Post Digital Dialogue and Activism in the Public Sphere

  • Dalien René BeneckeEmail author
  • Sonja Verwey


Dialogue in the public sphere includes the biopower of the individual, his or her agency and legitimacy as an activist. Digital technology and social media platforms provide individuals and groups with opportunities to communicate their personal experiences and to share their opinions and views within various continually evolving digital networks that may or may not consist of structures that can facilitate protest action. Digital dialogue has drastically altered our social and political realities as well as our modes of participation within the virtual public spheres. The purpose of this conceptual chapter is to explore the opportunities dialogue in the virtual public sphere offers political protestors to influence more diverse groups, increase their resistance of normative hierarchies and improve quality of participation from like-minded citizens. The discussion is contextualised within a political protest in the Alexandra Township, South Africa.


Post digital dialogue Activism Biopower Agency Legitimacy 


  1. Akbar, W. (2018). An architecture of activism: Grassroots organizing in the digital age. Unpublished thesis, Digital Repository at the University of Maryland.
  2. Azionya, C. M. (2015). ‘University of Johannesburg millenials’ communication of brand perception on Facebook: Implications for reputation management’. Unpublished dissertation, University of Johannesburg. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from
  3. Bardhan, N. (2003). Rupturing public relations metanarratives: The example of India. Journal of Public relations Research, 15(3), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardhan, N., & Weaver, C. K. (2011). Culture, communication and third culture building. In Public relations in global cultural contexts. Multi-paradigmatic perspectives (pp. 77–107). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batel, S., & Castro, P. (2009). A social representations approach to the communication between different spheres: An analysis of the impacts of two discursive formats. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 39(4), 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benecke, D. R. (2019). The social representation of PR activism in selected early career South African Public Relations Practitioners. Unpublished doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
  7. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. New Haven: Yale University Press. Retrieved from Political freedom Part 2: Emergence of the networked public sphere.
  8. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman, K. (2016). Digital activism: How social media prevalence has impacted modern activism. MA Dissertation, University of Washington. Retrieved from
  10. Ciszek, E. L. (2015). Bridging the gap: Mapping the relationship between activism and public relations. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 447–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Constandius, E., Nell, I., Alexander, N., Mckay, M., Blackie, M., Malgas, R., et al. (2018). FeesMustFall and decolonizing the curriculum: Stellenbosch University students’ and lecturers’ reaction. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(2), 65–85.Google Scholar
  12. Couldry, N., Stephansen, H., Fotopoulou, A., MacDonald, R., Clark, W., & Dickens, L. (2014). Digital citizenship? Narrative exchange and the changing terms of civic culture. Citizenship Studies, 18(6–7), 615–629. Scholar
  13. Curtin, P. A., & Gaither, T. K. (2005). Privileging identity, difference and power: The circuit of culture as a basis for public relations theory. Journal for Public Relations Research, 17(2), 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curtin, N., & McGarty, C. (2016). Expanding on psychological theories of engagement to understand activism in context(s). Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahlgren, P. (2003). Reconfiguring civic culture in the new media Milieu. In J. Corner & D. Pels (Eds.), Media and the Restyling of Politics (pp. 151–170). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Dutta, M. J. (2014). A culture-centered approach to listening: Voices of social change. The International Journal of Listening, 28, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards, L. (2012). Exploring the role of public relations as a cultural intermediary occupation. Cultural Sociology, 6(4), 438–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere. Social Text, 25(26), 56–80. Retrieved from Scholar
  19. Fraser, N. (1995). Politics, culture and the public sphere: Towards a postmodern conception. In L. J. Nicholson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Social postmodernism: Beyond identity politics (pp. 287–314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuchs, C. (2014). WikiLeaks and the critique of the political economy. International Journal of Communication, 8, 2718–2732.Google Scholar
  21. Ganesh, S., & Zoller, H. M. (2012). Dialogue, activism, and democratic social change. Communication Theory, 22, 66–91. Scholar
  22. Ghobadi, S., & Clegg, S. (2015). “These days will never be forgotten…”. A critical mass approach to online activism. Information and Organisation, 25, 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of Bourgeois society (T. Burger with F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. R. (2004). Power and change: A critical reflection. In J. Boonstra (Ed.), Management of organizational change and learning. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Holmström, S. (1996). An intersubjective and social systemic public relations paradigm. Unpublished Masters dissertation. Internet version. © Susanne Holmström 1996.
  26. Holtzhausen, D. (2012). Public relations as activism. Postmodern approaches to theory and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hughes, P., & Demetrious, K. (2006). Engaging with stakeholders or constructing them? Attitudes and assumptions in stakeholder software. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 23, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jandrić, P. (2017). Learning in the age of digital reason. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jandrić, P., Hayes, S. L., Lacković, N., Knox, J., Suoranta, J., Ryberg, T., et al. (2018). Postdigital dialogue. Postdigital Science and Education.
  30. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  31. LaPoe, V., Carter Olson, C. S., & LaPoe, B. R. (2018). Underserved communities and digital discourse: Getting voices heard. E-book.Google Scholar
  32. Luckett, T., & Pontarelli, F. (2016). Special report: South Africa. #OutsourcingMustFall: Unity in action in South African Universities. Field Notes. The Brooklyn Rail: Critical Perspectives on Arts, Politics, and Culture, March 2016. [Online]. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from
  33. MacNamara, J. (2016). Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(3–4), 146–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moscovici, S. (2000). Social representations. Explorations in social psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  35. Municipal IQ. (2018). Municipal data and intelligence. Retrieved from
  36. Omoto, A. M., Snyder, M., & Hackett, J. D. (2010). Personality and motivational antecedents of activism and civic engagement. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1703–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rheingold, H. (2008). Using participatory media and public voice to encourage civic engagement. In W. Lance Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 97–118). The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  38. Rutherford, P. (2000). Endless propaganda: The advertising of public goods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolf, K. (2013). Activism and symbolic capital in Western Australia: An ethnographic study of the anti-nuclear movement. Ph.D. thesis, Murdoch University, Australia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Strategic CommunicationUniversity of JohannesburgAuckland ParkSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations