Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:29:15.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Global Diffusion of the #MeToo Movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2020

Myunghee Lee  and
Amanda Murdie Open the ORCID record for Amanda Murdie [Opens in a new window]
Myunghee Lee
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Amanda Murdie
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why is the #MeToo movement very active in some countries but not in others? What factors encourage the transnational diffusion of digital feminist activism? Although transnational forces are important, we argue that domestic political opportunity structures play a more significant role than transnational influences in the country-level diffusion of #MeToo. We collected 35,211 global tweets and used Bayesian statistical modeling to test the implications of our theory. Our findings support the idea that as a country better protects its citizens’ political and civil rights and civil liberties, individuals in that country are more likely to engage in the #MeToo movement.

Keywords

#MeToodigital feminist activismprotestdiffusionpolitical opportunity structures
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 827 - 855
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

The authors would like to thank Ryan Bakker, Johannes Karreth, participants at the American Political Science Association 2019 Annual Conference, the anonymous reviewers, and editors. Amanda Murdie would like to acknowledge that her work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2013S1A3A2055081).

References

REFERENCES

Amnesty International. 2018. “Toxic Twitter—A Toxic Place for Women.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/03/online-violence-against-women-chapter-1/ (accessed March 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Bamert, Justus, Gilardi, Fabrizio, and Wasserfallen, Fabio. 2015. “Learning and the Diffusion of Regime Contention in the Arab Spring.” Research and Politics 2 (3): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beissinger, Mark R. 2007. “Structure and Example in Modular Political Phenomena: The Diffusion of Bulldozer/Rose/Orange/Tulip Revolutions.” Perspectives on Politics 5 (2): 259–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Sam R., Murdie, Amanda, and Peksen, Dursun. 2019. “The Impact of Globalization on Women's and Non-Women's Protest.” Social Science Quarterly 100 (3): 604–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, Karen. 2019. #MeToo, Weinstein and Feminism. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Pivot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brancati, Dawn, and Lucardi, Adrián. 2019. “Why Democracy Protests Do Not Diffuse.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 63 (10): 2354–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breindl, Yana. 2010. “Internet-Based Protest in European Policymaking: The Case of Digital Activism.” International Journal of E-Politics 1 (1): 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, Anita, and Farooq, Bilal. 2012. “Online Political Participation: Slacktivism or Efficiency Increased Activism? Evidence from the Brazilian Ficha Limpa Campaign.” https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2179035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunce, Valerie J., and Wolchik, Sharon L.. 2006. “International Diffusion and Post-communist Electoral Revolutions.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 39 (3): 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Louis. 2018. “The #MeToo Shockwave: How the Movement Has Reverberated around the World.” Telegraph, March 18. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/metoo-shockwave/ (accessed March 31, 2020).Google Scholar
Chenoweth, Erica, and Lewis, Orion A.. 2013. “Unpacking Nonviolent Campaigns: Introducing the NAVCO 2.0 Dataset.” Journal of Peace Research 50 (3): 415–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, Erica, and Ulfelder, Jay. 2017. “Can Structural Conditions Explain the Onset of Nonviolent Uprisings?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 61 (2): 298–324.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael, Gerring, John, Knutsen, Carl Henrik, Lindberg, Staffan I., Teorell, Jan, Altman, David, Bernhard, Michael, et al. . 2019. “V-Dem Codebook v9.” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. https://www.v-dem.net/en/.Google Scholar
Costain, Anne N. 1992. Inviting Women's Rebellion a Political Process Interpretation of the Women's Movement. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell, Van Sickle, Alix, and Weldon, Steven. 2010. “The Individual–Institutional Nexus of Protest Behaviour.” British Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Della Porta, Donatella, and Mosca, Lorenzo. 2005. “Global-Net for Global Movements? A Network of Networks for a Movement of Movements.” Journal of Public Policy 25 (1): 165–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earl, Jennifer, and Kimport, Katrina. 2011. Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallon, Kathleen M., and Rademacher, Heidi E.. 2018. “Social Movements as Women's Political Empowerment: The Case for Measurement.” In Measuring Women's Political Empowerment across the Globe, eds. Alexander, Amy C., Bolzendahl, Catherine, and Jalalzai, Farida. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gill, Jeff. 2014. Bayesian Methods: A Social and Behavioral Sciences Approach, 3rd edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greitens, Sheena Chestnut. 2013. “Authoritarianism Online: What Can We Learn from Internet Data in Nondemocracies?” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (2): 262–70.Google Scholar
Gunitsky, Seva. 2014. “From Shocks to Waves: Hegemonic Transitions and Democratization in the Twentieth Century.” International Organization 68 (3): 561–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunitsky, Seva. 2018. “Democratic Waves in Historical Perspective.” Perspectives on Politics 16 (3): 634–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurr, Ted. 1968. “A Causal Model of Civil Strife: A Comparative Analysis Using New Indices.” American Political Science Review 62 (4): 1104–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gygli, Savina, Haelg, Florian, Potrafke, Niklas, and Sturm, Jan-Egbert. 2019. “The KOF Globalisation Index—Revisited.” Review of International Organizations 14: 543–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Henry E. 2019. “How Should We Now Conceptualize Protest, Diffusion, and Regime Change?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 63 (10): 2402–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, Joss. 2011. @ Is for Activism: Dissent, Resistance and Rebellion in a Digital Culture. New York: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Symon. 2013. Digital Revolutions: Activism in the Internet Age. Oxford: New Internationalist.Google Scholar
