Abstract
Internet-mediated social advocacy organizations (IMSAOs) have advanced over the past two decades. These organizations differ significantly from traditional “brick-and-mortar” non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in terms of institutional structure and some of the tactics employed to leverage both collective and connective action. Connective action may have particular relevance for young people, whose civic engagement tends to be personalized through Internet-enabled information and communication technologies—contradicting narratives implying youth are apathetic or disinterested in political and social movements. This article considers the potential significance of IMSAOs in terms of participation in social advocacy efforts, drawing on organizations leveraging fan activism—particularly the Harry Potter Alliance—as a youth-oriented example. While IMSAOs may serve as platforms and mechanisms for social debate and meaningful change by engaging young people as active stakeholders, empirical research on these emerging organizations is required.
Introduction
Internet-enabled information and communication technologies (ICTs; for example, social media, mobile devices) have facilitated the emergence of global public spaces, providing abundant opportunities for individuals and groups to connect and establish communities based upon shared beliefs, experiences, and interests (Ridings and Gefen, 2017), with limited in-person interactions (Wright, 2005). These “networked publics” are maintained via the interconnectedness afforded by ICTs, as well as shared understanding among participating individuals of their community membership (Benkler, 2006; boyd and Ellison, 2007). Networked publics are uniquely unbound from geographic and temporal constraints—permitting dispersed communities to be invested in shared regional, national, and international social issues (boyd, 2014; Hestres, 2015; Holmes, 2005).
Internet-based advocacy efforts vary in structure and composition. Initiatives include informal social campaigns and affinity groups, as well as formalized organizations (Lusher and Ackland, 2011; Stornaiuolo and Thomas, 2017). Readers may be familiar with recent, decentralized movements (e.g. #BlackLivesMatter, climate change protests) which often involve individual participation in networked advocacy and/or in-person protest, as well as engagement by both Internet-based and in-person groups and organizations (Anderson et al., 2018). However, this article focuses specifically on formalized “internet-mediated” (Hestres, 2015: 194) social advocacy organizations (IMSAOs). The past 20 years have witnessed the emergence and rapid expansion of IMSAOs, which definitionally require a degree of formal organizational legitimization (e.g. non-profit status; Hestres, 2017). To date, minimal scholarship has considered the workings and impacts of IMSAOs in the pursuit of social justice and change (Hestres, 2014). Moreover, the fact that stakeholder populations of these organizations are frequently composed substantially of adolescents and young adults is generally overlooked (O’Conner, 2011; Thackeray and Hunter, 2010). These increasingly recognized social advocacy organizations contradict previous research, which posits that contemporary youth display little interest in civic engagement or political participation (Galston, 2001). In this technologically connected era, it is necessary to understand the possible implications of IMSAOs in terms of contemporary social and political advocacy and change movements.
The emergence of Internet-mediated social advocacy organizations
Social advocacy is defined as the collective, organized, and active promotion of an identified cause (Briscoe et al., 2015). Advocacy groups are characterized by shared interests, beliefs, and objectives among members. Although they are non-governmental entities, such organizations seek to influence and advance the shared interests of communities through available political processes (Jenkins et al., 2016). Complementing social advocacy, social activism is defined as the activities individuals or collectives engage in on behalf of such groups, in order to improve the conditions of a community (Fox and Quinn, 2012). Thus, advocacy involves objective-lead action(s), enacted by individuals with shared beliefs around a cause (Briscoe et al., 2015). Historically, social advocacy has been coordinated through “brick-and-mortar” (i.e. primarily offline) organizations, also referred to as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012). However, largely due to technological advancement, the landscape of social advocacy and activism has fundamentally changed (Hestres, 2015; Rotman et al., 2011)—opening up different avenues for more individuals and groups (for example, networked publics) to address social and political issues of collective importance.
Similarities and differences to traditional advocacy organizations
NGOs generally share the following characteristics: voluntary formation, independence from the government, not-for-profit structure, and a primary concern with improving situations and circumstances for vulnerable individuals and communities (e.g. addressing poverty, coordinating policy change efforts, providing healthcare services; Lewis, 2010). Parallels exist between NGOs and IMSAOs in terms of their similar goals and objectives (e.g. political advocacy, social justice). However, IMSAOs appear to differ from traditional NGOs in several ways; including features of their organizational structure, as well as aspects of their methods (i.e. internet-based), strategies (e.g. cultivating social media influence), and tactics (e.g. hashtags, “viral style” content) of engagement (Hestres, 2014; Ito et al., 2015). IMSAOs may also expand the domains for social concern and potentially provide enhanced capacity for social organizing (Bond et al., 2012). However, it is critical to recognize that limited scholarship on IMSAOs inhibits the systematic identification and classification of differences and similarities between NGOs and IMSAOs. This lack of scholarly attention is further complicated by the evolving ICT landscape.
