & Wiest, 2011). This has been especially evident in case of movements such as the Arab Spring uprisings. ICTs and social media provided the protestors with an alternative platform to organise, mobilise and also to tell their stories to the rest of the world. One of the protestors talking about their experience in Egypt tweeted that ‘we use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to co-ordinate, and YouTube to tell the world’ (Howard, 2011).

While there is a wide range of literature that speak about the use of ICTs and social media for dissent, few scholars have pointed out precisely to what extent social media has been used successfully, or has the potential to be used successfully, in the context of digital activism. (Ayres, 1999; Cammaerts, 2005; Diani, 2000; Garrett, 2006; Orchard, 2004; Rheingold, 2002; Ronfeldt & Arquilla, 2001; Scott & Street, 2000). In this context, Chebib and Sohail (2011) say that social media has been used successfully in many social movements and their main purpose have been to facilitate organising movements and holding discussions. However, they maintain that social media in itself cannot be termed a ‘trigger’ for a revolution. It is also to be noted that, just as ICTs have given power to the activists, new technologies have also given the state increased powers of surveillance and censorship. Belarus, China, Azerbaijan, Egypt and India are all examples where the state censored the uses of mobile networks and social media sites under circumstances it deemed politically necessary.

To build a theoretical foundation upon which my analysis rests, I have used the cyberconflict framework. The cyberconflict framework was devised by Karatzogianni (2006) in order for us to understand the role of ICTs in social movements. Even though this framework was formulated in the pre-social media age, it is still relevant and extremely useful in understanding activism that depends largely on new digital technologies. The cyberconflict framework combines elements of social movement theory with media theory and conflict theory to understand the motivations, origins, dynamics and impact of ICTs on social movements.

McAdam et al. (1996), explain the emergence, development and outcome of social movements by considering three inter-related factors: mobilisation structures, opportunity structures and framing processes. Garrett (2006) also based her framework on digital activism on the same parameters. However, she further extended it by analysing the influence of ICTs on mobilisation structures, opportunity structures and framing processes. In devising the cyberconflict framework, Karatzogianni (2006) uses these same parameters to analyse the influence of digital technologies on social movements. However, she further extends it by combining it with media theory and conflict theory in order to gain a complete understanding of the impacts of ICTs on conflicts and contentious movements across the globe. This integrated model is particularly suitable for understanding gender activism in India and hence I have considered this as the primary theoretical framework guiding further analysis for this book. The framework lays out the following parameters to be looked at while analysing cyberconflicts: (1) environments of conflicts and conflict mapping (real and virtual), (2) sociopolitical cyberconflicts (mobilisation structure, political opportunity structure, framing process), (3) ethnoreligious cyberconflicts (ethnic-religious affiliation, chauvinism, discourses of inclusion and exclusion), and (4) the Internet as a medium/media theory (Karatzogianni, 2006).

Social Movement Theory

In the cyberconflict framework, Karatzogianni (2006) specifically uses social movement theories to understand the emergence, development and outcome of social movements by addressing the effects of ICTs and social media on mobilisation structures, political opportunity structure and framing process. In the following section, I aim to elaborate on these three inter-related factors in order to develop a critical understanding of the use and impact of ICTs in the context of sociopolitical activism. This section is of great importance in forming the basis of analysis for this research and help to answer questions related to participation, recruitment, leadership, mobilisation structure, collective action, opportunity structures and framing processes.

Mobilisation Structure

Mobilisation structure refers to the processes by which a system is created to facilitate the contentious activities in a political situation. McCarthy (1996) defines mobilisation structures as the mechanism that enables individuals and groups to organise and engage in collective action. He states that mobilisation structures are ‘agreed upon ways of engaging in collective action which includes particular “tactical repertoires”, particular “social movement organisational” forms and “modular social movement repertoires”’ (McCarthy, 1996, p. 141). Mobilisation is an integral part of any movement and it involves preparing and carrying out protest actions. Active participants in a movement are usually networks of groups and organisations that mobilise and protest to promote or resist social change, which is the ultimate goal of any social movement. The open, decentralised, non-hierarchical structures of new social movements make them ideal for Internet communication (Karatzogianni, 2006, p. 59). Garrett (2006) further divides mobilisation structure into two categories: social structures and tactical repertoires.

Social Structures

Garrett (2006) states that social structures ‘encompass both formal configurations, such as social movement organisations or churches and informal configurations, such as friendship and activist networks’ (Garrett, 2006, p. 203). McCarthy (1996) further states that at the least organised end of the map of social movement participation are families and networks of friends. A wide range of local dissent is built upon the structures of everyday life. Kinship and friendship networks have been central to the understanding of movement recruitment as well as understanding the formation of emergent local movement groups. In this context, Buechler (1990) argues that the success of a social movement may depend on whether they can achieve a balance between social movement organisations (SMOs) and social movement communities (SMCs) activities in the pursuit of their goals. He argues,

The social movement community … is a parallel to an SMO in that both concepts refer to groups that identify their goals with the preferences of a social movement and attempt to implement those goals. Whereas the SMO does so by recourse to formal, complex organisational structures, however, the SMC does so through informal networks of politicised individuals with fluid boundaries, flexible leadership structures, and malleable divisions of labour With the addition of this concept, SMI’s may now be defined as consisting of all the SMOs and SMCs that are actively seeking to implement the preference structures of a given Social Movement.

