Feminist Digilantism

The ripple effect of #MeToo in India

BA Thesis Name of author: Lindsay Lo-A-Njoe Student number: 1274015 Online Culture: Art, Media and Society Department of Culture Studies School of Humanities and Digital Sciences Date: February 6, 2019 Supervisor: Mingyi Hou Second reader: Camilla Spadavecchia Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 3

2. Theoretical framework ...... 6

2.1. Vigilantism ...... 6

2.2. Digital Vigilantism ...... 7

3. Methodology ...... 10

4. Data Analysis ...... 12

4.1. The #MeToo Movement ...... 12

4.2. #MeToo in India ...... 14

4.3. Raya Sarkar’s List ...... 15

4.4. Feminists Reaction ...... 20

5. Conclusion ...... 23

References ...... 24

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the Internet can be used as a tool for both interpersonal and mass communication. Sometimes communication can be kind and caring and at other times it can be harsh and aggressive. People communicate in different ways, some use their words to show love and some use it to blame and punish others. Because technology is an easy tool to communicate with others, people can take out their frustrations online in such a way they want to correct perceived societal wrong doings and engage in social control of the people they feel need to be brought to justice or corrected of their wrong doings. That is also called digital vigilantism. According to Daniel Trottier (2017), “Digital Vigilantism is a process where citizens are collectively offended by other citizen activity, and respond through coordinated retaliation on digital media, including mobile devices and social media platforms”. The illegal acts in which people participate differ from small breaches of social protocol to terrorist acts and participation in riots. In order to punish others who have done harmful things, participants share additional information about the target, which results in naming and shaming the individual for whom it creates a harmful and lasting mediated social visibility (Trottier, 2017). While some scholars acknowledge the collective intelligence of vigilantism practices, others criticize that vigilantism, in any type of form, is illegal use of violence (Hoekman, 2014).

The year 2017 has been a breakthrough for Indian feminists. It was a year when the word “feminist” had been popularized in the country whereas more women came forward with their individual stories of sexual exploitation. A law student named Raya Sarkar posted a list on Facebook which names Indian academic professors as sexual harassers (Steier, 2017). This event led to several discussions on social media at the end of 2017. Raya Sarkar posted a list on Facebook, inviting other women to name academic professors who have sexually harassed their students. This list went viral with 72 professors listed by name, the institutions they serve at and the subject they teach. This list is a calling out practice, which can be regarded as a case of digital vigilantism. The professors’ names are listed to be publicly shamed for their wrong doings. Importantly, Raya Sarkar’s case was not in isolation. This happened soon after the internationally famous Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein revelations shook Hollywood and the rest of the world. This event created a ripple effect all over America and the rest of the world, which is the starting point of the # MeToo movement. Digital media has played an important role in this online feminist movement as many women have found their voices online to accuse the men who are guilty of sexually harassing women. Because of the easy accessibility to social media, women all

3 over the world with similar experiences have formed a unity together. Through the Internet, they are encouraged and also encourage others to share their individual stories.

The #MeToo movement has arrived in India and has reached several industries such as the entertainment industry but also academia and politics. Several female journalists and actresses in India have also spoken out about incidents of sexual misconduct by people inside the industry, whom they interacted with at a professional level (Singh, 2018). Raya Sarkar is also one of the women who spoke up, however in a different way. Raya’s list is a special case in the wider feminist activism movement. Previous cases involve certain information about the accusation of sexual offences, and they involve already highly visible figures. In contrast, Raya Sarkar’s list only consists the names and institutions of the accused targets and it discloses identifiable information of ordinary citizens. In this sense, it acquires a vigilantism perspective since the list is not only meant to reveal the situation, it punishes those professors with negative social visibility. However, Raya indeed has her own considerations on the list. The reason she started her list of names was because she thought that academia in India was full of similar sexual harassers. In other words, powerful men who exploit their students and/or colleagues (Aravamudan, 2017). While she made the names of the alleged sexual harassers public, she kept the names of the accusers and the ground of these accusations a secret. She felt that making the names of the students public, would jeopardize their future careers.

Described above is a case of a phenomenon called by many names: e-vigilantism, digilantism, cyber vigilantism or digital vigilantism (Wehmhoener, 2010). This study explores the vigilante’s online practices, in particularly Raya Sarkar’s case, and why women participate in digital vigilante acts. It illustrates how certain feminist norms and/ or values are promoted and enforced through the use of digital media, and the social discussions on the efficacy of digital vigilantism in promoting feminist causes in India. The aim of this research is to give more insight about the issues that women in India are still dealing with and how new media is used as a mechanism to fight against their poor treatment by men. Another aim is to discuss to what extent digital vigilantism in the form of naming and shaming can contribute to online feminist activism. Therefore, the research question of this study is as follows: “How do digital vigilantes promote and enforce their norms and/or values in practice using digital media?”

