Despite the market dominance of WeChat in contemporary China, we currently know little about its significance for Chinese politics. WeChat enables strong-tie communicative networks, which prior research indicates is consequential for contentious political engagement. Drawing on evidence from focus groups conducted with Chinese citizens in the United Kingdom, we reveal that although WeChat users are often connected through offline social and professional networks, contentious politics manifests on the app only under a narrow range of circumstances. Furthermore, political contention on WeChat is reported by our respondents to be largely confined to matters of ‘interest-oriented’ and/or ‘safe’ topics that do not challenge the wider political system. This trend is driven by a combination of political and cultural dynamics which we elaborate in a theoretically informed thematic analysis, arguing that engaging with the concept of guanxi provides more insight into the political repercussions of WeChat in China than a focus on tie strength.
ChurchKde OliveiraR (2013) What’s up with WhatsApp? Comparing mobile instant messaging behaviors with traditional SMS. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (MOBILEHCI ’13), Munich, 30 August, pp. 352–362. New York: ACM.
15.
DeLucaKMBrunnerESunY (2016) Weibo, WeChat, and the transformative events of environmental activism on China’s wild public screens. International Journal of Communication10: 321–339.
16.
FeiXT (1992) From the Soil: The Foundations of Chinese Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
17.
FlyvbjergB (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry12(2): 219–245.
18.
Freedom House (2017) Country profile: China. In: KellySTruongMShahbazAet al. (eds) Freedom on the Net 2017: Manipulating Social Media to Undermine Democracy (Report, November), pp. 221–47. Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTN_2017_Full_Report.pdf (accessed 15 August 2018).
GoldTBGuthrieDWankDL (eds) (2002) Social Connections in China: Institutions, Culture, and the Changing Nature of Guanxi. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
22.
HarwitE (2016) WeChat: social and political development of China’s dominant messaging app. Chinese Journal of Communication10(3): 312–327.
23.
HaythornthwaiteC (2002) Strong, weak and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society18(5): 385–401.
24.
HeJSuZ (2018) Anti-system contentions and authoritarian response in China: evolution and mechanisms. Journal of Asian and African Studies53(3): 401–419.
25.
KalathilSBoasTC (2010) Open Networks, Closed Regimes: The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment.
26.
KaunAUldamJ (2018) Digital activism: after the hype. New Media & Society20(6): 2099–2106.
27.
KingAY (1991) Kuan-his and network building. Daedalus120: 63–84.
28.
KingGPanJRobertsM (2013) How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review107(2): 326–343.
29.
LevyJS (2002) Qualitative methods in international relations. In: BrecherMHarveyFP (eds) Millennial Reflections on International Studies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 432–454.
30.
LienCHCaoY (2014) Examining WeChat users’ motivations, trust, attitudes, and positive word-of-mouth. Computers in Human Behaviour41: 104–111.
31.
LiuJ (2014) Mobile communication and relational mobilization in China. Asiascape: Digital Asia1(1–2): 14–38.
32.
LiuJ (2015) Communicating beyond information? Mobile phones and mobilization to offline protests in China. Television & New Media16(6): 503–520.
33.
McAdamD (1986) Recruitment to high-risk activism. American Journal of Sociology92(1): 64–90.
34.
McAdamDDianiM (2003) Social Movements and Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
McAdamDPaulsenR (1993) Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology99(3): 640–667.
36.
MacKinnonR (2011) China’s ‘networked authoritarianism’. Journal of Democracy22(2): 32–46.
37.
OnwuegbuzieAJDickinsonWBLeechNLet al. (2009) A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods8(3): 1–21.
38.
PassyF (2003) Social networks matter: but how? In: DianiMMcAdamD (eds) Social Movement and Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–48.
39.
QiX (2017) Social movements in China: augmenting mainstream theory with Guanxi. Sociology51(1): 111–126.
40.
RauchfleischASchäaferMS (2015) Multiple public spheres of Weibo. Information, Communication & Society18(2): 139–155.
TillyCTarrowS (2007) Contentious Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
43.
TufekciZWilsonC (2012) Social media and the decision to participate in political protest. Journal of Communication62(2): 363–379.
44.
ValenzuelaSCorreaTGil de ZúñigaH (2018) Ties, likes and tweets: using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and Twitter use. Political Communication35(1): 117–134.
45.
VaughnSSchummJSSinagubJ (1996) Focus Group Interviews in Education and Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46.
WangQ (2008) Organization for change and empowerment: the women mayors’ association in China. In: BurghoornWIwanagaKMilwertzCet al. (eds) Gender Politics in Asia: Women Manoeuvring within Dominant Gender Orders. Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Press, pp. 145–184.
