Advertisement

Going Viral: Online Goal Emergence and Adaptation in the Anti-human Trafficking Movement

  • Rachel Gong
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter contributes to the fields of social movement studies and digital activism by identifying three types of online goals that are well-suited to digital activism, namely user engagement, fundraising, and individual changes of behavior such as ethical purchasing decisions. These goals have emerged and been adapted organically through continued use of different types of web tools and social media. Activists believe their web presence is important in achieving these goals, and remain committed to investing resources in digital activism. Using data from interviews with activists involved in the anti-human trafficking movement, this chapter examines the relationship between “going viral” and a movement’s online goals. Goal emergence and adaptation online is driven by two types of uncertainty—an initial lack of expectations and norms online, and a reduction in control on the part of activists. The identification of online movement goals lays the groundwork for systemic means of measuring and evaluating digital activism outcomes.

Keywords

Social change Digital activism Goal emergence Goal adaptation Anti-human trafficking 

References

  1. Aaker, J., & Smith, A. (2010). The Dragonfly Effect: Quick, Effective, and Powerful Ways To Use Social Media to Drive Social Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (2010). The Imperative of Integration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bales, K. (2004). New slavery: a reference handbook (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  4. Bales, K. (2005). Understanding Global Slavery: A Reader. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Batstone, D. (2007). Not For Sale: The Return of the Global Slave Trade. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., Greene, S., & Huckfeldt, R. (2002). The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, W. L. (2012). The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, & Alexandra. (2013). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics (Cambridge Studies in Contentious Politics). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burgess, J. (2008). “All Your Chocolate Rain Are Belong to Us?” Viral Video, YouTube and the Dynamics of Participatory Culture. In G. Lovink & S. Niderer (Eds.), Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube (pp. 101–109). Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
  10. Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information Environment. Political Communication, 17(4), 341–349.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600050178942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review.Google Scholar
  12. Earl, J. (2006). Pursuing Social Change Online The Use of Four Protest Tactics on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 24(3), 362–377.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439305284627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Earl, J., & Schussman, A. (2003). The new site of activism: on-line organizations, movement entrepreneurs, and the changing location of social movement decision making. Research in Social Movements Conflict and Change, 24, 155–187.Google Scholar
  15. Foot, K. (2010). Actors and Activities in the Anti-Human Trafficking Movement. In R. Thakur & J. Heine (Eds.), The Dark Side of Globalization (pp. 249–265). New York: United Nations Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gladwell, M. (2010, October). Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker, 1–4.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, R. (2012). Body found on Twitter : The role of alternative sources in social media agenda setting. In International Communication Association Conference (pp. 1–29). International Communication Association.Google Scholar
  18. Joyce, M. (2010). Digital Activism Decoded: The New Mechanics of Change. New York: International Debate Education Association.Google Scholar
  19. Kanter, B. (2010). The Networked Nonprofit : connecting with social media to drive change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Keen, A. (2007). The Cult Of The Amateur: How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture. New York: Doubleday Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lievrouw, L. (2011). Alternative and activist new media. Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. McAdam, D., & Paulsen, R. (1993). Specifying the Relationship Between Social Ties and Activism. American Journal of Sociology.  https://doi.org/10.1086/230319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mesch, G. S., & Talmud, I. (2010). Internet Connectivity, Community Participation, and Place Attachment: A Longitudinal Study. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1095–1110.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209356243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism, and collective action. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morozov, E. (2010). The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  26. Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Shah, D., Cho, J., Eveland, W., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication …, 32(5), 531–565.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205279209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  29. Tilly, C. (2004a). Social Movements, 1768–2004. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Tilly, C. (2004b). WUNC. In J. T. Schnapp & M. Tiews (Eds.), Crowds (pp. 289–299). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tilly, C. (2006). Regimes and Repertoires. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1146–1171.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691181003628307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Visible Measures. 2012a. Viral Chart Reels From Record-Breaking ‘Kony2012’ Video. URL: http://www.visiblemeasures.com/2012/03/15/viral-chart-reels-from-record-breaking-kony2012-video/ Accessed on 21st July 2017.
  34. Visible Measures. 2012b. The Most Viral Video Charity Campaigns of 2012. URL: http://www.visiblemeasures.com/2012/12/04/the-most-viral-video-charity-campaigns-of-2012/ Accessed on 21st July 2017.
  35. Warner, W. K., & Havens, A. E. (1968). Goal Displacement and the Intangibility of Organizational Goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(4), 539–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous : the power of the new digital disorder (1st ed.). New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  37. Zald, M. N., & Garner, R. A. (1987). Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay, and Change. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), Social Movements in an Organizational Society: Collected Essays. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Khazanah Research InstituteKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations