The Role of Social Media Platforms in Contemporary New Zealand LGBTQ + Movements

Abstract

This paper explores the shifting dynamics of what constitutes a contemporary social movement and the pros and cons that emerge after movements have gone online. This paper is premised on in-depth interviews with twenty-nine interviewees regarding how social media has brought changes to the contemporary LGBTQ + movement in New Zealand among both Māori and Pākehā (white New Zealanders) communities. The interviewees testified to the shifting nature of the contemporary LGBTQ + movement after the emergence and inclusion of the Internet and social media platforms on movement messaging and participant engagement. This research found that social networking sites have led to greater awareness and better coordination among movement actors to organise LGBTQ + movements in New Zealand (NZ). The paper concludes that the Internet and social media have led to more visibility and acceptability of information within contemporary movements. The Internet was a facilitator of movement organisation even before the emergence of social media platforms; however, online activism has amplified and has taken a new meaning with the advent of several social media platforms.

Keywords

LGBTQ + social media Facebook Twitter online activism

Introduction

New Zealand (NZ) offers a rich landscape from which to study how social media has affected identity because of the myriad cross-cultural and comparative references between Māori and Pākehā communities cohabiting in rural and urban spaces. The aim of this research is to examine how NZ LGBTQ + activists think of the Internet, how they historically came to think of the Internet, and how they now operate on social media platforms in an online sphere. This study attempts to extend present knowledge about the LGBTQ + community and online activity through in-depth interviews with 29 participants across NZ who were prominent LGBTQ + activists during the 1960s and 1970s. The focus of these interviews was to explore how social media brought a change to the contemporary lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ + ) movement in the country. Before the emergence of the Internet and social media platforms, the LGBTQ + community in NZ operated through traditional media representation via television, radio, newspaper advertisements and pamphlet distributions during the 1960s and 1970s. This research explores the shifting dynamics of what constitutes a contemporary social movement and the pros and cons that emerge after movements have gone online. The paper attempts to take into consideration how social media has been a facilitator for propagating LGBTQ + activism in NZ as well as how contemporary LGBTQ + individuals and organisation are using social media platforms for connecting with each other and raising awareness. The selected interviewees were chosen for their long-standing experience in the fight of LGBTQ + rights since the 1960s-70s and their responses were based on their own memories of the movement as well as in relation to contemporary LGBTQ + rights in NZ by the present generation via social media platforms. The interviewees’ responses should be understood in the context of their own lived experience of how social media has changed/brought transformation in the contemporary LGBTIQ + social movement.

The Internet and Social Media in New Zealand

It is absolutely essential for a nation to have a fast connectivity, wide reach and networking capabilities via the Internet and social media platforms to propel any social media movement. The Internet penetration in NZ stands at 93% in the country (Digital 2020). There were 4.47 million Internet users in NZ in 2020, of which there were 3.60 million social media users in NZ (Digital 2020). Social media platforms were widely used across the country with social media accessibility reported at 75% during the same period. The accessibility of the Internet and social media platforms was further accelerated with 6.49 million connections in the country in January 2020 (Digital 2020). In terms of social media usage, YouTube and Facebook were the most used social media platforms in the country, with reportedly 86.7% and 83.5% usage respectively by NZers in 2020. Other than YouTube and Facebook dominating the social media presence in NZ, Facebook's Messenger application was the third most used social media application at 74.8% followed by Instagram and WhatsApp at 57% and 40% respectively (Digital 2020). Social media platforms have also been widely used in terms of political communication in past NZ elections (Ross et al., 2015). A study by Greaves et al. (2019) draws attention to the use of social media platforms in deciphering psychological well-being and political ideology in pansexual and bisexual-identifying participants based in NZ. According to the latest OECD report published in February 2022, high speed fibre subscription grew by 15% across the OECD countries from June 2020 to June 2021. The increase was attributed to COVID-19 restrictions and increased “demand for high-quality Internet connections with rapid upload and download speeds that fibre offers” (OECD, 2022). In the overall Internet usage across 38 OECD countries, fixed broadband subscriptions marked the highest growth of 32%, followed by cable connections which showed a modest growth of 4% during the same period (OECD, 2022). A rise in the fixed broadband subscription has also meant that there is a sharp decline in DSL connection, which registered a loss of 30% in Chile (−37%), NZ (−32%), Norway (−40%), Spain (−32%), Sweden (−31%)” (OECD, 2022).

With such a high Internet penetration rate and wide use of social media platforms, the NZ LGBTQ + community has made tremendous progress in gaining an online presence and reaching out to LGBTQ + members across all age-groups through all social media platforms. Nonetheless, despite the wide use of social media platforms, the NZ LGBTQ + community still lacks a full celebration of diversity and inclusion, as pointed out by Adams and Neville (2020) who highlighted that the Chinese and South Asian gay and bisexual men experience discrimination in NZ which “were sometimes conceptualised by participants as expression of personal preference, something which some participants reported that they had learned to accept” (p.520). Those in the Māori LGBT + community face similar discrimination where their sexual liberation has been marred by the impacts of colonisation and limited to binary genders as male or female, which has reverberated in difficulties in accepting diverse gender identities by today's Māori youth (Laurence, 2020).

