Re-examining the Relationship Between Civil Society and the Internet

Abstract

The increasing frequency and proficiency of Internet use by civil society groups is touted by its proponents as proof of the Internet’s democratic credentials. Studies that highlight the Internet-civil society relationship assume: firstly, that intertwining of online and offline activity furthers democratic goals and secondly, the willingness and ability of civil society actors to effectively utilize the Internet. Such assumptions are critically re-examined in light of fieldwork conducted in Bangalore city, India in 2011–2012. This article examines attitudes towards the Internet among members of Hasiru Usiru, a largely Internet-based network of concerned citizens and groups that works to protect greenery and other urban commons in the city. In-depth interviews with the ‘core group’ of active members revealed intense scepticism towards and refusal to engage deeply with, the Internet for activism. The article focuses on the apparent dichotomy that arises from the propagation of a pessimistic view of the Internet by actors who are regular Internet users, situated in a media rich environment of the ‘IT City’ of India. These findings are relevant in light of the commonly-held belief that new technologies are uncritically and automatically embraced by civil society in its democratic quest.

Keywords

Bangalore civil society Internet activism cyber/techno-pessimism

Introduction

The past decade has witnessed a surge in Internet use by a wide range of civil society actors engaged in social and political reform. By enhancing networking opportunities among disparate civic groups and social movements, the Internet is said to facilitate mobilization and greater collective action (Bennet 2003; Carty 2010, 2011; Castells 2002; Van De Donk et al. 2004). Increasingly, the relationship between civil society and the Internet is discussed in terms of the interlinkages and continuities between the online and offline components of action and their impacts in real terms (see Haythornthwaite & Kendell 2010), particularly in the political arena. The increasing proficiency with which civic groups channel the Internet for activism is often touted as proof of the Internet’s democratic credentials. The underlying assumptions of this approach appear to be firstly, that the intertwining of online and offline activity furthers democratic goals (Carty 2010; Hayhtio & Rinne 2008; Jensen et al. 2007). The second assumption is the willingness of civil society actors to adopt an increasingly affordable and accessible Internet in pursuance of these goals (see Dilevko 2002). Such taken-for-granted notions are critically re-examined in light of fieldwork conducted in Bangalore city, India in 2011–2012; where the study of Internet-based network Hasiru Usiru revealed intense scepticism towards and refusal to engage deeply with, the Internet for activism. This pessimistic attitude towards the Internet by the ‘core group’ of active members is discussed in terms of Pippa Norris’ (2001) concept of cyber-pessimism. The pessimistic vision of the Internet that emerges from this case study goes against the grain of the mostly celebratory views of the relationship between civil society and the Internet. Further, the negative view is propagated by actors who are regular Internet users and who are situated in an environment of information/Internet availability, viz., the ‘IT City’ of India. The article focuses on the seemingly paradoxical situation wherein activists who are regular (and even savvy) Internet users refuse to engage deeply with the Internet in an ‘IT rich’ city. In examining this apparent dichotomy, the article delves into the reasons for the critical response to the Internet and the conditions under which civil society actors refuse to engage with it for activism.

Hasiru Usiru, a network of concerned citizens and groups working to protect urban greenery and other urban commons, was selected as a case study (Yin 2003, 2009) by virtue of its active online space, as well as its increasingly prominent role in Bangalore city’s public sphere. Hasiru Usiru, which means ‘greenery is life’ (in the Kannada language), functions largely through a mailing list of almost 900 members.¹ The article is based on in-depth face-to-face, online and telephone interviews with 20 active members and external actors familiar with the network. Fieldwork was conducted in two rounds during May–July 2011 and December 2011–January 2012, with follow-up interviews via email, telephone and Skype thereafter. The interviews were supplemented by unstructured observation (see Nørskov & Rask 2011) of mailing list posts over a five month period (January–May 2011), as well as secondary data sources such as online platforms, blogs, (e-)newspapers and published and unpublished material provided by interviewees or informants that were relevant to the aims of this article. Observation of the mailing list discussions shed light on the actual deliberations within the network, the issues confronting the group, as well as the power structure, roles and ideological positions of various actors. The secondary sources, on the other hand, offered greater insight into Hasiru Usiru’s role in the city’s civil society space and provided a context for the research study.

Interviews revealed that the pessimistic vision of the Internet sprung, firstly, from a shared philosophy of Hasiru Usiru’s ‘core group’ objectives and norms that the actors informally referred to as ‘ideology’. Secondly, as the article will discuss, several failed attempts in the past to mobilize citizenry via online spaces were also responsible for the disillusionment with the Internet. This article demonstrates that working within the context of a technologizing city does not necessarily result in greater use of the Internet by civil society. In fact, in this case there is an effort by core group members to distance themselves from widespread Internet use for collective action. These findings point to the need for a critical re-examination of the Internet-civil society relationship, particularly the assumptions that new technologies are uncritically and automatically embraced by civil society and the seamless convergence of the two in the project for greater democratization (see Sparks 1994; Splichal 1994).

This article is divided into six sections. Section 1 discusses the methodology, research design and data analysis methods. Section 2 reviews current literature on the relationship between the Internet and civil society relating to democratic engagement. The focus is on networked activism as it relates to citizen participation in the political sphere and networked social movements, including environmental activism. Section 3 examines the literature regarding the optimistic and pessimistic predictions of the role of new technologies, including the Internet, in social and political life. The article focuses on Pippa Norris’ (2001) tripartite framework, wherein the various predictions surrounding the democratic potential of the Internet are categorized in terms of cyber-optimism, cyber-pessimism and cyber-scepticism. Section 4 provides a background of the Internet and civic action landscape in India and examines the situation in Bangalore. Here, a brief account of this relatively new phenomenon provides a contextual grounding for the case study that is to follow. Section 5 provides a case study of the Hasiru Usiru network that charts its origins, structure, goals and attitudes towards the Internet. Section 6 also discusses the main findings and examines the issues surrounding the refusal or reluctance by core group members to use the Internet widely in a landscape where Internet availability is taken for granted. This is followed by concluding remarks in Section 7.

Methodology

A case study approach is used to examine how members of the Hasiru Usiru network understood and appropriated the Internet for their activism in the ‘IT City’ of India. The article adopts Yin’s (2003) definition of the case study research method as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, over which the investigator has little or no control and in which multiple sources of evidence are used. The choice of Hasiru Usiru as a case study was influenced by the following factors: (a) a high level of online activity compared to other civic/environmental groups in Bangalore, as seen in the number, regularity and newness of online posts; (b) prominence of the organization in the city’s public and media discourse, as well as in cyberspace; (c) linkages with other civil society groups and government actors, as well as a history of activism that point to its importance in the civil society sphere; and (d) willingness of members to participate in the research when contacted via the e-group or email inquiries.