Following this introduction section is a literature review chapter. Firstly, I will discuss relevant studies about feminist activism, especially offline feminist vigilantism in India. Next, I will delineate a theoretical framework of vigilante practices on digital media by scholars who have already done research on the topic. The third chapter will be the methodology of this paper where I will discuss how I have

4 approached the research field and the method of data collection. The fourth chapter is the data analysis. In the data analysis chapter, I will sketch an overview on the starting point of the #MeToo movement and how it has been enacted in Indian digital world. In this way, I can contextualize the following detailed analysis of Raya’s case and the local discussions of this list by several feminist activism in India. I will finish this research with a conclusion and a discussion.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Vigilantism According to Rosenbaum and Sederberg (1974), vigilantism means “to take the law in one’s hands, a do- it-yourself justice when all other attempted measures have already failed”. Vigilantism is often described as a violent action, done by individuals or groups who take measures into own hands because they think that the present state system is failing to protect them and others. Individuals or groups who participate in vigilante acts have a different meaning of justice than to the justice meaning according to the state law (Hoekman, 2014). Vigilantism occurs when the state order has become aware of the threat from the transgression of institutionalized norms (Johnston, 1996). This practice started in the 13th and 14th century by Charivari. Charivari involved the public to mock and insult the individuals who went beyond and broke the community rules (Wall & Williams, 2007). In other words, vigilantism is a reaction to the state of diverging from the usual or accepted standards. According to Johnston (1996), vigilantism consists of six features:

1. It involves planning by those who engage in this act; 2. Its participants are ordinary citizens whose engagement is voluntary; 3. These citizens form a social movement 4. Ones who participate use or threatens the use of force; 5. It arises when established order is under threat from the transgression, the potential transgression, or the imputed transgression of institutionalized norms; 6. It aims to control crime or other social infractions by offering assurances (or ‘guarantees’) of security both to the participants and to others (Johnston, 1996)

In India, there’s an offline all-women vigilante group that operates on the streets by taking justice in their own hands. This vigilante group is known as the Gulabi Gang but also known as the Pink Saris. These women take action in the Banda district in India. This region is known for many problems regarding poverty and criminality. Violence against women and children also occurs a lot in this region (Robinson, 2013). The goal of the Gulabi Gang is to come up for basic human rights and their main focus is on protecting women against violence caused by men (Gulabi Gang, 2018). All the woman in the group wear pink saris which stands for the “easy recognition as they publicize the difficult situations poor women deal with” (White & Rastogi, 2009). Another reason why they wear the pink saris is to “signify the womanhood and understated strength” (Gulabi Gang, 2018). Every day a lot of women seek help

6 and protection from the Gulabi Gang. Through the newspapers, women learn about the effectiveness of the strategies that this group uses. Some even travel from very far districts to reach them and seek for their protection (Sen, 2012). The implication we can draw from the case of the Gulabi Gang is that some female citizens in India have expressed their distrust towards the government and legal system’s efficacy for protecting the human rights of Indian women. This provides us a context for understanding the motivation and affective charge of Raya Sarkar’s list. However, the exact goal of vigilantes differs widely. For instance, some of their goals are defending an established sociopolitical order, imposing law in a lawless setting, putting an end to an unwanted situation and the apprehension and punishment of criminals. Some claim that vigilantism is always done intentionally, while others argue that it is a spontaneous act (Dumsday, 2009). While vigilantism still exists in the presence it has also gone into places that society considers an extension of itself in the Internet. This leads to a new phenomenon of digital vigilantism.

2.2. Digital Vigilantism Similarly, to offline vigilantism, the punishment of the violation of social norms within online environments often involves the use of naming and shaming, which is done through textual means. According to Daniel Trottier (2017), Digital Vigilantism is a process where citizens are collectively offended by other citizen’s activity and respond through joined forces of revenge on digital media, which includes the use of mobile devices and social media platforms. The illegal acts in which people participate differ from small breaches of social protocol to terrorist acts and participation in riots. In order to punish others, participants share sensitive personal information about their targets, which results in shaming the individual which leads to a harmful and lasting mediated social visibility (Trottier, 2017). McLure (2000) compares the Internet to the “wild west,” in which he argues that it is a lawless area where people can be controlled through vigilante acts. Because the electronic frontier is still generally a lawless territory, people easily engage with vigilantism, and is sometimes considered as the only effective response to what cyber settlers perceive as crimes against both property and people. While the Gulabi Gang conducts local practices of physical violence, Raya Sarkar’s list makes use of the connectivity of digital media to disseminate negative social visibility widely. In Raya Sarkar’s case, force is used to shame and/or punish perpetrators in some manner.

Daniel Trottier (2017) also mentions in his article that digital vigilantism may violate one’s privacy and data protection rights. Digital vigilantes use different techniques as a form of cyber social control which

7 relies upon individuals to take matters into their own hands to correct and appeal to a normal aspect of social life in the cyber world. The vigilantism practices can be carried out in many forms including hacking, online harassment, calling out, public naming and shaming. For instance, the hacker community Anonymous has claimed that they have taken down many IS-related tweeter accounts (Kosseff, 2016). Creating a negative social visibility to punish the target is the most used characteristic of many digital vigilantism cases. Naming and shaming are also the most relevant feature in relations to this current research. Digital vigilantes all have their individual reasons as to why they engage with such an act. Firstly, digital vigilantes attack people they may not even know. Secondly, they believe shame is necessary to ensure social order. Without the threat of shame, people would still break the law, making society less orderly and civil. Nevertheless, although shaming is done to ensure social order, it paradoxically can have the opposite result of social order (Solove, 2007). According to Solove (2007), Internet naming and shaming can actually destroy social control and can makes things more chaotic in a society. It becomes very hard to maintain and/or stop the situation. To participate in a digital vigilante act can have many risks and may be ethically problematic. Problems with this kind of act is denying targets the opportunity to tell their sides of the story. If there is a mistake in identifying the wrong person, it may lead to punishment of innocent people. This is also problematic because it can be the cause of false punishments; and/or provoke hostile counter-responses (Jane, 2017).

