In the context of hashtag activism and hashtag feminism, this article examines the use of “camping” as a code for abortion on Twitter following the 2022 Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Utilizing a critical discourse analysis approach, the analysis assesses the discursive practices of using “camping” as a symbol while considering the affordances and limitations of social media spaces in conveying messages that influence social and political life, such as abortion access advocacy online. The findings revealed the discursive practices created by the “camping” code and the impact of other users’ concerns around this iteration of hashtag activism that resulted in the following four themes: adoption, disidentification, rejection or caution, and redirection toward advocacy. This study presents the affordances of constitutive effects online and the limitations of using symbols within social media spaces to claim oneself as a “safe” person to trust in lieu of existing activist networks.
AlvarezCF (2023) It’s not an abortion: examining how individuals who end a wanted pregnancy discuss their experiences. Western Journal of Communication. Epub ahead of print 5March. DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2023.2185486.
2.
AndersonKV (2022) Rhetorics of reproductive justice and injustice in the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Quarterly Journal of Speech108(4): 418–420.
3.
AnduizaECristanchoCSabucedoJM (2014) Mobilization through online social networks: the political protest of the indignados in Spain. Information, Communication & Society17(6): 750–764.
4.
Banet-WeiserSMiltnerKM (2016) # MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Media Studies16(1): 171–174.
5.
BarbalaAM (2022) The platformization of feminism: the tensions of domesticating Instagram for activist projects. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 12December. DOI: 10.1177/14614448221141705.
6.
BennettWLSegerbergA (2015) The logic of connective action: digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. In: ColemanS (ed.) Handbook of Digital Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 169–198.
7.
Beynon-JonesSM (2017) Untroubling abortion: a discourse analysis of women’s accounts. Feminism & Psychology27(2): 225–242.
8.
BinghamADrakeJKGoodyearL, et al. (2011) The role of interpersonal communication in preventing unsafe abortion in communities: the dialogues for life project in Nepal. Journal of Health Communication16(3): 245–263.
9.
BouvierGMachinD (2018) Critical discourse analysis and the challenges and opportunities of social media. Review of Communication18(3): 178–192.
10.
BraineNVelardeM (2022) Self-managed abortion: strategies for support by a global feminist movement. Women’s Reproductive Health9(3): 183–202.
11.
BrunsABurgessJE (2011) The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In: Proceedings of the 6th European consortium for political research (ECPR) general conference. Reykjavik, University of Iceland. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/46515/
12.
ChorJTuskenMYoungD, et al. (2019) Factors shaping women’s pre-abortion communication with members of their social network. Journal of Community Health44: 265–271.
13.
ClarkR (2014) # NotBuyingIt: hashtag feminists expand the commercial media conversation. Feminist Media Studies14(6): 1108–1110.
14.
ConditC (2022) Rhetorical strategies for retrieving abortion rights. Quarterly Journal of Speech108(4): 441–445.
15.
ConditCM (1989) The rhetorical limits of polysemy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication6(2): 103–122.
16.
DasRHodkinsonP (2020) Affective coding: strategies of online steganography in fathers’ mental health disclosure. New Media & Society22(5): 752–769.
17.
DavidovićJ (2022) “My dear unwanted”: media discourse on sex-selective abortion in Montenegro. Feminist Media Studies23: 937–959.
18.
DeLucaKMLawsonSSunY (2012) Occupy Wall Street on the public screens of social media: the many framings of the birth of a protest movement. Communication, Culture & Critique5(4): 483–509.
19.
DubriwnyTN (2005) Consciousness-raising as collective rhetoric: the articulation of experience in the Redstockings’ abortion speak-out of 1969. Quarterly Journal of Speech91(4): 395–422.
20.
DubriwnyTNSiegfriedK (2021) Justifying abortion: the limits of maternal idealist rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech107(2): 185–208.
21.
EdgarAN (2017) The rhetoric of auscultation: corporeal sounds, mediated bodies, and abortion rights. Quarterly Journal of Speech103(4): 350–371.
22.
