Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-7
The Geographic Dimension of Citizenship in Digital Activism: Analysis of the Relationships Among Local and Global Citizenship,the Use of Social Networking Sites,and Participation in the Occupy Movement
This case study of the Occupy movement examines how different geographic forms of self-perceived citizenship—local and global citizenship—and the use of social networking sites play key roles in political activism in the digital age. Based on an online survey of U.S. participants in the movement, this study found that local and global citizenship had distinct relationships with participation. This suggests that local citizenship is positively related to local participation, while global citizenship is positively related to global participation. In this vein, the use of social networking sites has a positive indirect relationship with both local and global participation through its relationship with local and global citizenship, respectively. This study contributes to the understanding of how the geographic dimension of citizenship fosters democracy via contemporary digital activism by enabling individuals to take part in local and even global collective actions.
BellM. M. (1998). The dialogue of solidarities, or why the lion spared Androcles. Sociological Focus, 31, 181-199.
2.
BennettW. L. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. In BennettW. L.JohnD.CatherineT. (Eds.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 1-24). Cambridge: MIT Press.
3.
BennettW. L.WellsC.FreelonD. (2011). Communicating civic engagement: Contrasting models of citizenship in the youth web sphere. Journal of Communication, 61, 835-856. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01588.x
4.
BimberB. (2012). Digital media and citizenship. In SemetkoH. A.MargaretS. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political communication (pp. 115-126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BlankY. (2007). Spheres of citizenship. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8, 411-452. doi:10.2202/1565-3404.1156
6.
BosniakL. (2006). The citizenship and the alien: The dilemmas of contemporary membership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
CameronJ. D. (2014). Grounding experiential learning in “think” conceptions of global citizenship. In TiessenR.RobertH. (Eds.), Globetrotting or global citizenship? Perils and potential of international experiential learning (pp. 21-42). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
8.
CammaertsB.Van AudenhoveL. (2008). Online political debate, unbounded citizenship, and the problematic nature of a transnational public sphere. Political Communication, 22, 179-196. doi:10.1080/10584600590933188
9.
CastellsM. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 78-93. doi:10.1177/0002716207311877
10.
ChristensB. D.ColluraJ. J. (2012). Local community organizers and activists encountering globalization: An exploratory study of their perceptions and adaptations. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 592-611. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01765.x
11.
DaltonR. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56, 76-98. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x
12.
DavyB.DavyU.LeiseringL. (2013). The global, the social and rights: New perspectives on social citizenship. International Journal of Social Welfare, 22(S1), S1-S14. doi:10.1111/ijsw.12041
13.
DelantyG. (2000). Citizenship in a global age: Society, culture, politics. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
14.
Della PortaD.MoscaL. (2005). Global-net for global movements? A network of networks for a movement of movements. Journal of Public Policy, 25, 165-190. doi:10.1017/S0143814X05000255
15.
EnjolrasB.Steen-JohnsenK.WollebaekD. (2013). Social media and mobilization to offline demonstrations: Transcending participatory divides?New Media & Society, 15(6), 890-908.
16.
FalkR. (1994). The making of global citizenship. In SteenbergenB. (Ed.), The condition of citizenship (pp. 127-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
FeezellJ. T.ConroyM.GuerreroM. (2016). Internet use and political participation: Engaging citizenship norms through online activities. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13, 95-107. doi:10.1080/19331681.2016.1166994
18.
FlintC. G.LuloffA. E.TheodoriG. L. (2010). Extending the concept of community interaction to explore regional community fields. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 25(1), 22-36.
19.
GildeZúñigaH.JungN.ValenzuelaS. (2011). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 319-336. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
20.
GildeZúñigaH.ValenzuelaS. (2010). The mediating path to a stronger citizenship: Online and offline networks, weak ties, and civic engagement. Communication Research, 38, 397-421. doi:10.1177/0093650210384984
21.
GillanK.PickerillJ. (2008). Transnational anti-war activism: Solidarity, diversity and the Internet in Australia, Britain, and the United States after 9/11. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43, 59-78. doi:10.1080/10361140701842573
22.