The interpretation of identity has been varied based on the language and social constructs in NZ. For example, the term takatāpui encompasses cultural identities, gender and sexual identities. Furthermore, the term takes into consideration whakapapa (larger family units) - an important part of one's identity (Laurence, 2020, p. 26). Essentially the term is used as an umbrella term for same-sex-desiring and also transgender men and women.

“The attraction of the term Māori LGBTIQ is manifold in that it reinforces indigenous identity and spiritual descent from ‘tupuna takatāpui’ (takatāpui ancestors) while replacing the inelegant ‘LGBTIQ’ with an inclusivity of gender identities and sexuality similar to the term rainbow” (Kerekere, 2016, p. 3).

Thus, conceptualising identity in itself has been a tumultuous issue in amalgamating one's race, ethnicity and culture in NZ.

LGBTQ + New Zealand

New Zealand is one of the first few nations which approved of same sex marriage in the Pacifica region, which makes it a compelling case to study in the region. The LGBTQ + coalition has fought a long battle with former NZ governments and existing governmental authorities with the help of social media platforms. Social media usage in the NZ context has been unique due to its use of these platforms not only for promotion of varied representations and those that identify as Takatāpui (intimate companion of the same sex). This study aims to create awareness of indigenous, yet modern interpretations, of sexualities in varied ways that promote manakitanga (knowledge). It is in this context that the 29 participants interviewed, chart out the trajectory of LGBTIQ + movement in NZ in 1960–70s and compare it with today's contemporary LGBTQ + movements via social media in NZ.

In 1961, for the first time, ‘homosexual activity’ between consenting men aged sixteen or over in NZ was not a criminal offence under the Crimes Act. It is important to note that male homosexuality was not decriminalized in NZ until 1986, so there remained “effective and influential opponents” to gay liberation in the period between 1961 and 1986 (Carlyon & Morrow, 2013, p. 243). However, the 1960s and 1970s was an intense watershed period, “where openness and pride replaced secrecy and shame” (Carlyon & Morrow, 2013, p. 273). Up until that time, being gay was considered an unnatural pathology and being lesbian was linked with “being mad, bad, and violent” (Cox, 2005, p. 68). There was not a decisive cultural shift as The Australian edition of Time labelled homosexuality as a ‘pernicious sickness’ in 1966 (Guy, 2002, p. 38). However, widespread challenges to “cultural homogeneity” continued to intensify as the 1960s progressed (Carlyon & Morrow, 2013, p. 140). This continual transformation of social attitudes continued until 2013, when NZ became the first country in the Asia Pacific to legalize same-sex marriage.

While 2013 stands out as an important landmark for LGBTQ + equality, the 1960s and 1970s were an essential period of marked extensive social change. “By 1970s, the gay liberation played a formative role in the emergence of the gay identity we know today. It deeply affected the lives of both men and women, and members of both sexes worked together as activists” (Brickell, 2008, p. 283). As was the case around the western world, ‘coming out’ was a central component of gay liberation. This was extremely difficult at the time as both the Catholic and Protestant Churches continued to hold strong influence and they had condemned LBGTQ individuals and groups as sinful (Jennings & Millward, 2016). Despite this, many were steadfast in their belief that public declarations were key to social acceptance (Brickell, 2008). ‘Coming out’ relied upon new ideas about openness, personal freedom and social transformations, and while this approach was not universally embraced, it was influential in changing societal attitudes. Heterosexuality has had long-term social acceptance whereas being part of the LGBTQ + community has historically been considered as something that is in a ‘private space’ (Brickell, 2000). The societal legitimacy that heterosexuality has enjoyed in both the public and the private sphere has historically not been the same for those in the LGBTQ + community (Kenix, 2019) and thus, ‘coming out’ was an entrance into that public space. It is in this societal differentiation that media have played a significant role (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007) in constructing and constituting the identity of LGBTQ + community.

An increasing acknowledgement of Māori (the indigenous population of Aotearoa, NZ) identity has long been interwoven with a broader acceptance of gay rights. The urbanization of the Māori population greatly influenced the LGBTQ + movement (Jennings & Millward, 2016). The first lesbian clubs in NZ had an unmistakable Māori presence (Carlyon & Morrow, 2013). The gradual progression in search of Māori LGBTQ + identity was witnessed in 1970s when several Māori LGBTQ + activists were involved in organizations focused on feminism, lesbian feminism and gay liberation (Kerekere, 2016). In 1970, the Women's Liberation Front Club hosted the first Women's Liberation Conference. In 1972, Ngahuia Te Awekotku, a prominent Māori LGBTQ + activist was refused visa to the United States, because she was ‘homosexual,’ which further fueled the Gay Liberation movement and further fused Māori issues with the LGBTQ + community (Jennings & Millward, 2016). From 1972 to 1976, several national conferences were hosted across the country with extensive Māori involvement, until the National Gay Rights Coalition was formed in 1977.