EllisCD (2022) “Doctors Don’t Kill Babies! Monsters Do!”: using performance and personal narrative to identify the U.S. Abortion Monster. Text and Performance Quarterly42(1): 67–82.
23.
FiskeJ (1986) Television: polysemy and popularity. Critical Studies in Media Communication3(4): 391–408.
24.
FreelonDMcIlwainCClarkM (2018) Quantifying the power and consequences of social media protest. New Media & Society20(3): 990–1011.
25.
GerbaudoP (2022) From individual affectedness to collective identity: personal testimony campaigns on social media and the logic of collection. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 25October. DOI: 10.1177/14614448221128523.
26.
GibsonKL (2008) The Rhetoric of Roe v. Wade: when the (male) doctor knows best. Southern Communication Journal73(4): 312–331.
27.
GibsonKL (2019) The women take over: oral argument, rhetorical skepticism, and the performance of feminist jurisprudence in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Quarterly Journal of Speech105(3): 319–340.
28.
GoffmanE (1963) Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Prentiss-Hall.
HaganMR (1976) Roe v. Wade: the rhetoric of fetal life. Communication Studies27(3): 192–199.
31.
Halva-NeubauerGAZeiglerSL (2010) Promoting fetal personhood: the rhetorical and legislative strategies of the pro-life movement after planned parenthood v. Casey. Feminist Formations22(2): 101–123.
32.
HaydenS (2009) Revitalizing the debate between and the 2004 March for women’s lives. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies6(2): 111–131.
33.
HernándezK (2022) Homeless camping bans are spreading: this group shaped the bills. Available at: https://pew.org/3DNUXva (accessed 3 December 2022).
34.
HoggartL (2015) Abortion counselling in Britain: understanding the controversy. Sociology Compass9(5): 365–378.
35.
HowellA (2019) Breaking silence, bearing witness, and voicing defiance: the resistant female voice in the transmedia storyworld of The Handmaid’s Tale. Continuum33(2): 216–229.
36.
HustingG (2006) Neutralizing protest: the construction of war, chaos, and national identity through US television news on abortion-related protest, 1991. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies3(2): 162–180.
37.
KanaiA (2015) Thinking beyond the Internet as a tool: girls’ online spaces as postfeminist structures of surveillance. In: BaileyJSteevesV (eds) Egirls, Ecitizens. Ottawa, ON, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 83–106.
38.
KanaiA (2020) Between the perfect and the problematic: everyday femininities, popular feminism, and the negotiation of intersectionality. Cultural Studies34(1): 25–48.
39.
KermaniHHoomanN (2022) Hashtag feminism in a blocked context: the mechanisms of unfolding and disrupting #rape on Persian Twitter. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 19October. DOI: 10.1177/14614448221128827.
40.
KimYLeeS (2022) #ShoutYourAbortion on Instagram: exploring the visual representation of hashtag movement and the public’s responses. SAGE Open12(2): 1093330.
41.
KlibanoffE (2022) Lawyers preparing for abortion prosecutions warn about health care, data privacy. The Texas Tribune.
42.
Knobloch-WesterwickSWesterwickA (2021) Algorithmic personalization of source cues in the filter bubble: self-esteem and self-construal impact information exposure. New Media & Society25: 2095–2117.
43.
KumarAHessiniLMitchellEM (2009) Conceptualising abortion stigma. Culture, Health & Sexuality11(6): 625–639.
44.
LakeRA (1984) Order and disorder in anti-abortion rhetoric: a logological view. Quarterly Journal of Speech70(4): 425–443.
45.
LangallierKM (1989) Personal narratives: perspective on theory and research. Text and Performance Quarterly9(4): 243–276.
46.
LiPChoHQinY, et al. (2021) #MeToo as a connective movement: examining the frames adopted in the anti-sexual harassment movement in China. Social Science Computer Review39: 1030–1049.
47.
LiaoS (2019) “#IAmGay# what about you?”: storytelling, discursive politics, and the affective dimension of social media activism against censorship in China. International Journal of Communication13: 2314–2333.
48.
