This commentary describes a case from India that illuminates challenges associated with contentious political engagement among activists on social media. It specifically highlights what is posited as a disjuncture between two distinct modes of interpretation of political legitimacy in the domain of gender justice activism, and analyses how the delegitimisation of activists’ legacy can polarise political engagement on social media. It highlights how an absence of ethical engagement can lead to a distortion of activists’ legacies of actual participation in civil and political society, and asks how this distortion may inflect public conception of the ethics of social media-driven activism. It builds on work analysing the emancipatory potential (and pitfalls) of political engagement on social media.
AskaniusTUldamJ (2011) Online social media for radical politics: climate change activism on YouTube. International Journal of Electronic Governance4(1–2): 69–84.
4.
BennettWL (2012) The personalization of politics: political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science644(1): 20–39.
5.
ChadhaMHarlowS (2015) The writing is on the wall, or is it? Exploring Indian activists’ beliefs about online social media’s potential for social change. International Journal of Communication9: 22.
6.
ConoverMRatkiewiczJFranciscoMR, et al. (2011) Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM133: 89–96.
7.
CrawfordK (2009) Following you: disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum23(4): 525–535.
8.
DahlgrenP (2009) Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DumitricaDBakardjievaM (2018) The personalization of engagement: the symbolic construction of social media and grassroots mobilization in Canadian newspapers. Media, Culture & Society40(6): 817–837.
11.
FilebornBLoney-HowesR (eds) (2019) #MeToo and the Politics of Social Change. Switzerland: Springer Nature.
12.
GarrettRK (2009) Echo chambers online?: politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(2): 265–285.
13.
GitlinT (2002) Public sphere or public sphericules? In CurranJLiebesT (eds) Media, Ritual and Identity. London: Routledge, pp. 178–184.
GreijdanusHde Matos FernandesCATurner-ZwinkelsF, et al. (2020) The psychology of online activism and social movements: relations between online and offline collective action. Current Opinion in Psychology35: 49–54.
16.
HeppA (2008) Translocal media cultures: networks of the media and globalization. In HeppAFriedrichKMooresSWinterC (eds) Connectivity, Networks and Flows: Key Concepts or Contemporary Media and Cultural Studies. New York: Hampton Press, pp. 33–58.
17.
IyengarSSoodGLelkesY (2012) Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
18.
JacksonLValentineG (2014) Emotion and politics in a mediated public sphere: questioning democracy, responsibility and ethics in a computer mediated world. Geoforum52: 193–202.
19.
JenkinsHShresthovaSGamber-ThompsonL, et al. (2018) By Any Media Necessary: The New Youth Activism. New York: New York University Press.
MendesKRingroseJ (2019) Digital feminist activism: #MeToo and the everyday experiences of challenging rape culture. In FilebornBLoney-HowesR (eds) #MeToo and the Politics of Social Change. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 37–51.
MyersDGSmithSM (2012) Exploring Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
NikunenK (2018) From irony to solidarity: affective practice and social media activism. Studies of Transition States and Societies10(2): 10–21.
29.
ObarJAZubePLampeC (2012) Advocacy 2.0: an analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. Journal of Information Policy2: 1–25.
30.
PeguS (2019) MeToo in India: building revolutions from solidarities. Decision46(2): 151–168.
31.
PostillJ (2018) Populism and social media: a global perspective. Media, Culture & Society40(5): 754–765.
32.
RauchJ (2007) Activists as interpretive communities: rituals of consumption and interaction in an alternative media audience. Media, Culture & Society29(6): 994–1013.
33.
RavindranG (2017) Democracy, elections and print media in India: at the intersections of fictionalised and partisan narratives. Journal of Public Affairs and Changes1(1).
SunderM (1996) In a ‘fragile space’: sexual harassment and the construction of Indian feminism. Law & Policy18(2-3): 419–442.
36.
SunsteinCR (2018) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
UldamJ (2018) Social media visibility: challenges to activism. Media, Culture & Society40(1): 41–58.
38.
VromenAXenosMALoaderB (2015) Young people, social media and connective action: from organisational maintenance to everyday political talk. Journal of Youth Studies18(1): 80–100.
39.
WaltonDN (2006) Poisoning the well. Argumentation20(3): 273–307.
40.
WardSJWassermanH (2010) Towards an open ethics: implications of new media platforms for global ethics discourse. Journal of Mass Media Ethics25(4): 275–292.
41.
YangJRojasHWojcieszakM, et al. (2016) Why are ‘others’ so polarized? Perceived political polarization and media use in 10 countries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21(5): 349–367.
42.
ZengJ (2020) #MeToo as connective action: a study of the anti-sexual violence and anti-sexual harassment campaign on Chinese social media in 2018. Journalism Practice14(2): 171–190.
43.
ZippelKS (2006) The Politics of Sexual Harassment: A Comparative Study of the United States, the European Union, and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