Urbanization in NZ also facilitated more spatially settled friendship network and communities. In NZ, urban spaces have become more important in framing notions of homosexual identities and communities. However, migration from rural to urban has not always benefitted all NZers. The shift from the rural to urban settings for Māori LGBTQ + individuals has meant a disconnect with their language and culture and an increasing discomfort to adjust to “living and working in non-Māori and often racist environments. Māori LGBTIQ coming into cities congregated in network of ‘kamp/camp culture’ which was the term for homosexual in NZ pre-1970s” (Mary and Evans 2009 cited in Kerekere, 2016). Urbanisation in NZ has swiftly progressed since the period of 1996—2018 at the rate of an 8% increase per year. Nevertheless, the shift from rural to urban setting has also led to an increasing tolerance and acceptance for the LGBTQ + community by mainstream society, which has meant that the members of the LGBTQ + community feel much safer to be part of mainstream society. Homosexuals and heterosexuals share a much more integrated existence in contemporary society (Ng, 2013).

At present, “the virtual space of the Internet interweaves with physical spaces, creating new linkages and access routes” in NZ (Brickell, 2008, p. 360). It is these linkages that this research wishes to explore.

Methodology and Research Questions

This research was based on twenty-nine interviews with prominent LGBTQ + activists during the 1960s and 1970s that were identified through the snowball methodology (Boyle, 2004) of information gathering. This methodological approach (also called chain sampling) was essential in finding participants. Interviewees were asked if they could recommend anyone who was qualified and willing to participate in this research. It is through this methodological approach that the study was able to locate individuals who were prominent LGBTQ + activists during the 1960s and 1970s and could comment on how the LGBTQ + movement is now mobilized using social media platforms. Using theoretical saturation as a goal, interviews were added until little new information was obtained (Krueger, 1988).

One interviewer, who is not an author of this research, conducted all of the interviews and then fully transcribed the data. This individual was a doctoral student trained by an outside source on the process of interviewing and was informed by the researchers that the goal of the study was to learn more about this vital period of social change before any opportunity was lost due to the death of all involved. The authors of this research wanted to allow interviewees to share stories in their own voice (Bird, 2003). Thus, the author's chose to not insert themselves into the narrative. The positionality of the interviewer was of a doctoral student aiming to better understand this period, so it fit within the stated intent of the interviewer in these settings. Positionality has been defined as “a set of processes, rather than a possessive characteristic of individuals; it describes a power relationship, rather than an identity” (Tien, 2019, p. 530). Therefore, the authors wanted to remove their own power, as much as was possible, from the interviews.

The interviews were conducted in-person between the doctoral student and the interviewee. The interviewees sampled came from various class backgrounds across NZ and were interviewed over a lengthy period of three years. Achieving, or even noting, any socio-economic diversity was not the goal of this study and was not recorded. This time span was necessary as it was difficult to contact many of the interviewees who initially either did not want to be interviewed or ascertaining their specific location was problematic. To ensure some level of anonymity, the names of all interviewees were changed to pseudonyms. However, all interviewees spoke knowing that it was possible to be recognised, but that general acknowledgement was highly unlikely. That being said, the consent form acknowledged that this research could not guarantee anonymity. NZ is a very small country (approximately 5 million people) and the LGBTQ+ community is much, much smaller. Thus, complete anonymity could not be assured as individuals could be recognised by their actions or placement in a specific area or their own statements, but interviewee names were changed to pseudonyms in an effort provide some level of anonymity. All activists agreed to have their interviews analysed and published in this paper.

Interviews followed a semi-structured format that was often dictated by the direction of the discussion. Of the total 29 interviewers, 9 of the interviewers chose to direct their discussions towards the role of social media platforms in contemporary social movements which gave rise to this scholarly work focussing specifically on the role of social media platforms in shaping LGBTQ + social movements in NZ. In several instances, follow up interviews were held for further clarification and discussion. The discourse from interviews was understood as the representation of a unique province of knowledge, derived from an individualized and exclusive perspective (Hall, 1997b). However, this assessment was also situated within a larger shared, cultural environment that necessitated a high level of social and institutional awareness. As such, respondents were asked several times, and in varying ways, about their own understanding of the LGBTQ + movement and its relationship with the media. The interviewer was also heavily trained in the general local history of the LGBTQ + movement in NZ.

