Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:10:03.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information and Communication Technologies as Contentious Repertoire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2020

Jun Liu
Jun Liu*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen, Denmark [[email protected]]
Get access

Abstract

This study advances an original theoretical framework to understand the deployment of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in political contention. It argues that we should not look only at the use of ICTs in contention, as technologies are not “born” to be used in and for political activism. Rather, people appropriate and manoeuvre technologies—some but not others—for such purposes, in specific contexts. This study proposes a relational understanding of ICT uses in contention, taking into account their technicalities and their sociality, as well as the transformation and actualisation that occurs between them. It suggests that an investigation necessitates the perception of communication technologies as a repertoire of contention on the basis of affordances that structure the possibilities of the use of technology. The study further presents an application of the framework in cases of protests in mainland China. Through fieldwork and in-depth interviews, this study indicates that the choice of (certain functions of) mobile phones as protest repertoire derives from a confluence of (a) a given social group’s habitus of media use that manifests particular affordances, and (b) the learned experience of the contested means of the past in official mass communication. It concludes that what people do and do not do with ICTs in political contention is significantly shaped by affordances and habitus, thereby revealing the dynamics behind repertoire selection and constraint.

Résumé

Résumé

Cette étude propose un cadre théorique original pour comprendre le déploiement des Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication (TIC) en situation de contestation politique. Elle affirme que nous ne devrions pas nous contenter d’examiner l’usage contestataire des TIC, car les technologies ne sont pas « nées » pour être utilisées dans et pour l’activisme politique. Au contraire, les gens se les approprient et les utilisent – certaines mais pas d’autres –, à de telles fins dans des contextes spécifiques. Cette étude propose une compréhension relationnelle des utilisations contestataires des TIC, en tenant compte des aspects techniques, de la socialité, de leur transformation et actualisation mutuelle. Elle suggère que l’enquête doit concevoir les technologies de la communication comme un répertoire de contestation à partir des affordances qui structurent les possibilités d’usage de la technologie. L’article applique ce cadre théorique sur les cas de protestations en Chine continentale. À partir d’un travail de terrain et des entretiens approfondis, cette étude montre que le fait de concevoir les téléphones portables comme répertoire de protestation découle tant de l’habitus d’un groupe social donné qui manifeste des affordances particulières, que de l’expérience acquise des moyens de communication de masse officielle. Il conclut que ce que les gens font et ne font pas avec les TIC dans la contestation politique est fortement influencé par les affordances et l’habitus, révélant ainsi la dynamique derrière la sélection et la contrainte du répertoire.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Ein origineller theoretischer Rahmen liegt dieser Studie zugrunde, mit dem Ziel, den Einsatz von Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien (IKT) in politischen Konfliktsituationen zu analysieren. Ausgangspunkt ist die Feststellung, dass wir nicht einfach nur den IKT-Einsatz in Auseinandersetzungen untersuchen sollten, da Technologien nicht „geboren“ werden, um im und für politischen Aktivismus genutzt zu werden. Vielmehr machen die Menschen sie sich zu eigen und verwenden sie – einige, aber nicht andere – für solche Zwecke in besonderen Situationen. Diese Untersuchung legt ein relationales Verstehen der konkurrierenden Anwendungen von IKT nahe, wobei technische Aspekte, Sozialität und ihre gegenseitige Umwandlung und Aktualisierung berücksichtigt werden. Sie suggeriert, dass eine Studie der Kommunikationstechnologien als ein Streitigkeitsrepertoire verstanden werden sollte, welches die technologische Nutzung klassifizieren hilft. Dieser theoretische Rahmen wird auf Protestbewegungen des chinesischen Festlandes angewandt. Feldforschung und Tiefeninterviews zeigen, dass die Handybenutzung (gewisse Funktionen) als Protestrepertoire sowohl dem Habitus einer bestimmten sozialen Gruppe, als auch aus der gelernten Erfahrung politischen Protests durch offizielle Massenmedien entspringt. Schlussfolgernd kann festgestellt werden, dass der Rückgriff auf IKT in Konfliktsituationen stark von der Erschwinglichkeit und dem Habitus abhängig sind, die Auswahl und Grenzen des Repertoires charakterisieren.

