Identity/Politics: Intersection and Distinction in Digital Publics By
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Identity/Politics: Intersection and Distinction in Digital Publics by Dmitri Seals A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Neil Fligstein, Chair Professor Kim Voss Professor David Bamman Spring 2020 Abstract Identity/Politics: Intersection and Distinction in Digital Publics by Dmitri Seals Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology University of California, Berkeley Professor Neil Fligstein, Chair This study tests and sharpens the widely shared consensus that something meaningful changed during the 2016 election cycle in the United States. Both online and in person, highly partisan actors ventured out of comfortable ideological homes to mainstream forums, in many cases acting without support from formal organizations. The apparently new character of their mobilization gave rise to narratives of social and political realignment and suggested the possibility of radical change to the structure of affiliations and identifications in the American public. What realigned in this tumultuous time and what stayed the same? Why do any shifts that occurred matter to the future of advocacy and democracy in the United States? To address these questions, the study brings together tools of concept and method from a wide range of influences including cultural sociology, intersectionality studies, social psychology, philosophy, and political science. The study produces two toolkits to support further work on boundary realignment and political inequality: intersectional boundary analysis and a new typology of participatory publics based on their level of diversity and emotional intensity. The empirical work of this study is a mixed-methods analysis drawing from the discussions of over 1.7 billion comments on the social media platform Reddit from 2015-2017 to reveal connections between discourse, culture, and inequality. The first chapter lays out the conceptual framework of intersectional boundary analysis, distinguishing forms of boundary work and developing tools for measuring boundary work and emotional language in text. It then measures the relative prevalence of different forms of boundary work to reveal shifts in the salience of symbolic boundaries over the 2016 election cycle and uses network analysis to show shifts in how these boundaries align. The second chapter develops intersectional boundary analysis by zooming in on the intersectional complexity of discourse on class inequality in online advocacy forums, using qualitative coding and close readings to critique and move past simplistic narratives like the rise of populism and the white working class. The final chapter explores inequalities of political power by tracking rates of attrition and advocacy activity among the wave of new authors who joined these advocacy forums after the elections. Results connect debates on the role of diversity and polarization, rationality and emotion in participatory publics online to inequalities of political engagement. 1 Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Intersectional Boundary Analysis ............................................................................................................... 19 Chapter 2: The Intersectional Complexity of Class Distinction ............................................................................... 46 Chapter 3: Emotion, Diversity, and Inclusion in Online Publics ............................................................................. 70 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................... 96 References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 100 Appendix A: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................... 127 Appendix B: Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 131 i Acknowledgements True thanks to the committee of scholars - Neil Fligstein, Kim Voss, and David Bamman - whose eternal patience, insightful comments, and kind humanity made this dissertation possible. Six years working to found and develop movements and nonprofits in the Bay Area enriched this work but interrupted my progress through graduate school, and I do not take for granted that this committee welcomed me back with honest guidance and open arms. My deepest and most eternal gratitude to my partner Alisa Catalina Sanchez, whose brilliance, generous heart, and writing expertise enlivens every page of this document. I am also indebted to the wise voices from one generation up and one generation down: I am inspired every day by my parents, who faced down much greater obstacles than I did to get their educations; I am also lifted up by the lively spirit of Orozco, now little but already hinting at the wonderful adult they will become. Thanks also to the many friends and collaborators at UC Berkeley, Cal State LA, and elsewhere who have read drafts and offered thoughtful comments along the way. My heart goes out especially those who read the early drafts I produced as I was just getting back in the academic groove. I want to give special appreciation to every author whose comments enter into the analysis of this study and everyone out there working to make their voice heard and claim a seat at the slanted table of democracy in this country. ii Introduction Identity/Politics: Intersection and Distinction in Digital Publics A wave of mass mobilizations during the 2016 US presidential campaign confounded political pundits, rattled established organizations, and raised a challenge to traditional understandings of political action. Both online and in person, highly partisan actors ventured out of comfortable ideological homes to contest for control in mainstream forums, in many cases acting without support from formal organizations. The apparently new character of their mobilization suggested the possibility that 2016 saw a critical election causing radical change to the structure of affiliations and identifications in the American public sphere. What realigned, what stayed the same - and most importantly, why does it matter to the future of advocacy and democracy in the United States? Scholars and pundits focused attention on a wide range of narratives - populism, the white working class, the rise of the alt-right - and so often they contradicted each other, highlighting the importance of one social category and ignoring or downplaying others. This study argues that the best chance of assembling these contradictory narratives into an understanding of how realignment works and why it matters is to combine perspectives and tools of intersectionality studies and cultural sociology, and to pair close readings with big data analysis. Crucially, the analysis directs attention away from the discourse of elites, avoiding the traditional study of political speeches and mass media and instead focusing on informal discourse - the everyday discussions of everyday people. Informal discourse is a crucial site for the study of large-scale shifts in identity and group membership. Elites do not dictate political and social directions so much as tap into forces already present in the broader public (Bourdieu 1991; Norton 2017). Developing methods to measure patterns in informal discourse directly and at scale can reveal patterns that studies of elite discourse would miss - and reveal trends and complexities that elites themselves tend to miss. As boundaries and publics realign and evolve under the influence of charged political events, they contribute to shifts in how people view themselves - or don't - as active and engaged advocates and participants in democracy. The subjective experience of participating in advocacy and political discussion can have long-term consequences for political and power inequalities: many who find their participation ignored or dissonant withdraw in a form of self-censorship (Schwalbe et al. 2000), shying away from politics even in their personal lives (Bennett et al. 2013; Eliasoph 1996, 1998). Still, the great body of work mapping discursive opportunity structures has left relatively untouched a vital question that is essentially quantitative: which styles and structures of communication cause people to remain or drop out more than others? These sociological questions are grounded by my own experiences engaging and observing advocacy in online spaces but also person to person. Before the 2016 election, advocacy on national policy in my city of Los Angeles sat at a low simmer. After the election, I saw neighbors with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives take up political engagement with a new seriousness. Within a month of the election, at least eight new grassroots advocacy groups were founded within a 2-mile radius of my home. By the end of 2017, most of these groups were gone, and the remaining members looked seemed more privileged than the group that first mobilized a year before. 1 These chapters push