In-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were employed with the intention of describing and interpreting the meanings of central themes in the life world of the subjects (Kvale 1996). The emphasis on qualitative interviewing follows the rationale that as online engagement entails multi-site communications, what is communicated online may be different from what is communicated offline by the same person or organization (Soriano 2012). Interviews were conducted with 20 active Hasiru Usiru members, external actors familiar with the network and prominent civil society actors. E-group members were identified for interviews based on their active involvement in the list and through recommendations from other interviewees or informal sources. All but three of the interviews were conducted face-to-face in Bangalore during May–July 2011 and December 2011–January 2012, with the date, time and venue agreed upon by both parties in advance. Upon returning to Singapore after the first round of interviews, online (Skype and email) interviews were conducted with interviewees whom the author had been unable to meet in Bangalore. Telephone interviews were conducted as a follow-up to the second round of interviews that focused specifically on the case of Hasiru Usiru, when preliminary data analysis revealed gaps or required clarifications.

Interviews lasted between 25–70 minutes, with an average interview time of 50 minutes. The interviews were analyzed by qualitative thematic analysis, which enabled the identification of recurring themes and salient issues across the dataset (Boyatzis 1998; Howitt & Cramer 2005; Ryan & Bernard 2003). In accordance with the requirements of National University of Singapore’s ethics board (the Institutional Review Board or IRB), and to avoid potential conflicts, interviewees’ identities have been kept confidential. Pseudonyms chosen by the author have been used in this article and all other identifying information has been excluded.

As mentioned earlier, the interviews were supplemented by unstructured observation (see Nørskov & Rask 2011) of mailing list discussions during the period January–May 2011, as well as secondary data sources. As per the IRB’s requirements, interviewees were informed of the author’s identity and research goals and were aware that the author was observing the mailing list proceedings. With regard to the online setting, the author did not participate in any mailing list discussions. Rather, online observation entailed reading posts over a five month period in order to establish greater familiarity with the actors, the structure and workings of the network, as well as to try and determine linkages and/or disjunctures between the interview and mailing list data.

The Internet and Networked Civil Society

The capacity of the Internet to strengthen and/or revive civic engagement in democratic politics and public affairs has been at the centre of debates surrounding the socio-political implications of ICTs (see Chadwick & Howard 2009; Hague & Loader 1999; Norris 2001). This article is particularly interested in studies that examine how the Internet has impacted the ‘extra-institutional sphere of “politics”’ (Van De Donk et al. 2004, p. 2), in which networked communities, social movements and other loosely structured civil society groups play an important role.

As a growing body of research is addressing the synergies between online and offline worlds (Haythornthwaite & Kendell 2010), the relationship between online and offline communities is increasingly described in terms of ‘networked communities’ (Biddix & Park 2008; Nah 2010). These networked communities of interest have a potentially important role as democratic agents, within and as civil society (Rao 2012). The rise of networked activism has brought to the fore the centrality of the ‘network’ as the site for the organization and political mobilization of civil society (Castells, Fernandez-Ardevol, Qiu & Sey 2007; Juris 2008; Marres 2006). While Castells et al. (2007) highlight the social and political mobilizations brought on by mobile communication in the network society, Juris (2008) investigates the concrete practices through which such activist networks are constructed. Marres (2006) discusses the intersections between ICTs and civil society in terms of the ‘issue network’, which she argues is useful to understanding the politics of civil society.

Social movements are another non-institutional arena where political activity and political struggle has been re-conceptualized with the advent of ICTs (Carty 2010, 2011; Castells 2002; Diani 2000; Garrett 2006; Stein 2009; van de Donk et al. 2004; van Laer & van Aelst 2010). In the past decade, the environmental movement has emerged as a frontrunner in the fusion of high-technology use and (local, national and transnational) activism (Castells 2004; Pickerill 2003, 2006). As Warkentin (2001) and, more recently, Ignatow (2012) note, environmental activism has often taken transnational forms due to its overlap of the ‘globalization era’, as well as the early embrace of the Internet by environmental groups.² Its great successes notwithstanding, the environmental movement, like other similar movements, suffers from the limitations imposed by its networked nature. Some key challenges for environmental Internet activists include the interplay between old and new cleavages; the complications of communicating across difference and multiplicity; increased surveillance and suppression; the continued importance of the offline and local maintained by some activists; and the lack of resources of smaller grassroots groups that have disproportionately benefitted from the Internet (see Castells 2004; Pickerill 2003, 2006).

While limitations are recognized, the Internet, by aiding new forms of connectedness and civic and political engagement, is acknowledged as having had a deep impact on social movements and collective action. The potential impact of the Internet on civil society engagement and action often stems from the hopes and fears of its proponents and critics, and is discussed in terms of technological optimism and pessimism in the next section.

Attitude Towards New Technologies: Techno-optimism, Pessimism, Scepticism and Other Competing Visions

Optimistic and pessimistic predictions of the role of new technologies in social and political life have typically focused on individual self-realization, work and economic enterprise, community and democracy (c.f. Kling 1996; Winner 1997). Whereas technological optimists highlight the direct relationship between technological development and human progress, pessimistic accounts decry the debilitating effects of (unbridled) technological advance. Deeply contested visions of the future generated by new technologies can also be described in terms of technological utopianism and dystopianism.³ Winner (1997) points out that while utopian dreams take centre-stage in this age of ‘sheer technological drivenness’ (p. 1000), technology-focused imaginings have been around since the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution. Segal’s (1985) investigation of technological utopianism in American culture highlights that different stages of technological development have produced different techno-utopian and—dystopian ideals in (American) popular culture. In India, discussions on attitudes towards modern technology often begin with reference to Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, which, according to Parel (2006) and Singh and Sundaram (1996), are wrongly interpreted as pessimistic or technophobic. Rather, taking into account both its strengths and weaknesses, Gandhi is said to have understood the inextricable connection between technology and the modern economy (Ibid).⁴ Attitudes towards science and technology have been influenced by and in turn influenced, the imagination of the Indian nation-state: beginning with the nationalist project to overcome colonial rule (Mallick, Haribabu & Kulkarni 2005; Prakash 1999)⁵; science and technology as powerful ‘engines’ of state-led development in the post-independence phase (Roy 2005); and in the information technology (IT) industry-led imaginations of an ‘ethical’ state in the twenty-first century (Dasgupta 2008).