GruzdA.TakhteyevY.WellmanB. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55, 1294-1318. doi:10.1177/0002764211409378
23.
HarlowS.HarpD. (2012). Collective action on the web: A cross-cultural study of social networking sites and online and offline activism in the United States and Latin America. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 196-216. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.591411
24.
HuangR.SunX. (2013). Weibo network, information diffusion and implications for collective action in China. Information, Communication & Society, 17, 86-104. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.853817
25.
JurisJ. S. (2012). Reflections on #Occupy everywhere: Social media, public space, and emerging logics of aggregation. American Ethnologist, 39, 259-279. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2012.01362.x
26.
KasardaJ. D.JanowitzM. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328-339.
27.
LemireM. (2002). Globalization, information society and social movement. In PendakurM.HarrisR. (Eds.), Citizenship and participation in the information age (pp. 310-321). Aurora, Ontario, Canada: Garamond Press.
28.
LimM. (2012). Clicks, cabs, and coffee houses: Social media and oppositional movements in Egypt, 2004-2011. Journal of Communication, 62, 231-248. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01628.x
29.
LindlofT. R.TaylorB. C. (2002). Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
MasonA. (2009). Environmental obligations and the limits of transnational citizenship. Political Studies, 57, 280-297. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00737.x
31.
McIntyre-MillsJ. J. (2000). Global citizenship and social movements: Creating transcultural webs of meaning for the new millennium. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Harwood Academic.
32.
McLeodJ. M.DailyK.GuoZ.EvelandW. P.BayerJ.YangS.WangH. (1996). Community integration, local media use, and democratic processes. Communication Research, 23, 179-209. doi:10.1177/009365096023002002
33.
MoraisD. B.OgdenA. C. (2010). Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 445-466. doi:10.1177/1028315310375308
34.
NdlelaN. (2007). Reflections on the global public sphere: Challenges to internationalizing media studies. Global Media and Communication, 3, 324-329. doi:10.1177/17427665070030030402
35.
O’ByrneD. (2003). The dimensions of global citizenship: Political identity beyond the nation state. London, England: Frank Cass.
PortestA.SensenbrennerJ. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1320-1350.
38.
PutnamR. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78.
39.
RamsayM. (1996). Community, culture, and economic development: The social roots of local action. Albany: State University of New York Press.
40.
RojasH.Puig-i-AbrilE. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 902-927. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01475.x
41.
RyanV. D.AgnitschK. A.ZhaoL.MullickR. (2005). Making sense of voluntary participation: A theoretical synthesis. Rural Sociology, 70, 287-313. doi:10.1526/0036011054831198
42.
SassenS. (2002). The repositioning of citizenship: Emergent subjects and spaces for politics. Berkeley Journal of Sociology: A Critical Review, 46, 4-26.
TurnerB. (2000). Cosmopolitan virtue: Loyalty and the city. In IsinE. (Ed.), Democracy, citizenship, and the global city (pp. 129-147). New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
ValenzuelaS.KimY.& Gil deZúñigaH. (2012). Social networks that matter: Exploring the role of political discussion for online political participation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24, 163-184. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr037
48.
Van den AnkerC. (2002). Global justice, global institutions, and global citizenship. In DowerN.JohnW. (Eds.), Global citizenship: A critical introduction (pp. 158-168). New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
VillazorR. C. (2009). “Sanctuary cities” and local citizenship. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 37, 573-598.
50.
WalgraveS.BennettW. L.LaerJ. V.BreunigC. (2011). Multiple engagements and network bridging in contentious politics: Digital media use of protest participants. Mobilization: An International Journal, 16, 325-349.
51.
WalgraveS.VerhulstJ. (2009). Government stance and internal diversity of protest: A comparative study of protest against the war in Iraq in eight countries. Social Forces, 87, 1355-1383.
52.
WarrenA. M.SulaimanA.JaafarN. I. (2014). Facebook: The enabler of online civic engagement for activists. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 284-289. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.017
53.
WellmanB.AnabelQ.WitteJ.HamptonK. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decreases, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436-455. doi:10.1177/00027640121957286