Digital vigilantism has become easier to engage with because the participants in these practices can maintain the anonymity that keeps them safe from the consequences of their actions. By having the freedom that anonymity provides, it can lead to mentalities where people would feel above the law and try to correct the actions of their targets and to avenge those who have been wronged. Solove (2007) argues that current laws that maintain the Internet provide a form of immunity that may lead to irresponsibility and the lessening of privacy protection. Similar to the Jekyll and Hyde story, people sometimes adopt self-absorbed, antisocial, and abusive behaviors online that are quite different from how they act in the real offline world. While anonymity minimizes social control, vigilantes see it as the only way of protection from people (such as hackers, spammers, pedophiles, terrorists) who do wrong in society. However, in this case, the vigilante act of Raya Sarkar was not entirely anonymous. Everyone knew she was the one who released the list of names, only the names of the victims were kept anonymous. However, just like Raya Sarkar’s case, it is difficult to tell exactly the motivation of vigilantism. According to Jeff Kosseff (2016), a digital vigilante act can be performed because of different reasons. Firstly, such an act could be used as an excuse to correct a crime or other bad act. Jeff Kosseff (2016) also writes in his article that the vigilantes’ aim might be to blackmail any offender whom they

8 detect rather than to turn him over to the law enforcement authorities for prosecution. Secondly, this vigilante act could also be used as an excuse for other harmful hacking. Thirdly, this vigilante act can also be a result of anger and other emotions that do not serve the public’s wellbeing. Lastly, it may also be driven by irrationality. For instance, a hacker who seeks to expose criminals or terrorist operations, may become focused on the end goal and unable to make rational judgments by its own that serves the public’s interest (Kosseff, 2016). Moreover, that being said, it is difficult to say with certainty what the true motives are of a digital vigilante.

Having introduced the definition, characteristics and downsides of digital vigilantism, I now review several recent empirical studies on digital vigilantism cases. Mark Scheffers (2015) has studied the Kopschop indicent in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. He has analyzed how alleged offenders were tracked down and identified by morally outraged citizens using social media. This case includes the use of big data technologies. When a suspect is identified, he or she is made visible on social media or online blogs. Scheffers’ (2015) research is an example of how digital vigilantism can occur. Therefore, the identities of the alleged offenders have been made public on social media. In his research he also argues that the naming and shaming aspects were also a key concept in the Kopschop-incident.

Jane (2017) has researched the connection between feminist activism and digital vigilantism. According to her, feminist digital vigilantism (digilantism) has primarily focused on naming and shaming approaches, such as establishing blogs, web sites and hashtags that are used to republish offensive material that might otherwise have only been viewed by recipients. Her research focusses more on retaliation on the increasing problem of online misogyny. However, in her article, Jane (2017) argues that digital vigilantism strategies do not provide for a suitable solution to the broader problem of gendered problems online. The digital vigilante act shifts the burden of responsibility for the problem of gendered cyber-hate from perpetrators to targets, and from the public to the private sphere. These two empirical studies elucidate the current studies from two perspectives. Firstly, the starting point of digital vigilantism is to identify the alleged offender, which may involve a series of techniques. In the data analysis section, I shall demonstrate that Raya’s list is an outsourced list that is composed by students collectively. Secondly, vigilantism practices are not considered as adequate solutions especially when it comes to gender related topics. However, in all cases, the naming and shaming is a retrospective aspect.

3. Methodology

The purpose of this research is to give more insight of how the #MeToo wave has reached India and how the concept of digital vigilantism fits into the picture. With this research I want to help understand why women participate in a digital vigilante act. In order to do research on this topic, I will make use of qualitative research. Through identifying and interpreting relevant communication practices, I can conduct an exploratory qualitative content analysis. According to Lindlof (1995), qualitative research methods are effective for communication projects which attempts to paint a picture of a social issue and to interpret that picture with the words and experiences of the individuals involved. In specific, a case study will be used to go more in depth into the topic. A case study research, through reports of past studies, allows the exploration and understanding of complex social issues. It can be considered as a robust research method particularly when a holistic, in-depth investigation is required (Zainal, 2007). The case study method allows a researcher to closely examine the data within a specific context. The specific context of this research is the Raya Sarkar case. In most cases, a case study method selects a small geographical area or a very limited number of individuals as the subjects of study. Case study as a research method investigates contemporary real-life phenomenon through detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions. Yin (1984) defines the case study research method “as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used.” Case study methods has been applied by Cheong and Gong (2010) when they explored the communicative practices of digital vigilantism in China. They have delineated the trajectories of how vigilantism cases develop on Chinese Internet by compiling data from multiple resources including online news articles, online forum and online video platforms.

A case study is suitable for my research goals since I want to connect the concept of digital vigilantism to a real-life situation. In this study I will focus on feminist vigilantes in India, in specific the case of Raya Sarkar. She made a crowd-sourced list of ‘academic sexual harassers’ and released the list of names on Facebook to create awareness amongst students in India. The research question of this study can be answered by analyzing how Raya Sarkar used digital media in order to create a bond with the women who were victimized by these academic harassers and how she took action against these men. To give an in-depth analysis of the case, this study will use multiple sources of evidence to contextualize Raya Sarkar and post commenters’ vigilante acts. This includes the comments that were placed under the post, which will be analyzed and will give insight as to how beneficiary the post was/is to the

10 community. This list was posted on the 23th of October 2017 on Facebook. Because the list was posted during the period that the #MeToo Movement came into light, background information about the movement will also be relevant. More information about the beginning of the #MeToo movement will be added to the research starting with the Harvey Weinstein revelation. During my exploration of the case, I also found that Raya Sarkar’s list was not received with all positive reaction. There are also articles by academic feminists who oppose to this vigilante act of Raya Sarkar. These articles and comments will also be taken into consideration and be analyzed to understand various perceptions of the efficacy of vigilantism in feminist pursuits. These Indian feminists created a blog where they demonstrate about Raya Sarkar’s list and ask to take it down. This website will also be part of the data analysis.

The data collection took place within the timeframe between the last week of September 2018 and the first two weeks of October 2018, which is approximately three weeks. The data that have been gathered are: 15 academic articles, 30 news articles from various news sources, Raya Sarkar’s list itself and the 70 comments that were placed below the post, and the Kafila feminist website. By analyzing and combining the results of the data, I will be able to give answer to the research question.

4. Data Analysis

4.1. The #MeToo Movement In this paragraph I will firstly delineate the scope and characteristics of the #MeToo movement, since this globalized feminist movement has given a momentum of Raya Sarkar’s case. The #MeToo movement first became popular in America, more specifically in Hollywood. The whole #MeToo wave happened right after the famous Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual assault by a lot of actresses. This started on the 5th of October 2017 when The New York Times published an article where Harvey Weinstein was accused by multiple women of sexual harassment which goes years back (The Times, 2018). After the story broke out, more and more women came forward, accusing Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault. The practices of these women encouraged a lot of other women around the world to be forthcoming with their own experienced stories, accusing powerful men with long-buried sexual misconduct stories of their own. After these discourses and voices of victims suffering, then spread virally in 2017 a hashtag on social media in an attempt to demonstrate the widespread prevalence of sexual assault and harassment, especially in the workplace (Smartt, 2017). This all started in the film industry but has also spread to other work industries such as academia and politics. The two simple words (Me Too) have become a good opportunity for millions of women who have had enough of the abusive use of power of men in higher positions. The hashtag has also taken a grip in our digital world because a lot of highly visible media figures have revealed their personal stories. The #MeToo is a recent event and has not been known that long online, but it has spread quickly around the globe due to the fast pace of digital media. The #MeToo has generated itself in several other languages and is now being used in at least 85 countries. Most of the hashtags are just translations of “Me Too,” but there are several interesting variations such as: in France they use #BalanceTonPorc, which is roughly translated as #ExposeYourPig, in Italy they use #quellavoltache, which means #ThatTimeWhen and in Norway they use #WhenTheMusicQuiets. Even in Spain it became #YoTambien, which is the literal translation of #MeToo. In Israel they use a Hebrew phrase translated as “Us Too” (Burke, 2018). The concept of #MeToo has taken its form in different ways but the meaning remained the same.

The virality of #MeToo has been explained with several reasons. Firstly, celebrities participated in this social media activism, thus attributing it with more media attention. Their role is also different. Instead of advocating the movement, they share their own personal experience as a survivor of sexual harassment. It affects their own life as a victim because they are directly connected to this issue.

Secondly, as victims post their individual stories on their social media with the hashtag MeToo, it helps them in the process of healing and at the same time also gives other people the courage and solidarity to speak up about their own experience of sexual harassment. This gives participants a sense of belonging (Thomson, 2018). Seeing how fast the #MeToo spread all over the world, we can say that social media plays an enormous role in our popular culture. The #MeToo movement has become globalized due to the connectivity feature of social media. Daniel Trottier (2016) writes in his article that digital media such as social platforms and mobile devices allow for an amplification of peer-to-peer communication. Digital media gives more access to personal information as well as allowing the circulation of such information. This has shaped practices such as file-sharing, fundraising and political mobilization. This is exactly what is happening with the #MeToo movement. Due to new technology, people all over the world are able to share their stories with each other and support one another. Burke (2018) wrote in her article on Telegraph that globalization, connectivity and the MeToo movement have created the perfect storm. This means that women are able to share their experiences online with each other. Sexual abuse issues which were not spoken about out loud in the old days, now became central to the discourse because of new technology (Khomami, 2017). By talking openly about one’s experience, it makes the public aware of sexual harassment as a widely existing phenomenon with numerous individual stories. This raised for discussions in the media on whether cultural norms need to be changed in order to put an end to sexual harassment in the workplace (Morris, 2018).

Therefore, we can say that social media has not only been the bridge between women who experienced similar situations by using the hashtag. It also brings the message to wider publics for a negotiation of sociocultural normativity. Jane (2017) also writes in her article that the use of technology to express personal experiences of sexual violence are also similar to those of rape survivors’ use of “technosocial practices” on digital platforms to secure deinformal justice. In other words, the exposure of sexual abuse cases online may also become a weapon punishing the offender at the same time, as scandalous visibility attracts both attention for the case and notoriety for the offender. Nowadays, “zero tolerance” becomes popular amongst women. Young women who had lost faith in the law were loud and clear about “naming and shaming” their aggressors and predators. We need to realize that hashtag activism, which took the form of campaigns such as #MeToo, made feminist issues more visible and offered a certain amount of anonymity to those women who may have hesitated to speak out in a public offline forum. In this way, people can easily partake in digital vigilante acts by calling out the name of offenders especially those in high positions in societies and who are likely to get away with their crimes. However, in the following empirical analysis I will demonstrate that the naming and shaming practice can

13 complicate the feminist causes. The Raya Sarkar case is indeed about naming and shaming several academic professors on Facebook, however the societal reception of such a practice is very controversial.

4.2. #MeToo in India After several Hollywood actresses accused the famous film producer Harvey Weinstein, which resulted in a global #MeToo campaign, more women spoke out about their own stories of sexual exploitation. Due to this event, India too saw it as an opportunity to have its own revelations. According to a recent Thomson Reuters Foundation ranking (2018), India has been considered as one of the most dangerous places for women’s safety due to the widespread rape and sex trafficking of women in the country. In India, sexual harassment is commonly referred to by the word 'eve-teasing', however, this term is described as misleading, tame, and reduces the seriousness of the crime (Kumar & Andre, 2017). In the literature review section, I have introduced the vigilantism practices of the Gulabi Gang. This is an offline feminist vigilante movement, which also provides further momentum for #MeToo to spread in India. Also, importantly, this offline vigilante group shows that there has been a sentiment of distrust towards the legal system in India for the protection of women’ right. The use of the #MeToo hashtag on social media spread quickly in India after the Harvey Weinstein incident. In response to #MeToo, there have been attempts to teach Indian women about workplace rights and safe reporting, as well as educate men about the seriousness of the problem (Borpujari, 2017). Because of the solidarity the #MeToo movement created amongst women all over the world, Indian women are pushing back against the abusive power of men in high positions. The safe space which has been offered by social media is the reason how the conversation of sexual harassment has reached many industries in India. How women in India and all over the world reacted towards the #MeToo campaign tells a lot about their belief in the legal system. They feel that revolting against their sexual harassers on social media and to share their own individual stories with the world, is a step closer to punishing those perpetrators. Raya Sarkar’s list is an example of such a practice.

4.3. Raya Sarkar’s List Some scholars argue that academia, not unlike other societal structures, is common with misogyny and has a culture of sexual violence which is difficult to change (Shukla & Kundu, 2017). In the momentum of the above-mentioned digital feminist movement, Raya Sarkar decided to shed light on the gender inequality in academia by coming up with a list of the names of male academic professors who have allegedly sexually harassed some of their female students. On October 24, 2017 Raya Sarkar, the 24- year-old law student from University of California at Davis, posted a list of sexual harassers in academia, which she expanded as more women contacted her, telling her their own individual stories. Raya Sarkar started the list with only two names: Dipesh Chakravarty and Kanak Sarkar. In her post she mentions that these two men are alleged sexual harassers in academia. Then she encouraged women to send her a private message if they have experienced a similar situation in order to add the names of the harassers to the list. She offers to discuss the matter with the women if they send her a private message. The names are sent to Raya Sarkar and the list is shared from her account. This list had become really popular and had a number of 72 names from approximately 30 colleges and universities across India, UK and the US. The list contains the names of alleged academic sexual harassers, the university they teach at and the subject they teach at the university.

However, Raya Sarkar fails to mention in her post what these men are allegedly accused of. She also refused to mention the names of the victims in order to protect them. Because of the lack of this background information, the list is in many ways problematic. Due to the lack of details, the list expects all its readers to, without a second thought, to believe that all the professors mentioned in the list are criminals and sexual predators. This is because the absent information in the list, may be filled in by the thousands of stories in the globalized #MeToo movement. However, this list also opens the floor for discussion, debate and dialogue on sexual abuse, so that more people can come forward and share their individual experiences. Sharing own individual experiences helps both the victim as well as the society. In that sense, this list is a step in the direction of helping victims. Raya Sarkar’s list got a lot of attention from the public. Her post was liked 2360 times, shared 1153 times and received 71 comments. However, Raya Sarkar has defended the list, saying that she posted it only to warn her friends about professors and academics to avoid these men in higher positions and had no idea it could become so popular. Some of the victims from the list have come forward to explain they were ignored, mistreated or retaliated against when they tried to pursue action (Pal, 2017).

Below you can find a screenshot of the positive comments that were placed underneath Raya Sarkar’s post. I have merged the positive comments into one picture, which can be seen in figure 1 (Steier, 2017). In this picture can be seen that a lot of people were in favor of this list. They approve of this method of naming and shaming academic professors who stand accused of sexual harassment. People appreciate the work that Raya Sarkar is doing for sexual harassment victims and hope that these academic professors will be taken down someday. Noteworthy is that a feminist Facebook page called ‘Feminism in India’ also approves of this list. In a comment below this post, is written that FII (Feminism in India) stands in solidarity with Raya and all the survivors who came out. In that comment, they invite other survivors to contact them and share their stories with them. People who commented on her post also know about the naming and shaming tactic and fully support the cause of the list. In figure 2 (Steier, 2017), I have merged the negative comments together into one picture that people posted on the list. Even though there were no direct negative comments on Raya Sarkar’s post, a lot of people were somewhat still against the way she handled the list. People spoke out about it saying that it should have been done the legal way. As can be seen that not everyone will be in favor of the list. In these comments people say that there should be a legal process of these cases. People also want to know whether a legal complaint has been filed against the academic professors. They mention that a legal process needs to exist first in order to establish whether the state has truly failed the many victims. In one of the comments, they also mention that there is a risk of falsely accusing someone, which would easily lead to a dismissal. Here we can see how this list has divided opinions in India.

Figure 1: Positive Comments (Steier, 2017). Source: https://www.facebook.com/RxyaSxrkar/posts/1686281001419245. Retrieved on February 4, 2019.

Figure 2: Negative Comments (Steier, 2017). Source: https://www.facebook.com/RxyaSxrkar/posts/1686281001419245. Retrieved on February 4, 2019.

Even though Raya Sarkar did not add the names of the victims in the post, there were some cases where victims found the courage to speak out about their own experience. They decided to make a legal case out of it and do it by the books. As some of the victims came forward after the list was released on social media, some of the men mentioned in Raya Sarkar's list as alleged harassers were later found guilty. The investigations on these professors were done based on formal complaints filed against them. Gopal Balakrishnan, a history professor at University of California, Santa Cruz, was found guilty of violating the university's sexual harassment policies in an investigation conducted by authorities based on multiple complaints filed by students and colleagues. Another professor whose name was also on the list, Lawrence Liang, the dean of Ambedkar University, Delhi, was found guilty of sexually harassing a student from another Delhi university and was suspended from his job (Dasgupta, 2018). Because some of the victims came forward, these professors could have been prosecuted in a legal way. Therefore, anonymity has a major drawback. Without knowing who accuses who and what the exact allegations are, no legal action can be taken against the alleged sexual harassers.