The analysis of interview data followed other interview research examining large amounts of interview data (Kinefuchi, 2010) and discourse analysis exploring knowledge construction (Fairclough, 2003). This research fundamentally relied upon a phenomenological approach, which acknowledges that any reality constructed from a narrative exchange between individuals is inherently co-created through perceptions between the interviewer and the interviewee (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). Any results reported within this research are intrinsically tied to the interviewer's own perceptions as the initial recipient of these messages (Moran, 2000). The goal was to extract as much of the interviewees intended meaning as possible (Kvale, 1996). Thus, training the interviewer on proper interview processes as well as LGBTQ + movement history, was essential.

This research relied on the steps detailed in previous research (Kinefuchi, 2010), which involved first transcribing all of the interview content and two researchers reading through those transcripts in their entirety without any notations. The transcripts were then re-read, with special attention to recurring words and phrases, in an open and self-selective process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) that revealed associations between the text and the perceived interviewee's sense of identity. These associations were identified as emerging discourses and viewed within a larger institutional and social context. The transcripts were then read a third time to solidify themes, or dominant discourses (Fairclough, 1995), that existed across interviewees. In several instances, a ‘member check’ (Creswell, 1998) was conducted and participants were asked again if the themes uncovered were reflective of their own feelings. Member checks were “the most crucial technique for establishing ‘credibility’” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 314). Once confirmed, this interview data was then contrasted against literature on media and identity to better understand the interviewee responses. Given that media is in a state of constant evolution, and that the results reported here are from meetings that took place over three years, conclusions should be viewed as a representation of one particular moment in time and in one particular place – NZ. The primary research questions that this research aimed to address are:

- What is the trajectory of the contemporary LGBTQ + movement from 1960s-70s until now in NZ?

- How did the media used in 1960s-70s by LGBTQ + advocates compare to media used today by those advocating for LGBTQ + rights in NZ?

Findings and Discussion

One of the major points that emerged from the interviews was the ease with which the LGBTQ + community socialized online. One of the interviewees, Mary (pseudonym) stated, “I think, generally speaking in society a lot of young people are perhaps not so involved in organized community groups because a lot of their socializing and organizing is being done online” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017). Due to the culture of constant connectivity (e.g., Arnd-Caddigan, 2015; Dijck, 2013; Gladwell & Shirky, 2011; Turkle, 2011), there is a heightened socialization and easier mingling of people online. This mingling has led to what Mary calls “a different way of activism” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017). However, this online activity has also led to somewhat dangerous interactions. As Mary states, “how dreadful, how dangerous, going to parks, going to toilets to meet people because they can meet online” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017). This offline/online activity is similar to “cottaging” (Ashford, 2006) or the online search for “anonymous sexual encounters in public spaces” (Gudelunas, 2012, p. 351).

Another significant point that was highlighted by another interviewee, Bill (psudeonmym), is that “because everyone is online, you can access information very quickly, although you have to be careful about the quality of it” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017). Thus, the authenticity of information arising from these platforms are many times in question. Social media movements gain legitimacy and validation from users but often lack credibility of information (DeLuca et al., 2012). Nonetheless, Bill acknowledges that after the emergence of digital platforms there has been a much wider world, “but a messier one, more chaotic and more open to not getting the right information or not getting the information you need” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017).

Bill also draws attention to the concept of ‘cruising’ (Turner, 2003) and how it now has an added layer of complexity online. Bill states,

“earlier, guys developed all these signs to let each other know because they were into the quick pick up for women you did not know. The woman who invited you for a coffee, or have a drink with her, you didn't know if she was lesbian or not, so all that interaction is gone now, you just get to do it online” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017).

The public idiosyncratic behaviour which was historically been displayed by gay men and lesbian women has moved online and the emergence of social networking sites catering to specific segments of the LGBTQ + community has, in fact, made it easier to socialize for gay men and lesbian women. This has led to “classic visual patterns of cruising” through the digital media, geosocial networking, and sexually based social media targeted for the LGBTQ + community (Roth, 2016). This inception of social media targeted for the LGBTQ + community has transformed the mere concept of cruising proposed by Turner (2003) to “digital cruising” (Mowlabocus, 2016).

Further, Bill states,

“support of political things tends to be passive now, like with a wristband or…. put a rainbow in your photo…. I think some of the online campaigns work, but the wristband or whatever, it doesn't really work other than as a money-guzzling” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017).

The emergence of social networking sites has also given rise to passive activism (Gerbaudo, 2018) where activism has taken the form of changing your profile picture to the campaigning theme to show support to the cause. There is notable passivity in terms of digital queer culture and LGBTQ + social media activism which is limited to changing profile pictures to rainbow flags and pink triangles at youth composed websites (Alexander, 2004 cited in Drushel, 2010, p.66). Merchandisation is also increasingly attached to the cause, bringing a commercial aspect to movements. There is a symbolic action attached to contemporary social movements today (Penney, 2014). Nevertheless, “virtual support, while intangible, is still support and digital activism over time can lead to more substantive off-line action” (Vie, 2014).