MarghituSMooreJK (2018) Feminist online responses against the US Alt-right: using The Handmaid’s Tale as a symbol and catalyst of resistance. Communication Culture & Critique11(1): 183–185.
49.
MarkhamA (2012) Fabrication as ethical practice: qualitative inquiry in ambiguous internet contexts. Information, Communication & Society15(3): 334–353.
50.
MarwickAEBoydD (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1): 114–133.
51.
MarwickAEBoydD (2014) Networked privacy: how teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society16(7): 1051–1067.
52.
MerolaNAMcGloneMS (2011) Adversarial infrahumanization in the abortion debate. Western Journal of Communication75(3): 323–340.
53.
Molina-GuzmánI (2018) # OscarsSoWhite: How Stuart Hall explains why nothing changes in Hollywood and everything is changing. In: Stuart Hall Lives: Cultural Studies in an Age of Digital Media. Routledge, pp. 86–102.
54.
MorozovE (2012) The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. PublicAffairs.
55.
MorseJM (1994) Emerging from the data: the cognitive processes of analysis in qualitative inquiry. Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods346: 23–43.
56.
MylesD (2019) “Anne goes rogue for abortion rights!”: hashtag feminism and the polyphonic nature of activist discourse. New Media & Society21(2): 507–527.
57.
NewcombHM (1984) On the dialogic aspects of mass communication. Critical Studies in Media Communication1(1): 34–50.
58.
PackerJC (2013) How much jail time? Returning women to the abortion debate. Argumentation and Advocacy50(2): 89–103.
59.
ParkerRAggletonP (2007) HIV-and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: a conceptual framework and implications for action. In: Culture, Society and Sexuality. Routledge, pp. 459–474.
60.
PenneyJDadasC (2014) (Re) Tweeting in the service of protest: digital composition and circulation in the Occupy Wall Street movement. New Media & Society16(1): 74–90.
61.
PfefferJMayerKMorstatterF (2018) Tampering with Twitter’s sample API. EPJ Data Science7(1): 50.
62.
PotterJWetherellM (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. Sage Publications, Inc.
63.
PurcellC (2015) The sociology of women’s abortion experiences: recent research and future directions. Sociology Compass9(7): 585–596.
RobertsST (2019) Behind the Screen. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
66.
RosewarneL (2013) American Taboo: the Forbidden Words, Unspoken Rules, and Secret Morality of Popular Culture. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
67.
SavolainenLUitermarkJBoyJD (2022) Filtering feminisms: emergent feminist visibilities on Instagram. New Media & Society24(3): 557–579.
68.
SettlesPFurgersonJ (2015) The acceptable abortion: thematic consistencies of prominent narratives within the US abortion debate. Kentucky Journal of Communication34(2): 16–39.
69.
SissonG (2019) From humor to horror: genre and narrative purpose in abortion stories on American television. Feminist Media Studies19(2): 239–256.
70.
SolomonM (1980) Redemptive rhetoric: the continuity motif in the rhetoric of right to life. Communication Studies31(1): 52–62.
71.
StormerN (2002) In living memory: abortion as cultural amnesia. Quarterly Journal of Speech88(3): 265–283.
TillmanSJohnsonA (2022) Abortion language, nesting dolls theory, and an autoethnographic plea for radical transformation. Quarterly Journal of Speech108(4): 436–440.
74.
VaastESafadiHLapointeL, et al. (2017) Social media affordances for connective action. MIS Quarterly41(4): 1179–1206.
75.
VisF (2013) Twitter as a reporting tool for breaking news: journalists tweeting the 2011 UK riots. Digital journalism1(1): 27–47.
76.
WayneM (2016) Burying abortion in stigma: the fundamental right no one wants to discuss. Abortion portrayal on film and television. Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal16: 216.
77.
WeinsteinC (2022) A not so special episode: laughing at abortion on television. Critical Studies in Media Communication39: 427–440.
78.
WilliamsS (2015) Digital defense: Black feminists resist violence with hashtag activism. Feminist Media Studies15(2): 341–344.