Houle, Christian, Kayser, Mark Andreas, and Xiang, Jun. 2016. “Diffusion or Confusion? Clustered Shocks and the Conditional Diffusion of Democracy.” International Organization 70 (4): 687–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Melanie M., Krook, Mona Lena, and Paxton, Pamela. 2015. “Transnational Women's Activism and the Global Diffusion of Gender Quotas.” International Studies Quarterly 59 (2): 357–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inclán, María de la Luz. 2008. “From the ¡Ya Basta! to the Caracoles: Zapatista Mobilization under Transitional Conditions.” Journal of Sociology 113 (5): 1316–50.Google Scholar
Kahn, Richard, and Kellner, Douglas. 2004. “New Media and Internet Activism: From the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to Blogging.” New Media & Society 6 (1): 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Jeong Hyun. 2019. “Direct Democracy and Women's Political Engagement.” American Journal of Political Science 63 (3): 594–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuran, Timur. 1991. “Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989.” World Politics 44 (1): 7–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Jennifer M., Nagler, Jonathan, Ronen, Jonathan, and Tucker, Joshua A.. 2019. “Social Networks and Protest Participation: Evidence from 130 Million Twitter Users.” American Journal of Political Science 63 (3): 690–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichbach, Mark I. 1998. “Contending Theories of Contentious Politics and the Structure-Action Problem of Social Order.” Annual Review of Political Science 1: 401–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotan, Gilad, Graeff, Erhardt, Ananny, Mike, Gaffney, Devin, Pearce, Ian, and Boyd, Danah. 2011. “The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions.” International Journal of Communication 5: 1375–1405.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John D., and Zald, Mayer N.. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (6): 1212–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendes, Kaitlynn, Ringrose, Jessica, and Keller, Jessalynn. 2018. “#MeToo and the Promise and Pitfalls of Challenging Rape Culture through Digital Feminist Activism.” European Journal of Women's Studies 25 (2): 236–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, David S. 2004. “Protest and Political Opportunities.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 125–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdie, Amanda, and Peksen, Dursun. 2015. “Women and Contentious Politics: A Global Event-Data Approach to Understanding Women's Protest.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (1): 180–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olzak, Susan, and Tsutsui, Kiyoteru. 1998. “Status in the World System and Ethnic Mobilization.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (6): 691–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plummer, Martyn. 2003. “JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical Models Using Gibbs Sampling.” http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net/ (accessed March 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Plummer, Martyn. 2013. “rjags: Bayesian Graphical Models Using MCMC. R Package Version 3-10.” http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjags (accessed March 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Santiago, Cassandra, and Criss, Doug. 2017. “An Activist, a Little Girl and the Heartbreaking Origin of ‘Me Too.’” CNN, October 17. https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/us/me-too-tarana-burke-origin-trnd/index.html (accessed March 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Schock, Kurt. 2004. Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sigman, Rachel, and Lindberg, Staffan I.. 2019. “Democracy for All: Conceptualizing and Measuring Egalitarian Democracy.” Political Science Research and Methods 7 (3): 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skorge, Øyvind. 2018. “Mobilizing the Underrepresented: Electoral Institutions and Women's Political Participation.” Working paper, Institute for Social Research, Oslo. http://www.skorge.info/research/ (accessed March 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Soule, Sarah, McAdam, Doug, McCarthy, John, and Su, Yang. 1999. “Protest Events: Cause or Consequence of State Action? The US Women's Movement and Federal Congressional Activities, 1956–1979.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 4 (2): 239–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stienstra, Deborah. 2016. Women's Movements and International Organizations. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Strang, David, and Soule, Sarah A.. 1998. “Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 265–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strum, Lora. 2017. “Twitter Chat: What# MeToo Says about Sexual Abuse in Society.” PBS NewsHour, October 25. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/twitter-chat-what-metoo-says-about-sexual-abuse-in-society (accessed March 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 2005. The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teorell, Jan 2010. Determinants of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Laer, Jeroen, and Aelst, Peter Van. 2010. “Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations.” Information, Communication & Society 13 (8): 1146–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vassallo, Francesca. 2018. “The Evolution of Protest Research: Measures and Approaches.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (1): 67–72.Google Scholar
Vie, Stephanie. 2014. “In Defense of ‘Slacktivism’: The Human Rights Campaign Facebook Logo as Digital Activism.” First Monday 19 (4). https://firstmonday.org/article/view/4961/3868 (accessed March 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Von Hofer, Hanns. 2000. “Crime Statistics as Constructs: The Case of Swedish Rape Statistics.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 8 (1): 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2009. “The Diffusion of Revolution: ‘1848’ in Europe and Latin America.” International Organization 63 (3): 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2012. “The Arab Spring: Why the Surprising Similarities with the Revolutionary Wave of 1848?” Perspectives on Politics 10 (4): 917–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2019. “Why Some Democracy Protests Do Diffuse.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 63 (10): 2390–2401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiong, Ying, Cho, Moonhee, and Boatwright, Brandon. 2019. “Hashtag Activism and Message Frames among Social Movement Organizations: Semantic Network Analysis and Thematic Analysis of Twitter during the #MeToo Movement.” Public Relations Review 45 (1): 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lee and Murdie supplementary material

Lee and Murdie supplementary material

Download Lee and Murdie supplementary material(File)
File 895.8 KB