Presentation
Networks as infrastructures of dissent: Applying a new theory of collective action
10th Annual International and Interdisciplinary Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR)
(2009)
Abstract
At the 2003 AoIR conference in Toronto, I presented the first sketch of a theoretical concept that addressed collective action in online environments – dissentworks. A dissent network is an action-oriented, relational, heterogeneous network comprised of homogeneous networks/nodes (individuals, groups, or organizations) emerging via an unofficial consensus on the failure of existing institutions (state or private) or regimes of control to meet community needs enabled and magnified by digital technology. The act of dissent in the dissent network is dissent through the removal of consent to the existing system - the creation/adoption of an alternative system through the abandonment of the existing regime.
Six years later, dissentworks has been refined and applied to two case studies – the Micro Radio Movement (MRM) in the 1990s and the Independent Media Center Network (IMCN). I used a mixed method approach that exploited my long-term ethnographic knowledge of the MRM and a network ethnographic approach that examined the much larger and globally distributed IMCN through its structure, news features, and mission statements.
At its core, a dissent network is an infrastructural project - in the sense that its purpose is to create new systems or institutions (Benda, 1978/91). A dissent network represents a different collective response than mobilizing against the government for redress; disrupting society or commerce to force compliance; or petition for reform by ruling elites. A dissent network focuses on the creation or utilization of new forms of action and organization to meet immediate community needs outside the bounds of existing regimes. These systems provide alternatives for participants and simultaneously challenge existing regimes by demonstrating “another world is possible.”
Dissentworks theory is founded on four theoretical assumptions: A consensus on systems failure; relational density; process and resource sharing; and the centrality of digital networks.
The core theoretical assumption in dissentworks is when a consensus emerges that a system fails to meet individual or collective needs individuals and groups will create or seek out systems that will. The decision to create or adopt a new system rather than attempt to reform an existing system is based on a combination of practical feasibility, the degree of antipathy towards the existing system, and the level of acceptable risk/cost. Digital networks lower costs through resource sharing, increase feasibility, and lower risk through distribution and collective cover.
The creation and development of dense relational networks allows autonomous nodes and networks to effectively cooperate to form effective and coherent heterogeneous networks while maintaining autonomy. A dissent network promotes relational density at the sub-network level through diverse communities of practice existing within a network. Members of homogeneous groups within the larger network act as brokering and bridging agents when cooperating via sub-networks or distributed working groups (Diani, 2003; Tarrow, 1998). This process fosters the heterogeneous network of homogeneous sub-networks.
Process and resource sharing is key to a successful dissentwork. The product or purpose of a system (mobilization) cannot be separated from the process of how the system is organized (latency). Social movements frame collective identity through action and interaction within the movement and how the movement views itself and, through its actions such as protests, how it defines itself. A dissent network organically solves the latency mobilization issues in digital environments by collapsing or integrating latency’s identity, participant socialization, and the development of best practices into mobilization’s application of resources to effect social change (Shumate & Pike, 2006). A dissent network is perpetual mobilization, involving the action of constructing and maintaining an alternative structure. During this process, the act of member participation facilitates building identity, socializes participants, and develops best practices through direct action, resource sharing /pooling and detail to organizational process.
Finally, the affordances of ICTs and digital networks facilitate the creation of functional parallel regimes and systems outside the bounds of existing dominant systems. The development of new media technologies and digital networks facilitates the projection of power and greatly reduces the need for a traditional organizational structure (Bimber, Flanagin, & Stohl, 2005), lowers transaction costs and blunts the impact of free riders (Flanagin & Stohl, 2005). Therefore, participation and reinforcement of association becomes easier. Digital networks mitigate the pitfalls of central process and resource control, which can lead to cooptation, disruption, or leadership/resource decapitation. Moreover, these networks allow for greater flexibility and adaptability to local environments and can overcome coordination and organizational issues for widely distributed (national or global) groups.
Findings from my case studies support the descriptive utility of dissentworks. Moreover, this mode of collective action based on the development of communication infrastructure to facilitate (intentionally or not) social change is emerging in both commerce - through the use of Web 2.0 platforms such as Facebook and YouTube - but also in the prosecution of traditional politics as was seen in the success of the 2008 Presidential campaign of Barack Obama.
References
Benda, V. (1978/91). The parallel polis. In H. G. Skilling & P. Wilson (eds.) Civic freedom in eastern europe. St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp 35-41.
Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15, 365-388.
Diani, M. (2003). “Leaders” or brokers? Positions and influence in social movement networks.
In Diani, M. & D. McAdam (Eds.), Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action (pp. 105-122). New York: Oxford University Press.
Flanagin, A. J., Stohl, C., & Bimber, B. (2006). Modeling the structure of collective action. Communication Monographs, 73, 29-54.
Shumate, M., & Pike, J. (2006). Trouble in a geographically distributed virtual network organization: Organizing tensions in continental direct action network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), article 8. Retrieved on November 2, 2006 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/shumate.html
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Disciplines
Publication Date
October 8, 2009
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Citation Information
Ted M. Coopman. "Networks as infrastructures of dissent: Applying a new theory of collective action" 10th Annual International and Interdisciplinary Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) (2009) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/ted_coopman/22/