Abstract
In their book, Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action, Margetts, John, Hale, and Yasseri explore how digital media has disrupted and revolutionized citizen participation in politics. For media scholars and social scientists alike, this work is a timely and important book that is theoretically grounded, and offers empirical evidence and detailed methodological approaches for examining the complex and messy convergence of individual personality traits, mobilization and membership in collective actions, and democracy, more broadly.
The thesis of Political Turbulence hinges on the idea that for all its affordances—low costs, immediacy, decentralization, greater exposure, and reach—digital media destabilizes the political landscape in unpredictable ways and contributes to chaotic pluralism. “What is different about chaotic pluralism,” according to the authors, “is the absence of groups . . .” (p. 229) which may organize and emerge quickly, but often lack the leadership and direction needed to ensure policy change. Citing many examples, including Occupy Wall Street and 15-M (Indignados) movement in Spain. The book highlights how individual, micro-actions on the Internet—“likes,” small donations, and e-signatures—contribute to collective action by making social information visible to personal networks, thereby creating circumstances for conditional cooperation : “cooperation dependent on evidence of the contribution of others” (p. 114). While these findings are important and reveal ways social media can coerce forms of political participation from users—depending on individual pro-social (motivated by pride) or pro-self (motivated by shame avoidance) tendencies—the book emphasizes the cumulative good of micro-actions while simultaneously admitting that the vast majority of collective actions fail to facilitate long-term, meaningful changes, even in circumstances that draw large, transnational support. This tension between new forms of political participation and shallow outcomes is not only symptomatic of chaotic pluralism, but illustrates widening political inequality between citizens and institutions.
The book also highlights how individual personality traits (extroversion, agreeableness, locus of control) play a crucial role in the overall success or failure of collective action because, citizens demonstrating these qualities are among the first to participate in political endeavors before they are mainstreamed. These citizens take initiative and lead by example, making their social information visible to network members. While this may appear self-evident given the nature of participatory platforms, findings suggest that successful collective action require a minimum number of citizens who possess these traits. With that said, the book establishes a foundation from which a new and important body of future studies can examine questions about the constituent make-up of political causes and their likelihood of success, ways in which personality traits can be used to undermine movements, the role of introverts and private groups on social networking site (SNS), among other emerging trends and uses of digital media in politics.
Political Turbulence is an ambitious work that highlights how incremental, micro-actions taken on the Internet can, for better or worse, disrupt political life at a macro level. Like Internet memes, politics is subject to virality, a finding that reflects a leptokurtic distribution. Prior to widespread distribution of social media, collective action gained attention and support more slowly. Today, digital media is such that within a narrow window of 24 hours a collective action support grows rapidly and spreads like contagion, or not at all. The insights discussed in this book provide new theoretical and methodological benchmarks from which media researchers can gain greater understanding about the complex relationship between networks of citizens and organizations intermingling on participatory platforms and trying to enact political change in a rapidly changing and delicate digital ecosystem.
Interview Questions
1. Your book mentions that
Social information may crowd out contributions (making it appear that enough have been made already) or crowd them in by making them feel as if they also should be contributing with evidence pointing to the latter as a result of conformity, social norms, and reciprocity . . .
While this notion of crowding-out and crowding-in refers to petitions and donations, spiral of silence seems to operate in a similar way. In light of Brexit in the United Kingdom and the election of Trump in the United States, to what extent do you believe this mentality, as well as visible social information across hybrid-media systems, influenced the outcomes of these two political events?
Yes crowding a similar language, but note our use of Schelling. You can make the connection to Brexit and trump, but of course we do not prove this.
You need to incorporate the role of low educated people who do not have access to the internet—how does agenda setting work with different groups of people and their networks.
Helen has written on similar questions in two blog posts. One on Brexit
http://blog.press.princeton.edu/2016/08/18/brexit-voting-and-political-turbulence/
and one on Trump
https://medium.com/@Oxford_University/us-election-2016-views-from-oxford-6e3c1387086c#b55e
Social information can give a nascent movement a critical sign of viability, which we demonstrate in the context of petition signing and donations. It seems reasonable that social information could also encourage more discussion or activism amongst non-mainstream viewpoints by showing individuals that they are not alone in their viewpoints.
2. Your research findings suggest a complex but positive relationship between successful collective action/movements and personality traits (extroversion, agreeability, perceived locus of control, and leadership). These finding are, presumably, based on normative social media practices insofar as a user posting content on a platform to their followers (e.g., publicly). Do you believe that these patterns hold true in cases when users utilize private-groups as safe spaces (e.g., Pantsuit Nation in the US has 3MM followers, many of whom appear to be active in the Women’s March and upcoming March for Science)? Do you plan to do research on private-spaces that develop as a result of surprising/negative political outcomes?
Yes. Maybe more OII research, but i can’t speak for that.
3. Working off my last question and regarding the women’s movement, do you believe there are other demographic variables (in this case, gender) that can be used to de-legitimize or undermine a group’s collective action? Or phrased another way, women are often framed (in media and elsewhere) as less-extroverted, less likely to appear in positions of leadership, etc. Do you believe there is a relationships between these personality traits and strategies for undermining such movements?
It is a good point, thought provoking. I am sure this could be tested.
4. Your book uses the Ice Bucket Challenge as an example of a successful collective action and discuss shaming vs. prestige perceptions/motivations on SNS. This particular viral moment spurred other collective actions, such as donations to causes for clean water. Can you comment on co-occurring movements, where one begets or occurs in tandem with another, and the broader implications in terms of social information and participation.
Many campaigns have this characteristic, where fund raising plays a part
:I suspect there is a large amount of learning and re-use of techniques from organizers of different movements. Others have done much more research on this than I have, however.
5. Finally, your book closes with commentary on pluralism. Given the global political climate, where does the rise of populism fit into these arguments and methodologies?
Well, populists may think they have the upper hand, but the implication of our book is that they face the dynamics of ca too, as the fate of many movements show—the agenda is open, more unstable and unpredictable. That lets populism in to a certain extent, but does not ensure its dominance
I agree with Peter: Mainstream and populist politicians alike face the dynamics of chaos. The change towards chaotic pluralism and the new data available prevent opportunities and challenges for individuals from all politicians.