Another drawback with social media content is that it can be too general and cater to a rather diverse audience rather than targeting a specific one. Thus, there is no specific direction to the campaigns that are ongoing in social media. Bill states,

“you know a story has to have a hook and it has to have an audience……. Well, it's a bit less true on social media. Social media is a slut, it doesn't care, there's no passion like there is with newspapers and radio” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017).

Another interviewee, Shelly (psudeonym), mentioned social media has given affordability for real-time connection within the global community. This is similar to glocalisation (Hall, 1997a; Kraidy, 1999; Swyngedouw, 2004), where interconnected networks have led to direct linkages with global events and local people. The use of the Internet and social media has also meant that the members of the LGBTQ + community, both globally and locally, have negotiated being members of gay ‘community’ which is unbounded by geography (Usher & Morrison, 2010). “The online world has offered opportunities for de-localised story-telling that never could have happened without the Web” (Usher & Morrison, 2010, p. 279).

LGBTQ + Social Media Campaigns in NZ

Social networking sites have led to greater awareness of other social movements. Keryn, another interviewee, gives the example of the No Pride in Prison campaigns. The campaign came into fruition after the LGBTIQ pride parade emphasised on the diversity and inclusiveness of the event in February 2015. The inclusiveness meant incorporation of uniformed police and prison officers in the parade. However, the incorporation of uniformed police and prison officer at the Auckland Pride parade was greeted by banners stating there is ‘No Pride in Prisons’ and protestors attempting to stop Police and Prison officers from marching in the Auckland Pride parade in February 2015 (Lamusse, 2016). The protestors stated that the inclusion of the police and the prison officers was not justified in the pride parade given the “disproportionate charging, conviction and incarceration of the Māori people or the imprisonment of trans women in men's prisons” (No Pride in Prison, 2015 cited in Lamusse, 2016, p. 49). This gave rise to a renewed focus to the LGBTQ + pride and the treatment of Māori people and trans-women in prison and “the historic and contemporary mistreatment of marginalised people by the police and the prison officers” (Lamusse, 2016, p. 49). No Pride in Prison movement has been renamed as People Against Prisons Aotearoa and has went on to become “a prison abolitionist organisation towards building a more fairer, safer and more just Aotearoa” (Lamusse, 2016). The Internet facilitated greater acceptance and validation from people toward this campaign through social media platforms. Keryn (pseudonym) states,

“the Internet has been kind of a natural part of how we talk about the No Pride in Prison stuff. No Pride in Prisons has got a Twitter account, and it has got a Facebook account, and a Tumblr account and I feel like they are useful ways of talking about stuff. Especially young queer who are by far the majority of our supporters and are under the age of 45, under the age of 30 even” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017).

The diversity of social media platforms that Keryn highlights, has widened the reach of campaigning that is being carried online (Gudelunas, 2012). The diversity of accessing different platforms by different age groups also points to the choice of mediums that the target users of different ages use to seek information about campaigns. For example, another interviewee, Dave (pseudonym) states that “…for everything I have been involved in. I have used Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook, and sometimes Instagram …… Tumblr is for that, and Twitter is for that” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017). These platforms have created their own niche users based on the nature of content that is being shared (Ellison et al., 2007). Different social media platforms serve different purposes for the LGBTQ + community (Gudelunas, 2012).

An increased online presence also feeds into gaining online social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Gudelunas, 2012). How we use technology to interact with our friends, family members, co-workers define our social capital. Keryn adds,

“especially for me, a lot of social capital comes from being an Internet person, and that wouldn't be possible if the Internet wasn't a kind of a place that a lot of queers use. I feel like the Internet definitely has more connecting functions then disconnecting functions, it makes working quite easier” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017).

However, Keryn also acknowledges the disadvantages of online activism. “There is also the problem that some people are happy just to be tough on the Internet, which I don't think is a new problem” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017). To add to this, another interviewee, Bill, mentions how she came across a cause in Facebook. “It came up like on this day on Facebook, it is around this time of the year. I wasn't really involved with activism except for online stuff, changing a profile picture thing like that” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017). This suggests a certain level ‘slacktivism’ where online movements have taken passive acceptance from users towards acknowledging social movements and their causes (Morozov, 2009). This passive acceptance also comes from the fact that

“the Internet makes anonymity possible in areas where surveillance technology is not yet employed by the nation-state to police citizens, individuals who support LGBTQ + human rights and can feel safe to express their views. Thus, the safety of the space allows LGBTQ + community members to be slacktivists” (Otu, 2020, p. 15).