In the current period, we see that advances in ICTs, especially the Internet, have produced their own, specific techno-optimistic and—pessimistic imaginations (see A.G.M van Dijk 2012; Barnard 2012; Carty 2010; Fisher & Wright 2001; Hindman 2009; Howcroft & Fitzgerald 1998). For the purposes of this article, we focus on Pippa Norris’ (2001, p. 11) tripartite framework, wherein the various predictions surrounding the democratic potential of the Internet are categorized in terms of cyber-optimists, cyber-pessimists and cyber-sceptics. Cyber-optimists are those who hope that in affluent industrial societies, at least, the digital divide will eventually succumb to the combined forces of technological innovations, markets and the state. Cyber-pessimists emphasize the deep-seated patterns of social stratification and the growth of an unskilled underclass in technological access. Cyber-sceptics believe that technologies adapt to society and not vice-versa and that societal divides will stay much the same as they are and have been (Ibid; Harrington 2001). Norris points out that each of the attitudes towards the Internet ‘reflects an element of truth depending, like a Rorschach test, on whether studies are focusing on different multifaceted components of digital technologies. As with the blind men of Indostan in Hindu legend, observers touch different parts of an elephant—the tusks, the tail and the trunk—and report their experience with absolute conviction as though describing the whole of the digital world. Yet it requires a considerable stretch to get our arms around this beast’ (p. 13). Investigating attitudes towards the Internet with this framework in mind would be useful for a well-rounded understanding of the Internet’s role in public life in India, which in the past decade has witnessed a rise in Internet-enabled initiatives for socio-political change.

The Internet and Civil Society Action in India

In India, Internet-based activism is a recent phenomenon, surging only in the mid-2000s. While research has thus far trailed behind actual developments, there has been increasing academic interest in this area. Studies have begun to map the various forms of online activism that have taken place in India (Kovacs 2010) and to trace the ways in which the Internet has enabled greater interest and participation in political life, particularly by the urban middle classes (Gowda & Gupta 2010; Khorana & Harindranath 2011). The Pink Chaddi campaign in 2009 to protest a string of violent attacks on women visiting pubs in Mangalore, Karnataka state was one of the first instances of the online medium being used to mobilize citizen engagement (Gowda & Gupta 2010; Kovacs 2010). The campaign, initially operating on Facebook, urged supporters to send pink chaddis (underwear in Hindi)⁶ to the leader of the right-wing Hindu group that had orchestrated the attacks and to crowd pubs on Valentine’s Day in defiance of such moral policing. Chattopadyay (2011) points out that the success of the movement lies in the ‘successful’ transition from an entirely online communication to offline communication and the corresponding transition from token protest, resistance and support to tangible material confrontations (p. 65). Although short-lived, the Pink Chaddi campaign became the poster-child for civil society use of social media and was both admired and critiqued as a case study of online activism in India (Chattopadyay 2011; Mishra 2009; Shahani n.d.).

What caught the national and global imagination was the anti-corruption movement of 2010–2012, led by prominent social activist and Gandhian, Anna Hazare and powered by social networking sites that emerged as a new forum of political activism. The massive use of ICTs,⁷ as well as regular media channels, in organising protest brought the urban middle class to the streets in large numbers in India and catapulted the organizers, India Against Corruption (IAC) into a global phenomenon (Parashar 2012; Rani 2011; Thirani 2011). The IAC campaign, the first civil society campaign in India to extensively use social media, generated intense debate on ICT use for and by a civil society ‘movement’ (Jha 2011; Khorana & Harindranath 2011; Sen 2011; Sitapati 2011). Jha (2011) points to the multiplicity of roles performed by numerous actors through a predefined set of social networks, which in tandem with the media (the electronic media in particular), gave the appearance of a national (or even Pan-Indian) movement. The media prominence attached to such movements notwithstanding, Shah (2012) cautions against assuming that such ‘citizen action’ leads to systemic change and revolutions. The movement has also been criticized for its exclusionary nature on account of its mainly middle-class composition, reinforced by campaign methods such as Twitter updates, SMS campaigns, candlelight vigils and media management, which were designed to mobilize middle class youth (Pinto 2011; Sitapati 2011). While Internet-based citizen action is still largely the preserve of urban middle class actors, its potential for communication, collaboration and coordinated action suggest that its study holds value for a more complex understanding of civil society in India (Rao 2012).

Bangalore, the home of India’s celebrated IT sector, has often been at the forefront of innovative online initiatives for social and political change (see Gowda & Gupta 2010). The Internet has played a facilitating role in mobilizing protest by urban, middle class citizens, such as the Bengaluru Unites protests in various parts of the city in 2009 against the attacks on women mentioned earlier (Gowda & Gupta 2010). Another example of a successful protest campaign through online mobilization was organized by Hasiru Usiru against the Metro rail construction in April 2009. Mailing list discussions facilitated various concerted efforts, including a series of protests against the proposed construction of the Metro inside Bangalore’s famous botanical garden, Lal Bagh and another green boulevard.⁸ Hundreds of concerned citizens gathered at Lal Bagh and other disputed development sites to register their protest, formed human chains, held a candlelight vigil, as well as a host of other protest activities. A series of coordinated online and offline activities generated extensive publicity and turnout for the campaign, which thrust Hasiru Usiru and its activist message into the spotlight. These and other aspects of the activist network are dealt with in more detail in the next section.

Data Analysis and Findings

Case Study: Hasiru Usiru, the Internet and Activism

Bangalore city, the capital of Karnataka state, is known globally for its successful IT industry, earning it sobriquets such as the ‘information capital’ and ‘Silicon Valley’ of India. Before Bangalore attained fame as India’s IT hub, its well-planned parks and abundant greenery earned it the reputation of the country’s ‘Garden City’. Since the mid-2000s, however, the (State and local) government undertook a series of decisions to initiate several mega-infrastructure and road widening projects that concerned groups and citizens felt would adversely impact local communities and the environment (Sastry 2008; Sudhira 2008; personal interviews). In addition to the adverse socio-spatial implications of these projects, interviewees highlighted the absence of public consultation or consideration for the environment in decision-making. In 2003, against this backdrop, Hasiru Usiru, a network of civil society organizations and concerned individuals, emerged at the forefront of the battle to conserve trees, parks, lakes and other open spaces in Bangalore. Hasiru Usiru’s initial thrust was on environmental issues, such as preserving the city’s depleting tree cover from rapid and unplanned urbanization and countering city authorities’ brazen attitudes towards the environment. Its activities have included peaceful demonstrations and awareness-related activities such as walks, public meetings, workshops, (e-)petitions, undertaking reports/studies, etc. Where constructive engagement has failed, Hasiru Usiru has locked horns with the authorities at disputed development sites, including hugging trees and staging protests. The group’s prominent role in saving trees prompted a Karnataka High Court order in 2005 that Hasiru Usiru be consulted as and when possible before trees are felled for development projects (WP No. 14104/2005 [GM-PIL]).⁹