Keywords

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)political contentionaffordancerepertoire of contentionhabitus.AffordanceContestation politiqueHabitusRépertoire de contestationTechnologie de l’Information et de la Communication.Affordancepolitischer ProtestHabitusProtestrepertoireInformations- und Kommunikationstechnologien.
Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , April 2020 , pp. 1 - 31
Copyright
© European Journal of Sociology 2020.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AG Reporter, 2015. “Social Media in the Arab World 2015 – report,” [https://arabiangazette.com/social-media-in-the-arab-world-2015-report/, accessed March 18, 2018].Google Scholar
Aminzade, Ron and McAdam, Doug, 2002. “Emotions and Contentious Politics,” Mobilization, 7 (2): 107-109.10.17813/maiq.7.2.64060k7663m686r7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BBC, 2014. “China Maoming Environmental Protest Violence Condemned” [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26849814, accessed April 11, 2018].Google Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance and Segernerg, Alexandra, 2013. The Logic of Connective Action (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9781139198752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bimber, Bruce, Flanagin, Andrew J. and Stohl, Cynthia, 2005. “Reconceptualizing Collective Action in the Contemporary Media Environment,” Communication Theory, 15 (4): 365-388.10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00340.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, [1979] 1984. Distinction (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, 2000. “The Politics of Protest,” Socialist Review, 242: 18-20.Google Scholar
Chang, Meng, 2013. “Thousands protest Kunming PX plan,” Global Times, [http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/782252.shtml#.Uvvah0JdVW4, accessed May 17, 2018].Google Scholar
China Daily, 2010. “Around China: Taxi drivers go on strike,” April 23, 7.Google Scholar
Christensen, Christian, 2011. “Twitter revolutions?,” The Communication Review, 14 (3): 155-157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooren, François, 2018. “Materializing Communication: Making the Case for a Relational Ontology,” Journal of Communication, 68 (2): 278-288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, Nick, 1999. “Fish, Field, Habitus And Madness,” The British Journal of Sociology, 50 (4): 647-670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crossley, Nick, 2002a. Making Sense of Social Movements (Buckingham, Open University Press).Google Scholar
Crossley, Nick, 2002b. “Repertoires of Contention and Tactical Diversity in the UK Psychiatric Survivors Movement,” Social Movement Studies, 1 (1): 47-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, Nick, 2003. “From Reproduction to Transformation,” Theory, Culture & Society, 20 (6): 43-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, Nick, 2005. “How Social Movements Move,” Social Movement Studies, 4 (1): 21-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, Lincoln, 2011. “Re-Constructing Digital Democracy,” New Media & Society, 13 (6): 855-872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Jenny L. and Chouinard, James B., 2016. “Theorizing affordances,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36 (4): 241-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Della Porta, Donatella, 2013. “Repertoires of Contention,” in D. A. Snow, D. Della Porta, B. Klandermans and D. McAdam, eds, The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm178, accessed August 17, 2018].Google Scholar
Earl, Jennifer, Hunt, Jayson and Garrett, R. Kelly, 2014. “Social Movements and the ICT Revolution,” in H.-A. Van Der Heijden, ed., Handbook of Political Citizenship and Social Movements (Cheltendam, Edward Elgar: 359-386).Google Scholar
Earl, Jennsifer and Kimport, Katrina, 2011. Digitally Enabled Social Change (Cambridge, The MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EChinacities.com, 2010. “Taxis Go on Strike in Shenzhen,” [http://www.echinacities.com/shenzhen/city-in-pulse/taxis-go-on-strike-in-shenzhen.html, accessed October 3, 2018].Google Scholar
Egros, Anne, 2011. “Socieal Media Usage Across Cultures” [https://www.compukol.com/social-media-usage-across-cultures/, accessed October 3, 2018].Google Scholar
Enjolras, Bernard, Steen-Johnsen, Kari and Wollebæk, Dag, 2013. “Social media and mobilization to offline demonstrations,” New Media & Society, 15 (6): 890-908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esarey, Ashley and Xiao, Qiang, 2011. “Digital Communication and Political Change in China,” International Journal of Communication, 5: 298-319.Google Scholar
Evans, Sandra K., Pearce, Katy E., Vitak, Jessica and Treem, Jeffrey W., 2017. “Explicating Affordances,” Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 22 (1): 35-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flam, Helena and King, Debra, 2005. “Introduction,” in H. Flam and King, D., eds, Emotions and Social Movements (London, Routledge: 1-18).Google Scholar
Flanagin, Andrew, Stohl, Cynthia and Bimber, Bruce, 2006. “Modeling the Structure of Collective Action,” Communication Monographs, 73 (1): 29-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent, 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research,” Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2): 219-245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, R. Kelly, 2006. “Protest in an Information Society,” Information, Communication and Society, 9 (2): 202-224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James J., 1966. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Boston, Houghton Mifflin).Google Scholar