(Buechler, 1990, p. 42)

Ronfeldt and Arquilla (2001) define collective identity as the perception among individuals that they belong to a larger community by virtue of the grievances that they share. In traditional theories, the study of collective behaviour did not include the study of the social movement itself, but the system’s sources of disequilibrium that led to the collective actions (Ronfeldt & Arquilla, 2001).

The solidarity model/breakdown model can also be used to explain popular participation in social movements. According to Tilly (1980), there are two reasons for why social integration or social solidarity facilitates mobilisation. Firstly, social solidarity provides people with a communal goal and a set of common values, around which they can mobilise, a communication network and a structure of authority. Thus, solidarity theorists agree that unless the above factors are present, mobilisation is unlikely to take place (Tilly, 1980). Social movements can expand in two ways, either by recruiting individuals or by recruiting an entire bloc of previously mobilised people. So secondly, solidarity makes bloc mobilisation possible. According to Useem (1980), ‘mobilisation is made much easier when on-going movements are able to draw previously established groups into their organisation’ (Useem, 1980, p. 357).

Breakdown theory, on the other hand, focuses on social isolation. The ‘mass society’ version of the breakdown model states that an individual is most likely to join a movement when they are detached and have a weak sense of identification with the community (Snow, Cress, Downey, & Jones, 1998). Unlike the solidarity model, mass society theorists have argued that participating in secondary organisations, such as fraternal groups and political clubs actually prevent people from participating in social movements (Useem, 1980). The ‘discontent model’ of the breakdown theory states that there needs to be a certain level of discontent within the community that explains their participation in social movements and people who share strong attachments within the community are normally insufficiently discontented to participate in social movements (Useem, 1980).

When looking at new social movements, an extensive participation by the middle class can be observed. This middle class ‘participation revolution’ is rooted in deep post-materialist values, emphasising direct participation and a moral concern towards the plight of others (Karatzogianni, 2006, p. 54). NSM theorists argue that middle class forms the chief participants of new social movements since they are neither bound by any corporate profit motives nor dependant on the corporate world for their sustenance. They tend to be highly educated and work in academia, arts or human service agencies (Pichardo, 1997). In this context, Eder (1985) states that the struggle to overcome a fear of non-realisation of universal moral concepts such as justice, peace or the good life is the reason for collective protest where

the petit bourgeois fills the role which is rehearsed throughout history: it plays the role of a guardian of the moral virtues of modernity, a role which it has learned how to play since its birth.

(Eder, 1985, p. 889)

Tactical Repertoires

Tactical repertoires can be described as ‘forms of protest and collective action that activists are familiar with and able to utilise. Thus, supporters are more likely to mobilise around an issue if there is an existing organisational infrastructure and familiar forms of protests’ (Garrett, 2006, p. 204).

Mobilisation is also the process by which a group secures collective control of resources required for collective action. Therefore, we must take into consideration how resources that contribute towards social change are collected and to what extent is the movement dependant on outside support for resources.

Freeman (1979) distinguishes between tangible assets such as money, facilities and means of communications from intangible or human assets, which form the central part of the movement. Traditionally, it has been believed that the direct beneficiaries of the social change come from non-institutionalised resources. However, McCarthy and Zald (1977) have argued that the movements of the 1960s and the 1970s not only obtained resources from the conscious constituency of an affluent middle class but also from institutional resources such as welfare organisation, universities, mass media, private foundations, government agencies and even business corporations. Jenkins (1983) argues,

Social movements have therefore shifted from classical social movement organisations (or classical SMOs) with indigenous leadership, volunteer staff, extensive membership, resources from direct beneficiaries, and actions based on mass participation, towards professional social movement organisations (or professional SMOs) with outside leadership, full time paid staff, small or non-existent membership, resources from conscience constituencies, and actions that ‘speak for’ rather than involve an aggrieved group.

(Jenkins, 1983, p. 533)

On the other hand, Olson (1965) states the difficulties of movements being mobilised around collective material benefits and free-riding being a major point of concern (Olsen, 1965 cited in Morris & Muller, 1992). He states that mobilisation is only possible if distinct divisible benefits are offered to the group and the group is sufficiently small that the benefits of the individual are greater than the cost required to accumulate the collective goods. There have been several arguments against Olsen’s hypothesis. It has been observed that in certain instances t...