When queried about the positive impacts of its activism, members concurred that bringing the greens discourse to the mainstream has given rise to a more environmentally conscious citizenry and government. The greater consideration given to environmental and other concerns by the city’s planners and the recognition accorded to the network in decision-making processes were also highlighted. Despite numerous success stories, however, members cited their efforts as being only partially successful, highlighting challenges ranging from the network’s (voluntary) organizational structure, lack of governmental response and ideological differences with other civil society groups, to name a few. In recent years, Hasiru Usiru has continued to focus on the environment, while expanding its mandate to include issues of participatory planning, decentralized local urban governance and sustainable public transport.

The Hasiru Usiru network is held together mainly by an mailing list that was created in 2005 to connect members via a common platform and enable access to a common database of archival, human and other resources. As interviews progressed, there was greater clarity about the organizational structure of the network, which appeared to be divided into a ‘core group’ of around eight active individuals at that time¹⁰ and a large number of peripheral members (described here as e-group members) connected to Hasiru Usiru through the e-group. Enqvist (2012) describes the core group as comprising active and well-connected members and the peripheral group as heterogeneous actors with some links to the core but few among themselves. The core group comprised members between 29–32 years old, middle class, largely with a background in software/engineering, most of who were employed in the development sector. It became clear in the interviews that the core group comprised the most active members in the network—with ‘active’ referring to offline, rather than online, activity. Amongst this group, there was a clear preference for physical interaction and a more traditional style of activism that emphasized inclusivity and participation.

Hasiru Usiru began to receive mainstream recognition—from both media and citizens—as a result of the 2009 anti-Metro protests. These campaigns witnessed hundreds of concerned citizens gathering to register their objections and to demand public involvement in designing the Metro. E-discussions played an important role in information dissemination, in enabling wider collaboration and mobilizing citizens to action. The campaign succeeded in informing and galvanizing citizens who were interested in the issue but unsure of how to participate. Overnight, hundreds of new members were added to the email list, thereby stimulating the online discussion and precipitating the offline activities described in the previous section.

Interviewees described the Metro protests as the pinnacle of Hasiru Usiru’s Internet-based activism efforts. However, the gains from the 2009 campaign could not be translated into a sustained movement, due, in large part, to the lack of response from the online community (personal interviews). Inertia by e-group members made the core group wary of harnessing the Internet for protest activities, which effectively stalled further collective action attempts. Subsequently, the waning response to calls for protest led to a shift in strategy from organizing protests to conducting audits, undertaking public consultations, seeking media coverage and networking. While protest activities are now almost negligible, the network has still been able to facilitate some positive instances of collaboration—both planned and spontaneous. This includes the ‘Come, cross the road’ events held at various city junctions in 2011 to highlight issues faced by pedestrians and the halting of the dredging of Yediyur Lake in November 2011 (mailing list archives; Enqvist 2012). More recently, in November-December 2012, quick action by members was able to counter the proposal to build a nine-lane cark park inside Lal Bagh (mailing list archives). With the e-group having ceased to be an effective medium for mobilization, interviewees described it mainly in terms of a networking and information dissemination forum.

Strains of pessimism were evident in the downplaying of the Internet’s role in Hasiru Usiru’s activities, despite the Internet base of the network. In-depth interviews with six core group members revealed a largely negative vision of the Internet’s ability to support change. The attitude among this group ranged from an unease with to staunch opposition to extensive Internet use in its activities. A deeper exploration of this pessimistic attitude towards the Internet is undertaken in the next section.

Cyber-pessimism, Ideology and the Internet

Interviews with Hasiru Usiru’s core group members revealed attitudes akin to Norris’ (2001) cyber-pessimists, reinforced by the group’s unity of political thought (members term this their ‘ideology’) and purpose. The core group’s ideology can described as centring on the primacy of local-level democracy, of participatory decision-making, an opposition to the current form of development in Bangalore and a belief in protest as a legitimate means of dissent (personal interviews). The core group’s concerns regarding large-scale use of the Internet stemmed from what members saw as its propensity to exacerbate existing inequalities—socio-economic and political—in the city. A combination of this ideology, largely referred to in terms of left-leaning or socialist political thought, and unsuccessful efforts at Internet-enabled collective action lie at the root of a pessimistic attitude towards the Internet. A qualitative thematic analysis of the interview data revealed that pessimistic attitudes towards the Internet by core group members clustered around four main themes, which are described in detail below.

The Internet as Exclusionary

Interviews revealed that the core group viewed the Internet as a limited or exclusionary realm that works in the interests of those with access to it in the first place, such as middle and higher-income classes. Members discussed the need to move beyond Internet use, frequently expressing concern that Internet-based activities inhibited them in their overall work:

It’s a networking tool, but it inhibits us also. Because we have sort of centered around the e-groups for now. I mean, people who are joining Hasiru Usiru also belong only to a certain class, so it’s sort of inhibiting us also. (Deepak, male, core group. Personal interview, 15 June 2011)

While efforts were made to hold public meetings in easily accessible areas in the city, the network was still largely reliant on the Internet for publicity and coordination. This reliance on the Internet appeared as a dilemma to the core group, as excluding a large segment of the city’s population that did not have Internet access conflicted with one of its central ideals, viz., greater public consultation and participation in urban decision-making:

See, it is a privileged few who have access to these [new] technologies, and so, while it is easy for people in our strata and our communities to connect on this, we are not very gung-ho on using technology because there is a huge set of people, like regular users of public transport, who don’t have access to these technologies. If you use these technologies for coordinating, and for whatever action, then you’re reaching out to a very limited audience. (Neha, female, core group. Personal interview, 25 June 2011)