I argue that by exposing only the name of men on the Internet, Raya Sarkar’s list can be considered as a digital vigilante act. Digital vigilantism is a form of mediated and coordinated action. The starting point of Raya Sarkar’s list is moral outrage or a general sense of offence taking. Already mentioned in the literature review section, Jeff Kosseff (2016) writes in his article that digital vigilantes take action because of different reasons. Raya Sarkar mentioned that she only released the list of names because she wanted to create awareness amongst students of which professors they should avoid. However, after the list went viral other motives came to light such as the naming and shaming tactic. Therefore, in line with Jeff Kosseff’s (2016) argument, it is difﬁcult to determine the actual true motives of a self- proclaimed vigilant. The emotional momentum in the case of Raya and those who helped built the list is charged by both the local gender politics and global feminism movements. In response to the carelessness of the victims, participants of digital vigilantism seek to render a targeted individual visible through information sharing practices such as assembling and publishing their personal details (Trottier, 2016). In this case, the names of the academic professors and the university they teach at were made public.

As mentioned above, this vigilante act is considered as the “naming and shaming” approach. The “naming and shaming” approach or also known as “calling out” involves online attackers attempting to bring the targets, in this case the academic professors, to account. The “naming and shaming” approach refers to identifying alleged sexual offenders and putting them through embarrassment, harassment, and/or condemnation (Dunsby & Howes, 2018). Jane (2017) mentions that this kind of activism is similar to other online phenomena such as “call-out culture”, “vengeance culture”, and “a great renaissance of public shaming”. Social media users can easily participate in naming and shaming by liking and sharing content that names and shames people online. In doing so, they may fuel the digital vigilante act and may help spread the purpose of the vigilante act (Trottier, 2017). Naming and shaming were also considered as a way to teach a lesson and to make people aware that their behavior was socially inappropriate, reflecting a motive of encouraging behavior modification (De Vries, 2015). Being in favor of the online naming and shaming approach was also attributed to a lack of faith in the criminal justice system. By participating in this digital vigilante act, it gives people the desire to assist the police. Rape and sexual harassment victims are turning to social media to call out on their attackers because they were desperate for justice since the law did not do much in their favor. However, Dunsby and Howes (2018) also mention that the naming and shaming could have negative consequences. Those whose trials are before the court could have an unfair trial and their reputations can be ruined. There are concerns about the moral obligations of people who are suspected rather than convicted. Jane (2017)

19 writes in her article that feminist digilantism has offered many benefits to individual participants as well as supporting broader political projects. In relation to the #MeToo, naming and shaming by feminist digilantes has the potential to raise public awareness about a serious social problem that has far long been ignored, downplayed, dismissed, or otherwise insufficiently addressed by those in charge of online environments, from platform managers to media regulators (Jane, 2017). Raya Sarkar’s list can be seen as this. She is a feminist digilante and by calling out the academic professors, she is naming and shaming them. She wanted to make other women aware of the dangerous men by outing their names on the list. She wanted to name and shame the academic sexual harassers. For other students to know exactly which professors to avoid at the universities. Her list received a lot of attention not only nationally but also internationally. It made the public aware of what students in academia deal with regarding their male professors.

4.4. Feminists Reaction Many have questioned the morality of the way the list was composed and released online, while others have applauded it as an effective tool against the culture of silence that has been going through our society when it comes to speaking against sexually predatory behavior of powerful men. Reactions to the list have been as diverse as they have been predictable. While a lot of people showed their support to the list on social media and demanded justice for the victims, many others described the list as a “vigilante justice” or a “witch hunt” (Kappal, 2017). The list had been shared multiple times on social media but even though a lot of people were in favor of it, some people were also against the list. This list has resulted in criticism against #MeToo because the accusations were unverified before they started spreading on social media. The list divided opinions in India. Criticism of the list hasn’t only just come from men or conservative women but also from feminist groups in India. Some feminists argued that the method of sharing unconfirmed accusations could delegitimize the struggle against sexual harassment. Prominent Indian feminists see Raya Sarkar’s list as problematic and a matter of serious concern because of the anonymous victims and observers. Others argued it was the failure of official channels to deal with harassment claims that motivated women to contact Sarkar (Kappal, 2017). Immediately after the list started to get popular on social media, the Kafila feminist group in India made a statement about the list. The Kafila feminist group created an independent radical blog where they made their statement criticizing the list. On their blog, the Kafila feminists and some others have been expressing disagreement with and concerns about the list in a statement, signed by 12 prominent Indian

20 feminists. On their online blog Kafila they label the Facebook initiative a "name and shame campaign" and therefore express their disapproval of the list. This can be seen in figure 3, which is a screenshot of their website. In their statement on their website, they are asking for the withdrawal of an online campaign to name and shame Indian university professors accused of sexually harassing or assaulting students.

