This article argues for adopting the theoretical lens of gift exchange and reciprocity into the study of social movements and social media in an attempt to widen the horizon of the field of protest and media beyond its technological orientation. This lens invites us to see how protesters can build a movement strategically through the practice of gifting and the principle of reciprocity, and how such practices intersect with socially situated usages of digital media technologies to mediate and facilitate the politics of reciprocity. Based on an ethnographic analysis of energy activism in South Korea, the study suggests four necessary conditions for movement-building through culturally and technologically mediated forms of gift and reciprocity: pursuit of inclusive and open-ended alliances, prohibition of negative exchange, commitment to mutual interest aligned with shared movement goals, and the maintenance of voluntary and creative participation in gift exchange.
BarassiV (2017) Ethnography beyond and within digital structures and the study of social media activism. In: HjorthLHorstHGallowayA, et al. (eds) Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography. London and New York: Routledge, pp.406–418.
2.
BeckerG (1976) The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BennettWLSegerbergA (2012) The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768.
4.
Bird-DavidN (1997) Economies: A cultural-economic perspective. International Social Science Journal49: 463–474.
5.
CailléA (2013) Anti-utilitarianism, economics and the gift-paradigm. In: BruniLZamagniS (eds) Handbook on the Economics of Reciprocity and Social Enterprise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.44–48.
6.
CailléA (2020) The negative gift: Sketch of a grammar of violence and evil. Revue du MAUSS55(1): 227–246. In French.
7.
CastellsM (2012) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, 1st edn.Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity Press.
8.
CouldryN (2015) The myth of ‘us’: Digital networks, political change and the production of Collectivity. Information, Communication & Society18(6): 608–626.
9.
DenisovaA (2017) Democracy, protest and public sphere in Russia after the 2011–2012 anti-government protests: Digital media at stake. Media, Culture & Society39(7): 976–994.
10.
DouglasM (2002) Foreword: No free gifts. In: MaussM (ed.) The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London and New York: Routledge Classic, pp.iv–xxi.
11.
DumitricaDFeltM (2020) Mediated grassroots collective action: Negotiating barriers of digital activism. Information, Communication & Society23(13): 1821–1837.
12.
EarlJCopelandLBimberB (2017) Routing around organizations: Self-directed political consumption. Mobilization: An International Quarterly22: 131–153.
13.
Elder-VassD (2016) Profit and Gift in the Digital Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
EltantawyNWiestJB (2011) Social media in the Egyptian revolution: Reconsidering resource mobilization theory. International Journal of Communication5: 1207–1224.
15.
FalzonM (ed.) (2009) Multi-Sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis, and Locality in Contemporary Research. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
16.
FoustCRHoytKD (2018) Social movement 2.0: Integrating and assessing scholarship on social media and movement. Review of Communication18(1): 37–55.
17.
GerbaudoP (2014) The persistence of collectivity in digital protest. Information, Communication & Society17(2): 264–268.
18.
GerbaudoPTreréE (2015) In search of the ‘we’ of social media activism: Introduction to the special issue on social media and protest identities. Information, Communication & Society18(8): 865–871.
19.
GouldnerAW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review25(2): 161–178.
20.
GraeberD (2017) Foreword to the Routledge classics edition. In: SahlinsM (ed.) Stone Age Economics. London and New York: Routledge Classics, pp.iv–xxx.
KobayashiTIkedaKMiyataK (2006) Social capital online: Collective use of the Internet and reciprocity as lubricants of democracy. Information, Communication & Society9(5): 582–611.
23.
LewisSC (2015) Reciprocity as a key concept for social media and society. Social Media + Society1(1): 205630511558033.
24.
MareA (2014) Social media: The new protest drums in Southern Africa? In: PătruţBPătruţM (eds) Social Media in Politics: Case Studies on the Political Power of Social Media. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp.355–366.
25.
MattoniA (2017) A situated understanding of digital technologies in social movements. Media ecology and media practice approaches. Social Movement Studies16(4): 494–505.
26.
MaussM (1925/2002) The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. London and New York: Routledge Classic.
27.
McCarthyJDZaldMN (1977) Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology82: 1212–1241.
28.
MolmLD (2010) The structure of Reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly73(2): 119–131.
29.
NeumayerCRossiL (2016) 15 Years of protest and media technologies scholarship: A sociotechnical timeline. Social Media + Society2(3): 10.1177/2056305116662180.
30.
PanWShenCFengB (2017) You get what you give: Understanding reply reciprocity and social capital in online health support forums. Journal of Health Communication22(1): 45–52.
31.
PearsonE (2007) Digital gifts: Participation and gift exchange in Livejournal communities. First Monday12(5). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v12i5.1835.
32.
PelapratEBrownB (2012) Reciprocity: Understanding online social relations. First Monday17(10). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v17i10.3324.
33.
RobbinsJ (2003) Given to anger, given to shame: The psychology of the gift among the Urapmin of Papua New Guinea. Paideuma49: 249–261.
34.
SahlinsM (1972/2017) Stone Age Economics. London and New York: Routledge Classics.
35.
SmithA (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth Of Nations: Complete Five Unabridged Books. Chump Change: Illustrated edition.
36.
TerriquezV (2015) Intersectional mobilization, social movement spillover, and queer youth leadership in the immigrant rights movement. Social Problems62(3): 343–362.
37.
ToftA (2011) Contextualizing technology use: Communication practices in a local homeless Movement. Information, Communication & Society14(5): 704–725.
38.
TreréE (2015) Reclaiming, proclaiming, and maintaining collective identity in the #YoSoy132 movement in Mexico: An examination of digital frontstage and backstage activism through social media and instant messaging platforms. Information, Communication & Society18(8): 901–915.
39.
TurnerV (1982) From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York, NY: Performing Arts Journal Publications.
40.
WilkRRCliggettL (2007) Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology, 2nd ed.Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.