Organizational structure
Having a permanent organizational structure is considered essential for the success of any non-governmental advocacy organization (Elliot and Earl, 2018). As with traditional NGOs, IMSAOs establish and maintain administrative structures, typically engaging both professional staff and volunteers for management and mobilization. Furthermore, NGOs and IMSAOs both require a degree of financial and legal legitimization, including features such as not-for-profit status, an organizational mandate, and a formal governance structure (Hall and Ireland, 2016). Thus, the structural permanence of IMSAOs makes them distinct from decentralized Internet-mediated advocacy movements (e.g. #MeToo, Arab Spring), though they may participate in these broader efforts for systemic change.
The meager literature also suggests that IMSAOs also differ from traditional NGOs in aspects of their organizational structures, processes, and approaches. While some of the most notable differences were initially framed as limitations in the literature (e.g. smaller and geographically decentralized workforces; Gurak and Logie, 2003), more recent scholarship indicates IMSAOs may have leveraged at least some of these limitations into advantages (e.g. lower operating costs; Earl and Kimport, 2011). The reduced overhead costs associated with the internet-based structuring characteristic of IMSAOs contribute to organizational sustainability, minimizing the need for systematic, ongoing fundraising strategies typically critical to the functioning of traditional NGOs (Garrett, 2006). For the same reason, IMSAOs have relatively less dependence on other established mechanisms of financial stability (e.g. regular donations, paid memberships; Kotorov, 2001). Moreover, the structure of IMSAOs tends to circumvent other costly aspects of bureaucracy (e.g. “red tape”) and resource management (e.g. physical working space) that often burden NGOs (Fletcher and Vavrus, 2006; Hestres, 2015).
Leadership and decision-making are often similarly flexible within IMSAOs, not requiring centralization for specific actions and allowing workers/members a degree of independence to focus on issues specific to their communities (Earl et al., 2017). This dispersed and flexible nature has potential to be powerful. Described by some as “flash activism,” the structure and tactics of IMSAOs (discussed further below) permit coordination of rapid and overwhelming responses to social issues as they emerge. This is in contrast to NGOs, which have customarily drawn their power from persistent, incremental movement (Earl et al., 2017). Historically, NGOs have organized around specific singular issues (e.g. the environment, human rights) at regional, national, or international levels (Lewis, 2010), undertaking service delivery and/or advocacy for policy or social reform (e.g. democracy building; Lewis, 2010). In contrast, IMSAOs characteristically address multiple, oftentimes related social concerns on several levels simultaneously (Hestres, 2015; Lewis et al., 2014). It is thought that the member-driven nature of many IMSAOs may help to ensure organizations’ multi-issue strategies and actions stay aligned with the group’s overarching mission (Hall and Ireland, 2016), as well as promote organizational self-sustainment (Ito et al., 2015).
Increasingly—in part due to the emergence of IMSAOs—the traditional scope of NGOs has begun to be reconsidered, and the effectiveness of their approaches to social advocacy called into question (Arhin et al., 2018). The availability of open-source, low-cost ICTs has allowed groups to expand their formal social advocacy and justice efforts despite limited fiscal capital (Dunlop and Fawcett, 2008). Internet-mediated advocacy campaigns have been viewed as low cost, low risk, and accessible (i.e. as low-barrier platforms for public engagement; Earl and Kimport, 2011; Karpf, 2010). However, it is important to highlight that research had not undertaken systematic comparisons of the narrowly focused, incremental approach of NGOs, as compared to the generally broader attention of some IMSAOs, in terms of successfulness in achieving and sustaining desired outcomes. Furthermore, NGOs and IMSAOs are not mutually exclusive in their organizational approaches. For example, some IMSAOs collaborate with brick-and-mortar organizations for specific roles, while others are considered hybrids of well-established advocacy groups (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012).