The core group also viewed the skewed nature of public consultation in the city as being exacerbated by the Internet access divides, with existing processes tending to favour those with access. Hence, current decision-making systems were seen as being geared towards the already more privileged sections of society, without much effort to include the ‘non-Internet’ populations in decision-making. Interviews with the core group revealed an imagination of Hasiru Usiru as an inclusive—and physical or realspace for consultation with regard to city affairs. A sharp distinction was made between it and other Internet-based groups, notably the blog-based Internet community Praja (http://praja.in).¹¹ Praja’s heavy reliance on the Internet was cited in interviews as a key factor in discouraging collaboration on common issues. Hence, while the Internet was undoubtedly important to the members, it was imperative for them to go beyond being a mainly Internet entity:

And also, it’s always been important for us that we can’t be this Internet dependent … to some extent I believe that ICTs are empowering—but you also have to work with what you have today. Today, everybody’s not on the Internet. I mean, I’m Internet savvy and I don’t like using it, so there are also people like that. Let alone people who don’t even have access to that; what about children, what about migrants, what about people who wake up at 7.30 am and get home at 8 pm and have to cook and feed their kids, are they going to be engaged on the Internet? No! So then, where do you find spaces for them to engage? (Sheela, female, core group. Personal interview, 21 December 2011)

At the heart of the exclusionary or elitist portrayal of the Internet lies an anxiety that it could exacerbate existing divides between the (information) rich and poor, particularly with regard to public participation in policy-making and other democratic actions.¹²

The Internet as Amplifier

The interviews revealed that negative attitudes towards the Internet were further perpetuated by the core group’s assumption that the Internet worked as an ‘amplifier’ (Agre 2002). The amplification model discussed by Agre (2002) and Toyama (2011) posits that technology can have both positive and negative impacts, as it merely magnifies underlying human and institutional intent and capacity, which can be either positive or negative. While the positive implication is that technology as amplifier can support local activist groups in their functions, the darker implication is the realization that the Internet is dominated by the same interest groups that currently utilize other mediums and that the Internet is of less value to those with less capacity (Rao 2012). The positive aspect is confirmed by e-group members, who see value in a networked civil society:

[The Internet] is definitely potentially a great medium for people who are looking for that kind of thing. Because if I had not come across Hasiru Usiru through a cross-post [on another e-group], I would have come across it in some other way. Because that is part of what interests me. I would have found it. (Ajay, male, e-group. Personal interview, 26 December 2011)

This is echoed by other e-group members, who generally viewed the Internet as a convenient site of activity and an indispensible means of connectivity and information sharing and dissemination. However, some core group members expressed concerned about the negative aspect of the Internet-as-amplifier, arguing that it perpetuated the role of a few Internet-based voices in public affairs. To counter the resultant situation of information imbalance, the core group intensified its efforts to reach out to the non-Internet/non-English speaking sections of the population through various activities such as public meetings in areas that are free and accessible to all, surveys among populations affected by development projects, making information more accessible by translating all reports into the local language, Kannada, as well as incorporating visuals, etc. (personal interviews).

An interesting distinction was made by several interviewees between people who used the Internet and those who did not in terms of language: the former were described as English-speaking and the latter as speaking Kannada. Among these two categories, the vernacular group was described as being easier to motivate to action due to groundedness in the physical environment, rather than connectedness to computer networks.

Lack of Conversion from Online to Offline Collective Action

The disillusionment of the core group with the Internet is also related to the lack of conversion from online to offline collective action. While the anti-Metro protests of 2009 were successful in getting hundreds of new members to subscribe to the e-group, this did not subsequently lead to more collective action from the online community. As mentioned earlier, there was a steady decline in the number of members gathering to protest, despite repeated online calls to action in this same period of time. This disconnect between the two realms of action (online vs. offline) was a major contributing factor for the cyber-pessimism of the core group:

One thing we definitely want is, to a certain extent, we want numbers. Because numbers mean a lot. I mean, having 100 people at a protest and having 1000 people at a protest, it sends a different message to whoever is making the decisions. And I feel that the people who are having access to Internet – that section of the society should be actually more proactive in coming onto the streets. That’s where you don’t see them more active and they should be more active. But it doesn’t happen. (Venkat, male, core group. Personal interview, 23 December 2011)

Interviews with Hasiru Usiru members, as well as experts, provided several explanations for this lack of collective action, which are briefly described below: firstly, the deficiency in active citizenry was attributed to the absence of a sense of belonging to the city among the sizeable migrant population in Bangalore, notably IT professionals.¹³ Secondly, the argument that the government’s ‘reforms’ would benefit the IT sector was advanced as a possible reason for this group to remain silent on issues that Hasiru Usiru was protesting against.¹⁴ A third explanation was that the IT culture of living in one’s ‘cocoon’ and moving from one ‘bubble space’ to another within the city cut this group off from the material practices of the city. Further, it was suggested that restricted or limited access of IT professionals to protest-related information could heighten apathy. A fourth argument was that apathy was compounded by a system wherein urban citizens were yet to find a voice in the governance of the city.¹⁵

A fifth explanation for the lack of participation by online members related to the changed nature of the network itself. The rapid expansion of the e-group during the Metro protests in 2009 drastically altered the character and nature of the group and its interactions. The sudden influx of new members transformed the mailing list from a relatively close-knit group that shared the same ideology to a more heterogeneous entity. One of the core group’s concerns regarding this expansion was that new members may not share its ideals and purpose, nor endorse the idea of protest as a legitimate means of dissent (personal interviews). A related issue was that of differing notions of membership and belonging to an e-group, with varied understanding of organizational roles and responsibilities:

… around the metro protests in 2009, May–June, during the protest we would hand out [flyers to] sign up to the e-group. So we had this influx of like 800 people or more, at that time, and that kept growing and growing … So different sorts of people came on. So maybe people who didn’t believe in similar things, maybe some who did but believed in different nuances of the same thing. Then after that point, so suppose if [a core group member] wanted to speak at a conference then we would put it on the e-group, but nobody really responded. And why should they? Because people signed up thinking it was a listserv; we are considering them also as members of Hasiru Usiru in that sense, so there is that disconnect with Hasiru Usiru … (Sheela, female, core group. Personal interview, 21 December 2011).

Lastly, the poor conversion from online to offline action was also attributed to the Internet being an effective tool for the circulation of information and ideas, rather than as a medium to facilitate action.

The Internet as Realm of Ideas, not Action

A recurring theme was the notion amongst the Hasiru Usiru core group and some e-group members that the Internet facilitated the exchange of ideas, but not action. The interviewees agreed that the Internet played a crucial role as a source and repository of information, particularly alternative news and information that was not always covered by the mainstream media. The Internet was also seen as a prime site for facilitating new ideas and learning. In so far as civil society action was concerned, the Internet was seen as an important site for the exchange of ideas, for circulating opinions and for building consensus (i.e. public sphere discourse). However, interviewees were mostly of the opinion that the Internet’s role did not extend to facilitating collective action on the ground. Of the several reasons cited for the inability to produce ‘real’ action was the notion that ‘action’ is often confused with an online action like sending an email, or signing an e-petition, etc. An interviewee highlighted how the notion of e-activism without the requisite follow up plagued civic activism today:

There is a mindset, that if you put it on the Internet it’s there, that’s the end. But that is what is limiting our thinking capacity, our ability to execute. I think the biggest thing in our country is the lack of execution of all the initiatives. So what this Internet is doing today is that, I sit in front of my laptop or whatever, hand-held device, and I will just plug in, do a few things and assume it’s done. Unfortunately, the back-end system has to kick in, it has to set up that thing, it has to make it work. That thing, that linkage, is not there today. (Sriram, male, e-group. Personal interview, 7 January 2012)

He added that this is particularly true in the Indian context, where ‘unless you are on the street and slugging it out, it doesn’t work’. His scepticism was grounded in the realities of weak and ineffective public sector institutions in Bangalore, an uphill battle for policy or other reform by local civil society actors, combined with limited Internet presence. This situation was complicated by the fact that solely Internet-based actions are often seen by government institutions or the political class as inadequate and insincere (personal interviews).

Doubts regarding the efficacy of online action to produce change are also related to the concern that minimum-level engagement on the Internet subverts real efforts to initiate change. An e-group member noted that Internet-based action can produce a shallow sense of engagement:

It is, I feel, also a way to escape from action. Because, once I send an e-mail I think I have done my job. So, it is a very tricky thing … (Mohan, male, e-group. Personal interview, 26 December 2011)

This type of limited action, known variously as ‘clicktivism,’ ‘slacktivism’ (see Rotman et al. 2011) and ‘keyboard activism’ runs the risk of making collective action too easy, reducing actual commitment to social change and thereby damaging the policy impact of civil society (van Laer & van Aelst 2010).

E-group Attitudes: Sceptical, Yet Optimistic

The perception of the Internet and its utility for concerted civic action, varied to a large extent between the core and non-core group members. Attitudes among the e-group ranged from cyber-scepticism to—optimism, with a cautious recognition of strengths and weaknesses of networked activism, including the lack of time, financial and human resources to use the Internet effectively, as well as its limited reach. However, these limitations were overshadowed by the fact that the Internet provided a convenient and often, the only means for them to connect and participate with the group:

I got involved with Hasiru Usiru approximately two years back … I logged in, I subscribed to the group, and since my job involves that I am online all the time, it makes it more convenient to get updates, and message pop-ups. That’s how you see more of it and you get more involved. So that’s how I’m involved with Hasiru Usiru. (Vinita, female, e-group. Personal interview, 19 December 2011)

Particularly for those who are online as part of their daily routines, the Internet’s indispensability as a means of connectedness to the network shapes their attitudes towards the Internet:

Yeah, it’s an opinion [that the Internet is elitist], but it boils down to a person’s work profile, ultimately. The work profile and home profile, and how much importance they give to IT. For us, it’s easy, because for us the Internet is an everyday necessity, as necessary as food and water. But for some professionals it’s not a necessary instrument, so those people tend to think of it in a slightly negative manner … (Vinita, female, e-group. Personal interview, 19 December 2011).

The notion of the Internet as elitist was also refuted by e-group members on account of the increasing Internet penetration in the country:¹⁶

No that’s not very accurate, because although that perception is there that it [the Internet] is elitist, but still I see a lot of youngsters, lot of people even in rural areas, you know this mobile phone, it has got the Internet enabled on it, so the penetration is increasing. So, although it was perceived as elitist in the beginning, maybe five years back, today that’s going away … And I see a lot of rural initiatives which are really helping people; and that’s where it’s going away from the elitist domain. (Sriram, male, e-group. Personal interview, 9 January 2013)

E-group members who described the Internet as elitist or exclusionary also concurred that this limitation could be overcome by utilizing the Internet effectively and making use of features such as its reach and instantaneity (personal interview with Rahul, male, on 20 December 2011). In addition, by enabling the spread of information through ‘networks of trust,’ i.e. online networks based on personal ties, the Internet was seen as having the potential to boost civic action (personal interview with Vineet, male, on 21 December 2011). The point being made was that the way the Internet, as a tool, is used determines its usefulness or otherwise to civil society.

Conclusion

The article has shown that the core group of active members in Hasiru Usiru view the Internet’s role in the network’s activities in a pessimistic light. A qualitative thematic analysis of the interview data shows that the pessimistic attitudes towards the Internet by these members cluster around four main themes: the Internet as exclusionary, the Internet as amplifier, the lack of conversion from online to offline collective action and the Internet as a realm of ideas, but not complementary action. The negative lens with which the Internet is viewed by the core group is both due to and responsible for, the emphasis on physical participation and a sense of offline community. The core group’s thrust on physical engagement indicates attempts to counter the Internet’s limited reach. Apprehension regarding Internet-based action also stems from its limited impact in facilitating change without the corresponding offline actions, particularly within India’s complex bureaucratic and political system.

On the other hand, there has been little effort by the core group to utilize the Internet in a more strategic and creative manner, particularly after the failures of earlier mobilization attempts (personal interviews). In fact, there is a preference among core group members for non- or limited engagement with the Internet, including with the e-group itself. While studies have examined reasons for non-acceptance of particular technologies (see Portwood-Stacer 2012; Ribak & Rosenthal 2011), the refusal to engage with the Internet appears to be an under-researched dimension of the Internet-civil society relationship. In the case of Hasiru Usiru, this line of investigation gains relevance in light of the media- and information-rich environment within which the core group is situated. This article has attempted to show that working within the context of a technologizing city, where everyday life is pervaded by new media use, need not result in greater Internet use by civil society. The rejection or refusal of the Internet by civil society actors, based on sceptical and pessimistic perceptions of the medium, challenges earlier assumptions of the uncritical acceptance of new technologies – with implications for future studies of civil society in an information age.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Dr. T.T. Sreekumar for his useful suggestions and two anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly helped to improve an earlier version of this manuscript.

Notes

References

A.G.M.

van Dijk, J.

(2012). Digital democracy: Vision and reality. In Snellen

Thaens

van de Donk

(eds), Public administration in the information age: Revisited (pp. 49–62). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Agre

P.E.