Social media has also been a great organizational tool for the LGBTQ + community today. Bill states, “I mean I think being online is pretty integral to any successful progress now. No Pride in Prison, even just using the Internet to organize it was massive” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017). Other than the No Pride in Prison movement, Bill also gives an example of another movement, Trans Day of Solidarity where she mentions how online petitions through Facebook and Twitter brought together those who supported the cause irrespective of being geographically scattered. Bill states, “… people could sign up with their Facebook or Twitter and stuff and then on a certain day everyone who is signed up will automatically send out a message with the same hashtag, so it creates an artificial trend” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017). Over the past few years, Trans Day of Solidarity has been a holistic movement encompassing the voices of transgender, non-binary and queer members in Aotearoa NZ. The movement has grown in numbers with protestors marching in solidarity with Black Lives Matter, for black transgender and non-binary community in NZ (Radio NZ, 2020).

Social movements are now shaped by online petitions and emailing (Harlow, 2012; Penney, 2014).

“The Internet's role in social movements are two-fold: the Internet can facilitate traditional offline activism, enhancing movement's existing repertoire adding email campaigns, online petitions and even virtual sit-ins to activists existing toolbox or it can create new forms of activism and resistance” (Harlow, 2012, p. 229).

Bill's point also stresses Shapiro's (2004) argument on how the Internet has transformed transgender organising.

“First, the Internet has become a tool for activists and organisations to use to reduce organisations’ upstart and maintenance cost and to provide quick and efficient information distribution. Second, the Internet has become a space within which to facilitate networking and collective identity development and employ new tactics, leading to the further development, growth and success of the transgender movement” (Shapiro, 2004, p. 171)

Bill reiterates, “I do agree online activism has to go past just signing a petition, but it's definitely invaluable in communicating and organizing” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017). Thus, even signing petitions or showing passive resistance helps in reaching to the supporters and acts as a good awareness tool (Penney, 2014).

Another major theme which emerged from the interviews and was discussed exhaustively by one of our interviewees, Tara (pseudonym), was with the increased access to knowledge about the LGBTQ + community through the Internet. Tara states, in terms of gaining information about transsexuality (denoting a transsexual individual who has undergone medical practice to align their sex with their respective gender identity) –

“the Internet has had a huge impact on the trans community. The amount of information that is just sitting out there on google is enormous…. essentially, you can educate yourself about the trans experience and the trans life and find out where you might sit in the trans spectrum and what your options are and find like-minded people to correspond with and talk to and through Skype talk, see and share tips hints and photographs of your life” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017).

Thus, the Internet and these platforms have also brought with them democratization and personalization of politics (Bennett, 2012). The argument made by Tara also brings similarity to Cooper's (2010) study which points out that

“the Internet and social media offer a safe space to (a) question identity in a safe, risk-free environment (b) construct alternate systems of support, family and community (c) gather assistance on transitioning from one identity to another (d) going throw the whole mechanics of coming out and (e) obtain education about gay and lesbian identity categories and resources” (p.83).

Tara adds that

“the Internet has made a huge difference to trans peoples understanding of themselves and their confidence with themselves and the feeling that they are not the only person struggling with being different in the world, they are no longer isolated like they used to be” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017).

Contemporary social movements have had greater acknowledgement even before the emergence of SNS. The Internet has been playing a crucial role in facilitating online campaigns through emailing and sending online petitions to people to support a cause. For example, another interviewee, Barry (psudeonym) mentions about an email campaign in which an online petition was sent out to around 2000 people in support of civil union bill. In the email campaigning, a paunch of questions was put together and a canned letter was given to people to send to their Member of Parliament (MP) that they could then edit. The mail had a link to the people who wrote the original petitions, and the email could be addressed to a couple thousand people. Within two hours of sending the email, Barry remembers Labour ministers ringing him up and saying,

“we are supporting the bill, we are absolutely in favour of it, but could you stop sending these emails it's destroying our inbox! By eleven thirty, we had a call from the Internet service provider who was hosting the application saying, look there are a hundred thousand messages cued in this application and it has brought the server down and we are really not happy about this” (Various Interviews, 2014–2017).

This demonstrates the tenacity with which the LGBTQ + community has used the Internet and social media platforms as a facilitator for LGBTQ + social movements. Thus, the Internet became a facilitator even before the emergence of social networking sites (Dijck, 2013; Gladwell & Shirky, 2011; Morozov, 2011; Shirky, 2011). Activists have indeed been using the Internet as a medium in the form of sending emails and creating websites to reach out to supporters. However, with the emergence of social media platforms, online activism has amplified and has taken a new meaning, as now there are several social media platforms at our disposal and social media activists are exploiting different platforms to organize and mobilize supporters.

Conclusion

This research paper has explored how social networking sites have brought the LGBTQ + community together in NZ. The 29 interviewees testified to shifting nature of the contemporary LGBTQ + movement after the emergence and inclusion of the Internet and social media platforms. The social media's role specifically in context to the LGBT community in NZ has been to voice their concerns and increasingly engage with more global movements. The LGBT members in NZ have also come to realise that to succeed in terms of a social media mediated movement, it is important to be present in all platforms to target people from different age groups. Similar to global experiences, the LGBT members in NZ have also used the Internet and social media platforms for seeking more information and being aware about themselves along with reaching out to LGBTQ + communities and members of the communities to find more about their renewed identities.

This research found that there were very real lived consequences for those who actively formed their identity online and that identity transferred to the real world. Other than benefitting from the Internet and social media platforms, the LGBTQ + community still navigates cautiously within the online world. Whether it is in public or personal life, the LGBTQ + community in NZ has embraced the Internet and social media rather openly with equal acknowledgement of its shortcomings.

With newer social media channels at young protestor's disposal such as Snapchat and TikTok, it is often times difficult to navigate across all social media channels and to keep up with all social media postings emerging from LGBTQ + communities in different social media platforms. With the addition of new features such as livestreaming in Facebook and Instagram, there has been an aspect of momentariness to information that has being put forth in social media which has meant that there is a time-duration within which these information or social media posts are expected to be viewed by their respective audiences after which the information gets lost giving little scope for future researchers to go back and find out these posts later in time for research purpose. Another potential limitation of this research has been with the rise of social media mediated movements, it has given rise to a lot of individualised self-expressions by people in singularity leading to a loss of important voices and concerns raised amongst a cacophony of numerous individualised self-expressing voices in the web of hashtags and social media posts. Thus, the future scope of research in this field would be to perhaps streamline and focus on one particular social media platform and look at how LGBTQ + organisations and members of the community have utilised one platform in different ways. One of the emerging examples have been the case of queer digital storytellers (Vivienne & Burgess, 2013) in platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and Facebook which could be a potential future scope of research to highlight the aspect of individualised self-expression via these platforms.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Suvojit Bandopadhyaya

Author Biographies

Suvojit Bandopadhyaya is an Assistant Professor and Program Coordinator at Journalism and Mass Communication, Department at SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India. He has completed his PhD from the Department of Media and Communication at University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He is a social media researcher and is interested to do research exploring different facets of social media platforms. His PhD dissertation examines how modern terrorist organisations such as the Islamic State and Al Qaeda, use Facebook and Twitter for propaganda and radicalisation. His primary field of study is in Media and terrorism; however, he has taken his conceptual concerns further with social media usage to study other domains such as social media and LGBTQ+ communities and maintaining virtual identities simultaneously across various online platforms. He has completed his Master's in Media Governance from Jamia Millia Islamia and has a BA (Hons.) Journalism degree from University of Delhi, India.

Linda Jean Kenix, Professor/Head of School, Media and Communication, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. She is Professor and Head of School of Language, Social and Political Sciences at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Before coming to New Zealand, she was an Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota. She has published broadly in over 45 international academic journals. Her book, “Alternative and Mainstream Media: The Converging Spectrum”, was published by Bloomsbury Academic and she edited a book with Associate Professor Joshua Atkinson titled, “Alternative Media Meets Mainstream Politics: ActivistNation Rising,” published by Lexington Books.

References

Adams

Neville

(2020). Exploring talk about sexuality and living gay social lives among Chinese and South Asian gay and bisexual men in Auckland, NZ. Ethnicity & Health, 25(4), 508–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2018.1439893

Arnd-Caddigan

(2015). Sherry turkle: Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other: Basic books, New York, 2011, 348 pp, ISBN 978-0465031467 (pbk). Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 247–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-014-0511-4

Ashford

(2006). The only gay in the village: Sexuality and the net. Information & Communications Technology Law, 15(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600830600961202

Bennett

W. L.

(2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428

Bird

S. E.

(2003). The Audience in Everyday Life: Living in a Media World. Routledge.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

(Ed.), Handbook oft/rem]: And research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.

Boyle

M. P.

(2004). Social networks, mass media, and efficacy: Implications for protest participation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Wisconsin - Madison.

Brickell

(2000). Heroes and invaders: Gay and lesbian pride parades and the public/private distinction in NZ media accounts. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 7(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/713668868

Brickell

(2008). Mates and lovers: A history of gay NZ. Godwit.

10.

Carlyon

Morrow

(2013). Changing Times: NZ Since 1945. Auckland University Press.

11.

Cooper

(2010). Lesbians who are married to men: Identity, collective stories, and the internet online community. In LGBT Identity and online new media (pp. 89–100). Routledge.

12.

Cox

(2005). That’s What I am: I’m A Lesbian. In Laurie

Evans

(Eds.), Outlines: Lesbian and Gay Histories of Aotearoa (pp. 39–42). Lesbian and Gay Archives (LAGANZ).

13.

Creswell

J. W.

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage.

14.

DeLuca

K. M.

Lawson

Sun

(2012). Occupy wall street on the public screens of social media: The many framings of the birth of a protest movement. Communication, Culture & Critique, 5(4), 483–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2012.01141.x

15.

