Ever-present mass surveillance has blocked the flourishing of a traditional dissident culture in Turkey. Focusing on popular ‘just for fun’ Instagram accounts during the lira's freefall that began in the autumn of 2021, this study seeks to identify the creative strategies for digital social resistance embedded in multimodal content sharing of posts, which are composed of visuals, text, and sound. For this, we employed a multimodal-type analysis of Instagram posts regarding Turkey's economic crisis, followed by an interpretative content analysis aiming to (1) identify, categorize, and compile a typology of the main countersurveillance strategies inherent in multimodal posts, such as memes, edited videos, and animations, Photoshop-crafted still images, and (2) explore the contextual traits of the connected dissident culture. We discuss how these multimodal-type posts support connected dissident group formation while maintaining confidentiality while criticizing governmental conduct of economic policy making in Turkey.
AdamiE (2016) Multimodality. In: GarcíaOFloresNSpottiM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 451–472.
2.
AhuviaA (2001) Traditional, interpretive, and reception based content analyses: Improving the ability of content analysis to address issues of pragmatic and theoretical concern. Social Indicators Research54(2): 139–172.
3.
Arda B (2023) Media use and political engagement: Cross-cultural approaches| Political engagement through visual mediation: The visuality of the Christchurch attack and a cross-governmental analysis of performative populist responses. International Journal of Communication 17: 20.
4.
AtamanBÇobanB (2018) Counter-surveillance and alternative new media in Turkey. Information, Communication & Society21: 1–16.
BebićDVolarevicM (2018) Do not mess with a meme: The use of viral content in communicating politics. Communication & Society31(3): 43–56.
7.
BeckmannJCzudajRL (2023) The role of expectations for currency crisis dynamics – the case of the Turkish lira. Journal of Forecasting42(3): 625–642.
8.
BennettWLSegerbergA (2012) The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 739–768.
9.
Bizimkiler (1989) TV Series. Arajans.
10.
BodrunovaSS (2021) Social media and political dissent in Russia and Belarus: An introduction to the special issue. Social Media + Society7(4): 1–8. 20563051211063470.
11.
BourdieuP (1986) The forms of capital. In: RichardsonJ (ed.) Handbook of Theory for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.
12.
CaldeiraSPDe RidderSVan BauwelS (2020) Between the mundane and the political: Women’s self-representations on Instagram. Social Media + Society: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120940802.
13.
CasasAWilliamsNW (2019) Images that matter: Online protests and the mobilizing role of pictures. Political Research Quarterly72(2): 360–375.
FominayaC (2007) The role of humour in the process of collective identity formation in autonomous social movement groups in contemporary Madrid. International Review of Social History52: 243–258.
17.
FoucaultM (1980) Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
18.
GolafshaniN (2003) Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Report8(4): 597–607.
19.
GörkemŞY (2015) The only thing not known how to be dealt with: Political humor as a weapon during Gezi Park protests. Humor28(4): 583–609.
HandM (2016) 8# Boredom: Technology, acceleration, and connected presence in the social media age. In: Gardiner M and Haladyn JJ (eds) Boredom Studies Reader. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 127–141.
HighfieldTLeaverT (2016) Instagrammatics and digital methods: Studying visual social media, from selfies and GIFs to memes and emoji. Communication research and practice2(1): 47–62.
JohannMBülowL (2019) One does not simply create a meme: Conditions for the diffusion of Internet memes. International Journal of Communication13: 23.
26.
KhatibL (2013) Political participation and democratic transition in the Arab world. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law34(2): 315.
27.
KressGvan LeeuwenT (2001) Reading and writing with images: A review of four texts. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Computers and Composition1(18): 85–87.
28.
KwakNLaneDSWeeksBEet al. (2018) Perceptions of social media for politics: Testing the slacktivism hypothesis. Human Communication Research44(2): 197–221.
29.
La Casa de Papel (The Money Heist) (2017) Atresmedia, Vancouver Media. Available at: Netflix.
30.
LammersenJ (2022) Turkish lira ends 2021 on a rollercoaster ride. FocusEconomics, 11 January. https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/turkey/news/exchange-rate/turkish-lira-ends-2021-on-a-rollercoaster-ride (accessed 6 November 2022).
31.
MadisonNKlangM (2020) The case for digital activism: Refuting the fallacies of slacktivism. Journal of Digital Social Research2(2): 28–47.
32.
MattoniA (2020) A situated understanding of digital technologies in social movements: Media ecology and media practice approaches. In: Fominaya VF and Gillan K (eds) Technology, Media and Social Movements. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 112–123.
33.
MedhurstJ (2011) Justin Smith, Withnail and Us: Cult films and film cults in Britain (Book review). Journal of British Cinema and Television8(1): 146–149.
34.
MelekGMüyesseroğluE (2021) Political storytelling of Ekrem İmamoğlu on Instagram during 2019 Istanbul mayoral elections in Turkey. Visual Studies : 1–17.
35.
Moreno AlmeidaC (2020) Memes as snapshots of participation: The role of digital amateur activists in authoritarian regimes. New Media & Society23: 1545–1566. 146144482091272.
36.
MorozovE (2012) The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York: PublicAffairs.
37.
MutluDK (2010) Between tradition and modernity: Yeşilçam melodrama, its stars, and their audiences. Middle Eastern Studies46(3): 417–431.
38.
NiemeyerK (2014) Media and Nostalgia: Yearning for the Past, Present and Future. New York, NY: Springer.
39.
Ogan CL & Baş Ö (2020) Women's rights and gender equality in Turkey| use of social media in the struggle surrounding violence against Turkish women. International Journal of Communication 14: 19.
40.
ÖktenZ (1977) Çöpçüler Kralı. Comedy, Romance. Arzu Film.
41.
OzduzenO (2021) From streets to courthouses: Digital and post-digital forms of image activism in the post-occupy Turkey. Turkish Studies22(2): 267–289.
42.
PapacharissiZ (2014) Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
ParmeleeJHRomanN (2019) Insta-politicos: Motivations for following political leaders on Instagram. Social Media + Society5(2): 1–12.
44.
PinkS (2006) The Future of Visual Anthropology: Engaging the Senses. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.
45.
RahimiB (2011) The agonistic social media: Cyberspace in the formation of dissent and consolidation of state power in postelection Iran. Communication Review14(3): 158–178.
46.
Reporters without Borders (n.d.) Available at: https://rsf.org/en/index (accessed 11 November 2022).
StöcklHCapleHPflaegingJ (eds) (2019) Shifts towards Image-centricity in Contemporary Multimodal Practices. New York: Routledge. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429487965.
55.
StockmannDLuoTShenM (2020) Designing authoritarian deliberation: How social media platforms influence political talk in China. Democratization27(2): 243–264.
56.
StraussACorbinJ (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
57.
TakovskiA (2019) Coloring social change: Humor, politics, and social movements. HUMOR33(4): 485–511. doi: 10.1515/humor-2019-0037.
58.
TannockS (1995) Nostalgia critique. Cultural Studies9(3): 453–464.
59.
TaussigM (1991) Tactility and distraction. Cultural Anthropology6(2): 147–153.