Gibson, James J., 1977. “The Theory of Affordances,” in S. Robert and J. Bransford, eds, Perceiving, Acting, and. Knowing (Hillsdale NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 67-82).Google Scholar
Goodwin, Jeff, Jasper, James M. and Polletta, Francesca, 2009. Passionate Politics (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Googin, Gerard, 2013. “Democratic affordances,” Ethical Space, 10 (2/3): 6-14.Google Scholar
Graneheim, Ulla H. and Lundman, Berit, 2004. “Qualitative content analysis in nursing research,” Nurse Education Today, 24 (2): 105-112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graves, Lucas, 2007. “The affordances of blogging,” Journal of Communication Inquiry, 31 (4): 331-346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haluza-DeLay, Randolph, 2008. “A theory of practice for social movements,” Mobilization 13 (2): 205-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargittai, Eszter and Hinnant, Amanda, 2008. “Digital Inequality,” Communication Research, 35 (5): 602-621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermeking, Marc, 2005. “Culture and Internet consumption,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11 (1): 192-216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Philip N. and Hussain, Muzammil M., 2013. Democracy’s Fourth Wave? (New York, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang and Shannon, Sarah E., 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis,” Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9): 1277-1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Carol, 2011. “Facebook and Twitter Key to Arab Spring Uprisings: Report” [https://www.thenational.ae/uae/facebook-and-twitter-key-to-arab-spring-uprisings-report-1.428773, accessed August 17, 2018].Google Scholar
Husu, Hanna-Mari, 2013. “Bourdieu and social movements,” Social Movement Studies, 12 (3): 264-279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Jenna and Mascaro, Christopher, 2016. “Movember,” Social Media+ Society, 2 (2).Google Scholar
Jasper, James, 2004. “A Strategic Approach to Collective Action,” Mobilization, 9 (1): 1-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaun, Anne and Stiernstedt, Fredrik, 2014. “Facebook Time,” New Media & Society, 16 (7): 1154-1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Jennifer PAN and Roberts, Margaret E., 2013. “How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression,” American Political Science Review, 107 (2): 326-343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lan, Yun and Zhang, Yidi, 2007. “Millions of Xiamen Residents Spread Crazily the Same SMS to Agianst High-Pollution Project,” Southern Metropolis Daily, May 29.Google Scholar
Le cornu, Alison, 2005. “Building on Jarvis,” Studies in the Education of Adults, 37 (2): 166-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Francis L. F. and Chan, Joseph M., 2018. Media and Protest Logics in the Digital Era (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonardi, Paul M. 2014. “Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation,” Information Systems Research, 25 (4): 796-816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, Rich, 2013. Taken for Grantedness (Cambridge, The MIT Press).Google Scholar
Liu, Jun, 2013. “Mobile Communication, Popular Protests and Citizenship in China,” Modern Asian Studies, 47 (3): 995-1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Jun, 2016. “Digital Media, Cycle of Contention, and Sustainability of Environmental,” Mass Communication and Society, 19 (5): 604-625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Dong and Yan, Shuang, 2012. “Ningbo backs down from PX project” [http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/740943.shtml, accessed October 29, 2018].Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug, 1986. “Recruitment to High-Risk Activism,” American Journal of Sociology, 92 (1): 64-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, Doug, 1995. “‘Initiator’ and ‘Spin-off’ Movements,” in Traugott, M., ed., Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action (Durham/London, Duke University Press: 217-239).Google Scholar
Melucci, Alberto and Lyyra, Timo, 1998. “Collective Action, Change, and Democracy,” in M. G. Giugni, D. Mcadam and C. Tilly, eds, From Contention to Democracy (Lanham Md., Rowman & Littlefield: 203-228).Google Scholar
Mercea, Dan, 2013. “Probing the Implications of Facebook Use for The Organizational Form of Social Movement Organizations,” Information, Communication & Society, 16 (8): 1306-1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaels, Claire F., 2003. “Affordances,” Ecological Psychology, 15 (2): 135-148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkoff, Debra C., 1997. “The Sequencing of Social Movements,” American Sociological Review, 62 (5): 779-799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Daniel J., 2000. “The Diffusion of Collective Violence,” American Journal of Sociology, 106 (1): 173-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, Donald A., 1988. The Psychology of Everyday Things (New York, Basic Books).Google Scholar