(2002). Real-time politics: The internet and the political process. The Information Society, 18(5), 311–331.

Barnard.

S.R.

(2012). Review of the book: Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet Age, by Earl

Kimport

New Media & Society, 15(4), 894–5.

Bennet

W.L.

(2003). Communicating global activism: Strengths and vulnerabilities of networked politics. Information, Communication & Society, 6(2), 143–168.

Biddix

J.P.

Park

H.W.

(2008). Online networks of student protest: The case of the living wage campaign. New Media & Society, 10(6), 871–891.

Boyatzis

R.E.

(1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Business Standard (2011, October 25). Bangalore has least number of Net users. Retrieved 14 May 2013, from http://www.business-standard.com/article/technology/bangalore-has-least-number-of-net-users-111102500036_1.html

Carty

(2010). New information communication technologies and grassroots mobilization. Information, Communication & Society, 13(2), 155–173.

Carty

(2011). Wired and mobilizing: Social movements, new technology, and electoral politics. New York and Oxon: Routledge.

10.

Castells

(2002). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

11.

Castells

(2004). The power of identity: The information age economy, society and culture, volume 2. Malden: Blackwell Pub.

12.

Castells

Fernandez-Ardevol

Qiu

J.L.

Sey

(2007). Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press.

13.

Chadwick

Howard

Philip N.

(eds). (2009). Routledge handbook of internet politics. New York: Routledge.

14.

Chattopadyay

(2011). Online activism for a heterogeneous time: The pink Chaddi campaign and social media in India. Proteus: A journal of ideas, 27(1), 63–68.

15.

Dasgupta

(2008). Success, market, ethics: Information technology and the shifting politics of governance and citizenship in the Indian silicon plateau. Cultural Dynamics, 20(3), 213–244.

16.

Diani

(2000). Social movement networks virtual and real. Information, Communication & Society, 3(3), 386–401.

17.

Dilevko

(2002). The working life of Southern NGOs: Juggling the promise of information and communication technologies and the perils of relationship with international NGOs. In Hajnal

P.I.

(ed.), Civil Society in the Information Age (pp. 57–94). England: Ashgate.

18.

Enqvist

(2012). Environmental activism in India’s garden city—the role of civil society networks for governance of urban social-ecological systems in the global south. Unpublished master’s thesis. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.

19.

Fisher

D.H.

Wright

L.M.

(2001). On Utopias and dystopias: Toward an understanding of the discourse surrounding the internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(2). Retrieved 2 December 2012, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/fisher.html

20.

Garrett

R.K.

(2006) Protest in an information society: A review of literature on social movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication & Society, 9(2), 202–224.

21.

Gowda

Gupta

(2010) Tracking and explaining e-participation in India. Paper presented at the Joint IFIP EGOV and ePart 2010, Lausanne, Switzerland: Conference, University of Lausanne.

22.

Hague

Loader

(eds). (1999) Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age. New York: Routledge.

23.

Harrington

(2001). Review of the book digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the internet worldwide. Interface: The journal of education, community, and values, 1, 1. Retrieved 14 May 2013, from http://bcis.pacificu.edu/journal/article.php?id=561

24.

Hayhtio

Rinne

(2008) Introduction: Seeking the citizenry on the internet. Emerging virtual creativity. In Hayhtio

Rinne

(eds), Net-working/Networking: Citizen initiated internet politics (pp. 1–38). University of Tampere: Tampere University Press.

25.

Haythornthwaite

Kendell

(2010). Internet and Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1083–1094.

26.

Hindman

(2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

27.

Howcroft

Fitzgerald

(1998). From Utopia to Dystopia: the twin faces of the internet. In Larsen

Levine

(eds), Information systems: Current issues and future changes. Proceedings of IFIP WG8.2 and WG8.6 Joint Conference (pp. 49–70). Helsinki and Finland: Chapman & Hall.

28.

Howitt

Cramer

(2005). Introduction to research methods in psychology, 2nd edition. Harlow, England and New York: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

29.

Ignatow

(2012). Transnational environmental activism. In Ritzer

(ed.), Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization, Volume 1. doi: 10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog909

30.

Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) and IMRB. (2012). Internet in India 2012. Retrieved 14 May 2013, from http://iamai.in/Upload/Research/9620122320801/i-Cube%20IAMAI_Urban_Report_2012_Final_63.pdf

31.

Jensen

M.J.

Danziger

J.N.

Venkatesh

(2007). Civil society and cyber society: The role of the internet in community associations and democratic politics. The Information Society, 23, 39–50.

32.

Jha

(2011). Under the cover of a national movement, Hardnews. Retrieved 5 December 2012, from http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2011/10/4147

33.

Juris

J.S.

(2008). Networking futures: The movements against corporate globalization (experimental futures). USA: Duke University Press.

34.

Khorana

Harindranath

(2011). New technologies, Gandhian activism, and democracy: Re-examining civil society. In Australian Political Science Association Conference (APSA) 2011, Canberra, Australia.

35.

Kling

(1996). Hopes and horrors: Technological utopianism and anti-utopianism in narratives of computerization. In Kling

(ed.) Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices, 2nd edition (pp. 40–58). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

36.

Kovacs

(2010) Inquilab 2.0? Reflections on online activism in India. Retrieved 10 June 2012, from http://www.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/revolution-2.0/digiactivprop/

37.

Kurup

(2011, August 11). We may be the tech hub, but our residents aren’t that wired, The Hindu. Retrieved 14 May 2013 from http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/we-may-be-the-tech-hub-but-our-residents-arent-that-wired/article3751424.ece

38.

Kvale

(1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

39.

Mallick

Haribabu

Kulkarni

S. G.

(2005). Debates on science and technology in India: Alliance formation between the scientific and political elite during the inter-war period. Social Scientist, 33(11/12), 49–75.

40.

Marres

(2006). Net-work is format work: Issue networks and the sites of civil society politics. In Anderson

Dean

Lovink

(eds), Reformatting politics: Information technology and global civil society (pp. 3–17). New York: Routledge.

41.

Mishra

(2009, April 18). The perils of Facebook activism: Nisha Susan locked out of pink chaddi campaign’s Facebook group, GlobalVoices Advocacy. Retrieved 13 May 2013, from http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2009/04/18/the-perils-of-facebook-activism-nisha-susan-locked-out-of-pink-chaddi-campaigns-facebook-group/

42.