Dijck

J. V.

(2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press.

16.

Ellison

N. B.

Steinfield

Lampe

(2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

17.

Fairclough

(1995). Media discourse. Arnold.

18.

Fairclough

(2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press.

19.

Gerbaudo

(2018). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. Pluto Press.

20.

Gladwell

Shirky

(2011). From innovation to revolution: Do social media make protests possible? Foreign Affairs, 90(2), 153.

21.

Greaves

L. M.

Sibley

C. G.

Fraser

Barlow

F. K.

(2019). Comparing pansexual-and bisexual-identified participants on demographics, psychological well-being, and political ideology in a NZ national sample. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(9), 1083–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1568376

22.

Gudelunas

(2012). There’s an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality & Culture, 16(4), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-012-9127-4

23.

Guy

(2002). Worlds in Collision: The Gay Debate in NZ, 1960–1986. Wellington.

24.

Hall

(1997a). The local and the global: Globalization and ethnicity. Culture, Globalization and the World-System, 19–39.

25.

Hall

(1997b). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (Vol. Vol. 2, pp. 1–74). Sage.

26.

Harlow

(2012). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society, 14(2), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811410408

27.

Jennings

Millward

(2016). A fully formed blast from abroad?: Australasian lesbian circuits of mobility and the transnational exchange of ideas in the 1960s and 1970s. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 25(3), 463–488. Retrieved from muse.jhu.edu/article/629667. https://doi.org/10.7560/JHS25304

28.

Kenix

L. J.

(2019). Exploring national culture through international media: The publication of a viral pro-LGBT image compared against a nation’s wealth, level of religion, and democracy. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 49(March).

29.

Kerekere

(2016). LGBT activism among Māori. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies, 1–5.

30.

Kinefuchi

(2010). Finding home in migration: Montagnard refugees and post-migration identity. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 3(3), 228–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2010.487220

31.

Kraidy

M. M.

(1999). The global, the local, and the hybrid: A native ethnography of glocalization. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16(4), 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039909367111

32.

Krueger

(1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage.

33.

Kvale

(1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage.

34.

Lamusse

(2016). Politics at pride? NZ Sociology, 31(6), 49.

35.

Laurence

(2020). “You’re not coming out–you’ve been there all along and just no one‘s looked”: Māori LGBT + youth and identity exploration. The University of Waikato.

36.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.

37.

Merleau-Ponty

(1962). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.

38.

Moran

(2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Routledge.

39.

Morozov

(2009). The brave new world of slacktivism. Foreign policy, 19(05).

40.

Morozov

(2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. Penguin UK.

41.

Mowlabocus

(2016). Gaydar culture: Gay men, technology and embodiment in the digital age. Routledge.

42.

(2013). A “post-gay” era? Media gaystreaming, homonormativity, and the politics of LGBT integration. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6(2), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12013

43.

OECD. Broadband Statistics Update Report published on 10^th Feb 2022 https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband-statistics-update.htm.

44.

Otu

K. E.

(2020). Queer slacktivism as silent activism? The contested politics of queer subjectivities on GhanaWeb. Sexualities, 24(1–2), 46–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460719893620

45.

Penney

(2014). Social media and symbolic action: Exploring participation in the Facebook red equal sign profile picture campaign. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12092

46.

Ross

Fountaine

Comrie

(2015). Facing up to Facebook: Politicians, publics and the social media (Gurr) turn in NZ. Media, Culture & Society, 37(2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443714557983

47.

Roth

(2016). Zero feet away: The digital geography of gay social media. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(3), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1124707

48.

Scheufele

D. A.

Tewksbury

(2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x

49.

Shapiro

(2004). ‘Trans’cending barriers: Transgender organizing on the internet. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 16(3-4), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1300/J041v16n03_11

50.

Shirky

(2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28–41.

51.

Strauss

A. L.

Corbin

(1998). The basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage.

52.

Swyngedouw

(2004). Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0955757042000203632

53.

Tien

(2019). Teaching identity vs. positionality: Dilemmas in social justice education. Curriculum Inquiry, 49(5), 526–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2019.1696150

54.

Turkle

(2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

55.

Turner

M. W.

(2003). Backward glances: Cruising the queer streets of New York and London. Reaktion Books.

56.

Usher

Morrison

(2010). The demise of the gay enclave, communication infrastructure theory, and the transformation of gay public space. In LGBT Identity and online new media (pp. 285–301). Routledge.

57.

Various Interviews (2014–2017). Personal Interview.

58.

Vie

(2014). In defense of “slacktivism”: The human rights campaign Facebook logo as digital activism. First Monday, 19(4).

59.

Vivienne

Burgess

(2013). The remediation of the personal photograph and the politics of self-representation in digital storytelling. Journal of Material Culture, 18(3), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183513492080