UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title This is (Not) What Democracy Looks Like: How Ideology, Hierarchy and Inequality Shape Digital Activism Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/80z6106p Author Schradie, Jennifer Anne Publication Date 2014 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California This is (Not) What Democracy Looks Like: How Ideology, Hierarchy and Inequality Shape Digital Activism By Jennifer Anne Schradie A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology and the Designated Emphasis in New Media in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kim Voss, Chair Professor Claude Fischer Professor Abigail DeKosnik Fall 2014 Abstract This is (Not) What Democracy Looks Like: How Ideology, Hierarchy and Inequality Shape Digital Activism by Jennifer Anne Schradie Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology University of California, Berkeley Professor Kim Voss, Chair This dissertation addresses longstanding sociological questions about organizational democracy in the context of contemporary advances in digital technology. To date, most of the scholarship on digital activism suggests that the Internet enables social movements to be less hierarchical, more participatory, and more egalitarian. However, such claims are weakened by researchers’ tendency to study only high levels of digital activism, rather than investigating digital practices across a range of organizations with differing levels of digital engagement. In contrast, I explore political, labor and social movement organizations across an entire political field. My units of analysis are the 34 groups in North Carolina active on both sides of a political issue: public employee collective bargaining rights. The organizations range from Tea Parties to rank-and-file labor unions and from conservative think tanks to progressive coalitions. I collected data on over 60,000 Tweets, Facebook posts and Web site metrics of the organizations. I then created an index to measure the extent of digital engagement of each group, and I developed a typology of online social movement activities and platforms. An analysis using this index indicates that rather than digital technologies simply shaping social movements, I find that social movement organizational differences affect Internet use. Groups that are more hierarchical, conservative, reformist and composed of middle and upper class members are much more likely to have higher digital activism levels than less hierarchical, progressive, radical and working class organizations. Using in-depth interviews, ethnographic observations, and content analysis, I also uncover the mechanisms of these digital differences. First, contrary to the literature that suggests that digital activism is tied to non-hierarchical groups, I find that groups that are more hierarchical and bureaucratic have the infrastructure to develop and maintain online organizational engagement. Next, rather than the typical image of the digital activist as a left-wing radical, the highest digital activism levels are among right-wing groups because of what I call their organizing ideology: their ideas and practices of liberty and spreading the truth align with their Internet use. In turn, reformist groups embrace the Internet to reach those in power in their lobbying efforts while radical groups simply treat digital technology as one of many tools for mass organizing, resulting in lower digital activism levels. Finally, digital activism is not an egalitarian participatory space due to low costs of entry because of a social class gap, which derives from the high costs of online participation, as well as power and entitlement differences between working-class and middle-to-upper class groups. This study demonstrates that the Internet does not render obsolete sociological theories of collective action, oligarchy, and stratification. Instead, this research points to how ideology, hierarchy and inequality shape Internet use, challenging the theories of digital democracy. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii CHAPTER ONE: 1 Introduction—What is the Relationship Between Organizational Democracy and Internet Use? CHAPTER TWO: 16 North Carolina as a Context for Action Around Collective Bargaining CHAPTER THREE: 23 Organizational Factors Shape Digital Activist Scores CHAPTER FOUR: 36 Iron Law 2.0—Bringing the Organization Back into Digital Activism CHAPTER FIVE 48 Organizing Ideology—Patriots, Radicals, Unions and Reformers CHAPTER SIX 66 The Digital Activism Gap—Social Class, Social Media, Social Movements CHAPTER SEVEN 77 Conclusion—Digital Activism in a Societal Context REFERENCES 83 APPENDIX 92 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful for all of the support I received along this dissertation path. Thank you to the following funders, especially the committee members and staff who made the grants possible: The National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (NSF DDIG SES-1203716), the Jacob K. Javits Fellowship, the Mike Synar Fellowship from the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, the Peter Lyman Graduate Fellowship in New Media, Student Research and Travel Grants from the Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, and the Berkeley New Media Summer Research Fellowship. I am truly indebted and grateful to Kim Voss, my dissertation adviser, who early on in my graduate career encouraged my intellectual curiosity and passion. She mentors with a unique balance of intellectual rigor, conceptual guidance and personal encouragement. Kim made time for lively dissertation dinners, last minute help on letters of recommendation, and multiple draft feedback. From my first day of class with her, I knew I had found a lifetime mentor. Thank you, Kim, for helping me keep my eyes on the prize. I also want to thank Claude Fischer, another dissertation committee member, for his no-nonsense, practical and astute guidance on my writing, in particular, and scholarship, in general. He does not overpraise, underpraise, or ignore. He is very unassuming and straightforward, and that is what makes him a fantastic mentor. His writing guidance is unparalleled while also managing to help me see the big picture and frame my work sociologically. Abigail DeKosnik was a critical dissertation adviser in my understanding of how new media theories mesh, and sometimes clash, with sociological theories. Her brilliance as a theorist guided me throughout my graduate career, and her professional advice has been enormously helpful. Other Berkeley sociology faculty members have been important advisers along the way. I want to express my appreciation to Michael Burawoy helping me early on map out the big picture of my research, Cihan Tugal for his theoretical guidance, especially in untangling Gramsci for me, Sam Lucas for arming me with a broad grasp of the stratification field, Mike Hout for his enthusiasm for my digital studies and for his statistical and Stata support, and Cristina Mora for her insightful writing critiques. Invaluable to my dissertation, and sociology graduate school experience, were an incredible group of graduate students at UC Berkeley. My dissertation group—Nick Adams, Pablo Gaston and Laura Nelson asked the hard, probing questions, as well as provided detailed copyediting, all with great humor and grace. In the final writing stage, I found new insight to my project from Berkeley Connect graduate students: Graham Hill, Ana Villareal, Kara Young, and, again, Pablo Gaston. My gratitude also goes out to Siri Colom, who walked, jogged and ran with me to the finish line. It is difficult to limit the list of graduate students who have helped me the past seven years, whether with funding applications, data analysis, and copyediting or with a patient ear, a union protest, and a cold beer. Many thanks to Lindsay Bayham, Jenny Carlson, Jessica Cobb, Sarah Garrett, Adam Goldstein, Pat Hastings, Katy Fox-Hodess, Shannon Ikebe, Daniel Laurinson, Zachary Levenson, Roi Livne, Sarah McDonald, Manuel Rosaldo, and Tamera Lee Stover. My special thanks are extended to the staff of the UC Berkeley Department of Sociology who guided me through the bureaucratic intricacies of registration, funding and filing. Thank you Carolyn Clark, Anne Meyer, and Belinda White. ii I am also indebted to faculty at UC Berkeley outside of the Sociology Department who opened up an indispensable window into the Information, Communication and Technology world. In addition to committee member Abigail DeKosnik, Coye Cheshire taught me how to take my ideas and shape them into robust analysis, and Jenna Burrell gave me ethnography tools for the fuzzy areas between online and offline spaces. The Berkeley Center for New Media (BCNM) was a second intellectual home to me on campus. More than just providing office space, BCNM created collegiality and collaboration. I want to thank faculty Ken Goldberg, Greg Niemeyer, and David Bates. I am particularly grateful to the BCNM students who made my writing and theorizing so much better with their comraderie: Alenda Chang, Kris Fallon, Ashley Ferro-Murray, Andrew Godbehere, Chris Goetz, Caitlin Marshall, Tiffany Ng, and Margaret Ree. Thanks also to BCNM staff: Nora Liddell Bok, Lara Markstein, and Susan Miller. The enormous data collection and content analysis of this dissertation could also not have been completed without the assistance of an inspiring crew