The context and tactics of leveraging connective action
As ICTs continue to alter the social landscape in which organizations undertake advocacy efforts (Meyer and Workman Bray, 2013), research has suggested IMSAOs may offer potential advantages for creating social change (Muller and Peres, 2019; Rosenfeld and Thomas, 2012). Oftentimes highlighted is the perception that IMSAOs permit innovative approaches to communication and engagement with stakeholders, lowering barriers to/increasing benefits of participation by diverse individuals (Garrett, 2006). The ability of Internet-based advocacy to connect individuals with similar interests and concerns, regardless of geographic proximity, can promote a sense of collective identity more personal—and therefore more intrinsically motivating—for individuals (Garrett, 2006). In addition, ICTs may allow IMSAOs to engage larger, more diverse memberships and coordinate wider spread undertakings by reducing or removing fiscal and spatial accessibility barriers to individual participation characteristic of traditional NGOs. These include, but are not limited to, participation costs (e.g. transit fees, membership dues) and other aspects of participation in conflict with stakeholders’ lived realities (e.g. residing in rural areas, work schedules; Earl et al., 2017).
Concurrent to the continued development of internet-enabled ICTs, the traditional idea of “collective action” has become distinguished from the more contemporary concept of “connective action” (Lundgaard and Razmerita, 2016). Collective action forms the base of traditional advocacy efforts, centered on organizational resources and collective identities (e.g. social group membership, shared ideology; Bimber et al., 2005). In contrast, connective action is tailored to an individual’s circumstances, as well as their particular concerns (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012). On a practical level, connective action is also considered “digitally networked action” (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012: 743), wherein ICTs allow personalized communication and content-sharing by individuals to their networks (e.g. via social media) to meet personalized objectives (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012). Thus, connected action differs from traditional collected action through its inclusion of both public and private domains (Bimber et al., 2005). This distinction is reflected in research indicating that, compared to offline (i.e. traditional NGO) activism, engagement in internet-based advocacy is often more motivated by perceived efficacy than identification (Brunsting and Postmes, 2002). Shifts have subsequently been observed in advocacy organizations, including changes to member structures, routines, and strategies (Karpf, 2012)—indicating the ongoing adaptation of organizational functioning of IMSAOs discussed above.
However, as mentioned, strategies (i.e. longer term plans or objectives) and tactics (i.e. specific activities or actions) used by IMSAOs are not mutually exclusive from traditional NGOs; internet-based and in-person efforts are often complementary or overlapping (Hestres, 2015). IMSAOs utilize legacy activist tactics, such as boycotting. However, as the organizing benefits of ICTs became increasingly acknowledged (Obar et al., 2011), IMSAOs heavily employed tactics only possible on the Internet—such as digital petitions and email campaigns (Earl, 2006; Earl and Kimport, 2011). IMSAOs also share strategies and tactics with decentralized Internet-based advocacy movements. Yet, organizational permanency expands the scope of their recruitment, allowing more rapid awareness raising and organization of collective action. Formalization also increases their access to potential funding, as well as other forms of investment and influence (Thackeray and Hunter, 2010). IMSAOs have been characterized as digitally present and flexible, enhancing their ability to respond effectively to social issues (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012).
In contrast, NGOs have generally been considered slow to adjust to the opportunities afforded by ICTs and networked publics (Lewis et al., 2014), continuing to focus upon physical mobilization strategies (e.g. protests, civil disobedience, lobbying; Hall and Ireland, 2016; Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2011). This may be due to potential downsides or unforeseen side effects of ICTs. For instance, some research has suggested that ICTs may be damaging for individuals in terms of personal security and well-being (Remenyi and Singh, 2015), particularly among young people (UNICEF, 2017). However, it would be misleading to suggest NGOs are remaining stagnate. NGOs are increasingly availing themselves of the affordances provided by ICTs, including some of those characteristic of their internet-based counterparts (e.g. social media fundraising campaigns; Kristofferson et al., 2014).
Legitimacy and relevance of Internet-mediated organizations and social advocacy
Overall, the emergence of organized and fast-acting IMSAOs has created debate as to their methods, legitimacy, and impact both nationally and internationally (Glenn, 2015; Hestres, 2015). Studies examining IMSAOs have reported contradictory findings regarding the influence of digitally networked action in social movements (Earl et al., 2010). Some posit that ICTs have facilitated collective or connective action that is “too easy,” while others propose that the opportunities provided by internet-based organizing remain insufficient for reducing barriers to civic engagement (Van Laer and Van Aelst, 2010). In part, this variation could be due to the range of disciplines and theoretical principles through which studies define and measure Internet activism (Garrett, 2006). Disparities within the limited and outdated literature may contribute to the lack of attention to IMSAOs within current bodies of related scholarship (Earl et al., 2010). Rotman et al. (2011) point out that despite widespread participation, little is known about the potential costs and benefits of internet-mediated advocacy and activism, resulting in a need for additional research.