O’brien, Kevin J., 1996. “Rightful resistance,” World Politics, 49 (1): 31-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’brien, Kevin J., 2009. Popular Protest in China (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
O’brien, Kevin J. and Li, Lianjiang, 2006. Rightful Resistance in Rural China (New York, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogan, Christine and Varol, Onur, 2016. “What is Gained and What is Left to be Done When Content Analysis is Added to Network Analysis in the Study of a Social Movement,” Information, Communication & Society, 20 (8): 1-19.Google Scholar
Oliver, Pamela E. and Myers, Daniel J., 1999. “How Events Enter the Public Sphere,” American Journal of Sociology, 105 (1): 38-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parchoma, Gale, 2014. “The contested ontology of affordances,” Computers in Human Behavior, 37: 360-368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penney, Joel and Dadas, Caroline, 2014. “(Re)Tweeting in the service of protest,” New Media & Society, 16 (1): 74-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainie, Harrison and Wellman, Barry, 2012. Networked: The New Social Operating System (Cambridge MA., The MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, Clemencia, Ferron, Benjamin and Shamas, Kristin, 2014. “Four Challenges in the Field of Alternative, Radical and Citizens’ Media Research,” Media, Culture & Society, 36 (2): 150-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Klaus R., Johnstone, Tom and Klasmeyer, Gudrun, 2002. “Vocal Expression of Emotion,” in R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer and H. H. Goldsmith, eds, Handbook of Affective Sciences (New York, Oxford University Press: 433-456).Google Scholar
Schrock, Andrew R., 2015. “Communicative Affordances of Mobile Media,” International Journal of Communication, 9: 1229-1246.Google Scholar
Selander, Lisen and Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., 2016. “Digital action repertoires and transforming a social movement organization,” MIS Quarterly, 40 (2): 331-352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, Fayong and Cai, Yongshun, 2006. “Disaggregating the State,” The China Quarterly, 186: 314-332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
South China Morning Post, 2012. “Ningbo PX Project” [http://www.scmp.com/topics/ningbo-px-project, accessed April 10, 2018].Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney, 1993. “Cycles of Collective Action,” Social Science History, 17 (2): 281-307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney, 2008. “Charles Tilly and the Practice of Contentious Politics,” Social Movement Studies, 7 (3): 225-246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney, 2011. Power in Movement (New York, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Center for Public Opinion Monitor, 2014. “To guide the Public Opinion Toward PX Project in the Maoming Protest,” Public Opinion on Politics and Law, 114 (14): 3-8.Google Scholar
Thireau, Isabelle and Linshan, Hua, 2003. “The Moral Universe of Aggrieved Chinese Workers,” The China Journal, 50: 83-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilly, Charles, 1986. The Contentious French (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles, 1995. Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834 (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles, 2005. Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834 (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles and Tarrow, Sidney G., 2006. Contentious Politics (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Traugott, Mark, 1993. “Barricades as Repertoire,” Social Science History, 17 (2): 309-323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Mark, 1995a. “Recurrent Patterns of Collective Action,” in M. Traugott, ed., Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action (Durham and London, Duke University Press: 1-14).Google Scholar
Traugott, Mark, 1995b. Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action (Durham/London, Duke University Press).Google Scholar
Van Laer, Jeroen and van aelst, Peter, 2010. “Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires,” Information, Communication & Society, 13 (8): 1146-1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, Diane, 1992. “Theory Elaboration,” in Charles, R. and Becker, H. S., eds, What Is a Case? (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 173-204).Google Scholar
Wada, Takeshi, 2012. “Modularity and Transferability of Repertoires of Contention,” Social Problems, 59 (4): 544-571.Google Scholar
Walther, Joseph B., 1992. “Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction,” Communication Research, 19 (1): 52-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhouse, Alice, 2015. “As YouTube celebrates 10th anniversary, Hong Kong leads the way in smartphone viewership,” South China Morning Post, June 5 [http://www.scmp.com/tech/enterprises/article/1816330/youtube-celebrates-10th-anniversary-hong-kong-leads-way-smartphone].Google Scholar
Xie, Liangbing and Zhao, Lei, 2007. “The Power of Mobile Messaging,” China Newsweek, 326 (20): 16-17.Google Scholar
Yang, Guobin, 2009. The Power of the Internet in China (New York, Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Yin, Robert K., 2018. Case Study Research and applications (6th ed.) (Thousand Oaks CA, Sage Publications).Google Scholar
Zhu, Hongjun, 2007. “Xiamen Calls an Abrupt Halt to the PX Project to Deal with the Public Crisis,” Southern Weekend, May 30, A1.Google Scholar