Nah

(2010) A theoretical and analytical framework of networked communities. Javnost—the public, 17(1), 23–36.

43.

Norris

(2001). Digital divide?: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet in democratic societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Nørskov

S.V.

Rask

(2011). Observation of online communities: A discussion of online and offline observer roles in studying development, cooperation and coordination in an open source software environment. FQS: Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12, 3. Retrieved 5 May 2013, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/

45.

Parashar

(2012). An Analysis of New Media’s Role in Mass Movements (With reference to Anna Hazare’s campaign ‘India Against Corruption’). Mass Communication and Journalism, 2(2), 118. doi:10.4172/2165-7912.1000118.

46.

Parel

A.J.

(2006). Gandhi’s philosophy and the quest for harmony. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Pickerill

(2003). Cyberprotest: Environmental activism online. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

48.

Pickerill

(2006). Radical politics on the net. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 266–282.

49.

Pinto

(2011). Anna Hazare’s movement and India’s middle class. Social Action, 61, 337–349. Retrieved 10 May 2013 from www.isidelhi.org.in/saissues/articles/artoct11.pdf

50.

Portwood-Stacer

(2012, July 29). How we talk about media refusal, part 1: ‘Addiction.’ Flow. Retrieved 17 January 2013, from http://flowtv.org/2012/07/how-we-talk-about-media-refusal-part-1/

51.

Prakash

(1999). Another reason: Science and the imagination of modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

52.

Rani

(2011). Role of communication and culture in social movement: A case study of the Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement. Paper presented at the 37th All India sociological conference, 10–13 December 2011, JNU, New Delhi. Retrieved 13 May 2013, from http://eprints.manipal.edu/78287/

53.

Ribak

Rosenthal

(2011). Rethinking marginality: Media ambivalence and resistance in an age of convergence and ubiquity, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, Boston. Retrieved 17 January 2013, from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p490336_index.htm

54.

Rao

(2012). ‘Sister-groups’ and online-offline linkages in networked collective action: A case study of the right to information movement in India. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries (EJISDC), 52(7), 1–17. www.ejisdc.org

55.

Rotman

Vieweg

Yardi

Chi

E.H.

Preece

Shneiderman

Pirolli

Glaisyer

(2011). From Slacktivism to activism: Participatory culture in the age of social media. CHI 2011, 7–12 May 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Retrieved 29 November 2012, from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1979543

56.

Roy

A.K.

(Dunu). (2005). Science, technology, and alternative modernity in India. Paper presented at the 2005 REGGEN International Seminar on Alternatives to Globalization: Emerging Powers and the New Paths to Modernity’ in Rio de Janeiro, October 8–13, 2005. Retrieved 14 May 2013, from http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/reggen/pp23.pdf

57.

Ryan

G.W.

Bernard

H.R.

(2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.

58.

Sastry

G.S.

(2008). Emerging development issues of greater Bangalore. ISEC Working Paper 194. Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bangalore.

59.

Satya

L.D.

(2002). Review of book: Another reason: Science and the imagination of modern India, Critical Asian Studies, 34(1), 157–159.

60.

Segal

H.P.

(1985). Technological utopianism in American culture. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

61.

Sen

(2011, Sept. 8) The Meaning of Anna Hazare’s Movement. ISAS Brief, No. 217. Retrieved 5 Novemeber 2012, from www.isas.nus.edu.sg/SouthAsiaWeb_May-October_2011.pdf

62.

Shah

(2012). Resisting Revolutions: Questioning the Radical Potential of Citizen Action. Development, 55(2), 173–180.

63.

Shahani

(n.d.). The revolution is not spreadable. Spreadable Media. Retrieved 13 May 2013, from http://spreadablemedia.org/essays/shahani/

64.

Singh

Sundaram

(1996). Gandhi and the world order. New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation.

65.

Sitapati

(2011, July 23). What Anna Hazare’s movement and India’s new middle classes say about each other. Economic & Political Weekly, 46(30), 39–44.

66.

Skaria

(2002). Review of the book: Another reason: Science and the imagination of modern India. Nepantla: Views from South, 3(2), 423–428.

67.

Soriano

C.R.

(2012). New media and political mobilization: The case of online mediation of minority groups in the Philippines. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

68.

Sparks

(1994). Civil society and information society as guarantors of progress. In Splichal

Calabrese

Sparks

(eds), Information society and civil society: Contemporary perspectives on the changing world order (pp. 21–49). Indiana: Purdue University Press.

69.

Splichal

(1994). From civil society to information society. In Splichal

Calabrese

Sparks

(eds), Information society and civil society: Contemporary perspectives on the changing world order (pp. 50–77). Indiana: Purdue University Press.

70.

Stein

(2009). Social movement web use in theory and practice: a content analysis of US movement websites. New Media & Society, 11(5), 749–771.

71.

Strobel

Tillberg-Webb

(2009). Applying a critical and humanizing framework of instructional technologies to educational practice. In Moller

Huett

J.B.

Harvey

D.M.

(eds), Learning and instructional technologies for the twentyfirst Century: Visions of the future. New York: Springer.

72.

Sudhira

H.S.

(2008). The emergence of world city: Bangalore. In Johnson

Abedin

Cramer

(eds), Metropolis 2008: Connecting Cities: India (pp. 117–140). A research publication for the 9th World Congress of Metropolis: City—Regions, Sydney: Metropolis Congress 2008.

73.

Thirani

(2011, August 27). When revolutions go viral. The Time of India: The Crest Edition. Retrieved 29 October 2012, from http://www.timescrest.com/life/when-revolutions-go-viral-6155

74.

Toyama

(2011). Technology as amplifier in international development. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference (75–82), ACM, New York. doi=10.1145/1940761.1940772

75.

Van De Donk

Loader

B.D.

Nixon

P.G.

Rucht

(2004). Cyberprotest: New media, citizens, and social movements., London and New York: Routledge.

76.

Van Laer

Van Aelst

(2009). Cyber-protest and civil society: The internet and action repertoires in social movements. Retrieved 3 November 2012, from www.m2p.be/publications/1260489691.pdf

77.

Warkentin

(2001). Reshaping world politics: NGOs, the internet, and global civil society. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

78.

Winner

(1997). Technology today: Utopia or dystopia?. Social Research, 64(3), 899–1017.

79.

Yin

R.K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: SAGE.

80.

Yin

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., vol. 5). Applied Social Research Methods Series. California: SAGE Publications.

81.

Zinnov Management Consulting (2011). Bangalore innovation/R&D landscape. (power point presentation).