These 12 prominent Indian feminists dismissed the list in a formal letter, saying they understand that the justice system is typically tilted against victims, but unverified claims make things harder for the feminist movement. The statement said that they were concerned about the list and urged those behind it to withdraw the list and to do things according to the law. They urge the complainants to come forward and report cases to the police or to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) at their universities (Kappal, 2017). According to the Kafila feminists, this way of naming and shaming can delegitimize the long struggle against sexual harassment and make their job as feminists more difficult. While the names of the alleged sexual harassers will become public, there is no way of finding out who the victims are. While this does save the victims unnecessary and completely undeserved shaming and humiliation, it also leaves scope for falsely accusing and character assassination of those on the list. Without a legal process, men could be falsely accused with a result that not only their academic career will be put in jeopardy but also their personal life. And even when these men are truly guilty, without a specific allegation and the forthcoming of the victims, it’s hard to prosecute the sexual harassers. Writers Rhea Dangwal and Namrata Gupta responded that most victims from the list were poor students who tried to go through official channels without success or recourse, while every single man on the list has the ability to defend himself socially and legally (Dasgupta, 2018). This is why they think that the list would not be helpful for the victims but will be a barrier in their cases. Just how Raya Sarkar encouraged women to add names of sexual harassers in her list, the Kafila feminists also encourage other women to add their names in their own list as a way to say that they are against Raya Sarkar’s list. So far, 12 feminists have signed their name in the list for their cause. Now, Raya Sarkar’s list is not accessible for the whole world to see anymore. However, the list has still left a mark on their society and people are still talking about the event.

Figure 3: Kafila Blog (Menon, 2017) Source: https://kafila.online/2017/10/24/statement-by-feminists-on-facebook-campaign-to-name-and-shame/ Retrieved on January 23, 2019.

5. Conclusion

Throughout this study, I analyzed the digital media practices in Raya Sarkar’s list against sexual harassment by Indian academic professors. In order to understand the list’s affective momentum and sentiments, I have contextualized the case with the globalized #MeToo feminist activism movement as well as Indian’s offline feminist vigilantism. I argue that Raya’s list is a result of the increased social connectivity facilitated by digital media. Openly talking about sexual harassment has been a taboo in Indian society but because of the #MeToo wave that hit India, more and more women are speaking up about their own experiences. Importantly, the list is received by proponents as site of social solidarity. Nevertheless, I have shown that online activism can also morph into vigilantism. Raya Sarkar’s list is considered as a digital vigilantism act as a result of naming and shaming those academic professors. The list is problematic because of the lack of detail. It also further divided opinions in India as the Kafila feminist movement in India criticized the list for being simplistic and delegitimized feminist causes. Sexual harassment is deeply rooted into our society but to make a real change is to make systematic cultural change. One can only truly get justice when the victims come forward themselves and follow due process. Raya Sarkar’s list has probably not been the most effective way to get justice for the victims, but it has left a mark in society. It has become a monumental event and a root for something bigger for women in India. It gives victims the satisfaction of putting these men to shame after attempting to bring them to justice but failed. From there, they can work up their way to justice for the victims. The study can be strengthened with an exploration on the following up of the list, especially the tangible influences it has brought upon on the alleged offenders. In this way, the study can better evaluate the efficacy of digital vigilantism in feminist causes. Only by knowing exactly what happened to all the professors, can we say if the digital vigilante practices were truly effective. Therefore, I recommend further study on the follow up of these alleged sexual harassers.

References

Aravamudan (2017). #MeToo campaign to Raya Sarkar's list: How the feminist movement changed in 2017. FirstPost. Retrieved on November 2, 2018.

Borpujari, P. (2017). #MeToo and #HimToo Come to India. The Diplomat. Retrieved on January 4, 2019 from https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/metoo-and-himtoo-come-to-india/.

Burke, L. (2018). The #MeToo shockwave: how the movement has reverberated around the world. Retrieved December 28, 2018, from Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/metoo-shockwave/

Cheong, P.H. & Gong, J. (2010). Cyber vigilantism, transmedia collective intelligence, and civic participation. Chinese Journal of Communication 3(4):471-487. Retrieved on December 29, 2018.

Dasgupta, P. (2018). #MeToo In India: 75 Professors, 30 Institutes, What Happened To Raya Sarkar’s List Of Sexual Harassers? Retrieved December 10, 2018, from Huffingtonpost: https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2018/10/25/metoo-in-india-75-professors-30-institutes-what- happened-to-raya-sarkar-s-list-of-sexual-harassers_a_23571422/

De Vries, A. (2015). The use of social media for shaming strangers: Young people’s views. In 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2053–2062). Kauai, HI: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2015.215. Retrieved on January 4, 2019.

Dumsday, T. (2009). On Cheering Charles Bronson: The Ethics of Vigilantism. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, XLVII, 49–67. Retrieved on December 29, 2018.

Dunsby, R. M., & Howes, L. M. (2018). The NEW adventures of the digital vigilante! Facebook users’ views on online naming and shaming. Australia: Sage. Retrieved December 20, 2018, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0004865818778736

Gulabi Gang (2018). History. http://www.gulabigang.in/history.html. Retrieved on November 19, 2018.

Hoekman, M. (2014). Conceptualizing the Relationship between State Failure and Vigilantism. International Development Studies. http://edepot.wur.nl/313205. Retrieved on November 8, 2018.

Jane, Emma A. (2017). Feminist Digilante Responses to a Slut-Shaming on Facebook. UK: Sage. Retrieved on November 20, 2018.

Jane, Emma A. (2017). Vigilantism, public shaming, and social media hegemony: The role of digital- networked images in humiliation and sociopolitical control. Sage. Retrieved December 21, 2018, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10714421.2017.1343068?src=recsys

Johnston, L. (1996). What is vigilantism? British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 220–236. Retrieved on November 2, 2018.

Kappal, B. (2017, November 30). Breaking the “savarna feminism” rules – how Raya Sarkar’s list of alleged harassers divided opinion in India. Retrieved December 29, 2018, from https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/11/breaking-savarna-feminism-rules- how-raya-sarkar-s-list-alleged-harassers

Khomami, N. (2017, October 20). #MeToo: how a hashtag became a rallying cry against sexual harassment. Retrieved December 9, 2018, from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/20/women-worldwide-use-hashtag-metoo- against-sexual-harassment

Kumar, A., & Andre, A. (2017, November 8). #MeToo: 'Sexual predators' list divides Indian feminists. Retrieved December 11, 2018, from DW: https://www.dw.com/en/metoo-sexual-predators-list- divides-indian-feminists/a-41295522

Kosseff, Jeff, The Hazards of Cyber Vigilantism (February 1, 2016). 32 Computer Law & Security Review 642-49, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3225780

Lindlof, T.R. (1995) Qualitative Communication Research Methods, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Retrieved on December 21, 2018. Menon, N. (2017). STATEMENT BY FEMINISTS ON FACEBOOK CAMPAIGN TO “NAME AND SHAME”. Kafila – 12 years of a common journey. Retrieved on January 23, 2019 from https://kafila.online/2017/10/24/statement-by-feminists-on-facebook-campaign-to-name-and- shame/

Morris, A. (2018, October 11). #HimToo: Left And Right Embrace Opposing Takes On Same Hashtag. Retrieved December 11, 2018, from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/11/656293787/- himtoo-left-and-right-embrace-opposing-takes-on-same-hashtag?t=1543868774179

Mclure, H. (2000). The wild, wild web: The mythic American west and the electronic frontier. The Western Historical Quarterly, volume 31, 457-476. Retrieved on November 2, 2018.

Pal, D. (2017, October 27). Why Raya Sarkar’s list is not 'vigilantism'. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from Newslaundry: https://www.newslaundry.com/2017/10/27/raya-sarkars-facebook-vigilantism- name-shame

Robinson, P. H. (2013). The Moral Vigilante and Her Cousins in the Shadows. Faculty Scholarship, Paper 506. 1–68. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/506. Retrieved on November 22, 2018.

Rosenbaum, H. Jon, and Peter C. Sederberg. 1976. “Vigilantism: An Analysis of Establishment Violence.” In Vigilante Politics, edited by H. Jon Rosenbaum and Peter C. Sederberg, 3–29. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Retrieved on November 15, 2018. Scheffers, M.J. (2015, October 21). Framing Digital Vigilantism in the Context of the Kopschop-Incident in Eindhoven. Media, Culture & Society. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2105/34518 Sen, A. (2012). Women’ s Vigilantism in India: A Case Study of the Pink Sari Gang. Online Encyclopaedia of Mass Violence. Retrieved on November 22, 2018.

Shukla, M., & Kundu, A. (2017, October 28). Et Tu ‘Feminists’?: A response to the Kafila signatories. Retrieved December 17, 2018, from

http://roundtableindia.co.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9216:et-tu- feminists-a-response-to-the-kafila-signatories&catid=119:feature&Itemid=132

Singh, K. (2018). It took a year, but #MeToo is finally roiling Bollywood and Indian media. Retrieved from Quartz India: https://qz.com/india/1416009/metoo-finally-hits-bollywood-and-indian-media/. Retrieved on November 22, 2018.

Solove, D. J. (2007). The future of reputation: Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the internet. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2561&context=etd. Retrieved on December 29, 2018.

Steier, R. [Raya Sarkar]. (2017, October 23). One alleged sexual harasser is Dipesh Chakravarty, the other is Kanak Sarkar Prof. teaching political science at Jadavpur University. If any one knows of academics who have sexually harassed/were sexually predatory to them PM me, let's discuss and I'll add them to the list of alleged sexual harassers. [Facebook status update]. Retrieved on February 3, 2019 from https://www.facebook.com/RxyaSxrkar/posts/1686281001419245

Smartt, N. (2017, December 20). Sexual Harassment In The Workplace In A #MeToo World. Retrieved December 8, 2018, from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2017/12/20/sexual-harassment- in-the-workplace-in-a-metoo-world/#288410f55a42

The Times. (2018, May 1). Timeline: #MeToo and how the Harvey Weinstein scandal unfolded. Retrieved December 9, 2018, from The Sunday Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/timeline- metoo-and-how-the-harvey-weinstein-scandal-unfolded-9xwtd098v

Thomson Reuters Foundation. (2018). The world's most dangerous countries for women. Retrieved January 30, 2019, from Thomson Reuters Foundation: http://poll2018.trust.org/

Thomson, K. (2018). Social Media Activism and the #MeToo Movement. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from Medium Corporation: https://medium.com/@kmthomson.11/social-media-activism-and- the-metoo-movement-166f452d7fd2

Trottier, D. (2017): Leveraging Visibility, Gaining Capital? Social Media Use in the Fight Against Child Abusers: Social Media + Society pp. 1 - 12 ISSN: 2056-3051. Retrieved on November 1, 2018.

Wehmhoener, K. (2010). "Social norm or social harm: An exploratory study of Internet vigilantism". Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 11572. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11572. Retrieved on January 3, 2019.

Wall, D.S. and Williams, M. (2007). Policing diversity in the digital age: Maintaining order in virtual communities. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7, 391-415. Retrieved on November 6, 2018.

White, a., & Rastogi, S. (2009). Justice by Any Means Necessary: Vigilantism among Indian Women. Retrieved on December 29, 2018.

Yin, R.K., (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications. Retrieve on December 23, 2018.

Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development. Retrieved on December 23, 2018.