In general, the rise of IMSAOs has broadened ways in which collective civic engagement occurs, modifying organizational structures and routines and introducing novel tactics and strategic frameworks (Karpf, 2010). Karpf (2012) aptly points out that “rather than ‘organizing without organizations,’ the internet-mediated environment has given rise to ‘organizing through different organizations’” (p. 209). This is a critical aspect of IMSAOs requiring further investigation. As formal organizations maintaining shared elements with traditional NGOs, IMSAOs retain core characteristics of collective action (e.g. shared ideology, membership; Bimber et al., 2005). However, the dispersed nature of digitally networked membership and activities may permit a very personalized sense of participation in collectively achieving social objectives—potentially more characteristic of connective action (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012; Garrett, 2006). In addition, ICTs permit access to stakeholders across a diversity of social locations and with a range of depths of engagement. In these ways (and others), IMSAOs may have potential to access benefits of both collective and connective action. However, it is critical to acknowledge that no empirical research exists exploring IMSAOs or NGOs in facilitating collective versus connective action.
Young people in social movements
Civic participation during adolescence and young adulthood is predictive of continued engagement across the lifespan, and promotes an overall positive developmental trajectory (Middaugh et al., 2017). Yet, recent studies have indicated that traditional NGOs struggle to effectively recruit and retain young people as engaged stakeholders (Elliot and Earl, 2018). These challenges may contribute to the prevalent narrative that young people are apathetic and disinterested in participating in advocacy and social justice efforts (Galston, 2001; Thackeray and Hunter, 2010)—despite ample evidence contradicting such narratives. While a full accounting of youths’ social advocacy and activism efforts is beyond the scope of this article, adolescents and young adults have long played a critical role in social and political movements. Historical examples include many instances of physical occupation of public spaces as a form of protest (e.g. against the Vietnam War and South African apartheid; New York Times, 2017). While young people’s specific concerns have varied based upon their specific sociocultural context, the substantial engagement of youth in social justice efforts continues to the present day. What is changing is that physical expressions of civic participation are now occurring concomitantly with internet-mediated advocacy efforts.
In recent research, 45% of US adolescents (age 13–17) reported that they were “almost constantly” online, with 89% reporting Internet use multiple times per day (Anderson and Jiang, 2018). Similarly, virtually all young adults (100%, age 18–29) were online in the United States in 2019, with half (48%) reporting Internet use on a near-constant basis (Perrin and Kumar, 2019; PEW Research Center, 2019). While some internet-based activities are inevitably an extension of young people’s in-person communities (e.g. communication with family and peers), ICTs also offer crucial opportunities for empowerment and broader civic participation (Bird and Maher, 2017; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). As an emergent example, in 2009, the Energy Action Coalition hosted “PowerShift 09,” in which thousands of young people utilized mobile technologies to organize and participate in advocacy regarding climate change legislation (Thackeray and Hunter, 2010). Numerous contemporary protest movements have similarly been led and/or substantially populated by young people coordinating offline and online activities (e.g. Hong Kong protests, #BlackLivesMatter protests; Lam-Knott, 2017; O’Brien et al., 2018). Historical and current examples highlight the connectedness and power of youth based on shared values and beliefs.
Scholarship persists in focusing predominantly on risky aspects of youths’ participation in internet-mediated activities, groups, and organizations (e.g. cyberbullying, radicalization; Raby et al., 2018). However, this overwhelmingly negative narrative is being slowly dismantled, and the potential positive effects of Internet engagement for various groups of young people (e.g. social support, community building, identity formation) are beginning to be better understood (Bennett, 2012; Cohen et al., 2012; Craig and McInroy, 2014; Craig et al., 2015a, 2015b; Ito et al., 2015; McInroy, 2019). Every generation has designated spaces of social and experiential significance. For contemporary young people those social spaces have incorporated ICT-mediated environments and shifted to Internet-based locales (boyd, 2014). As mass media (e.g. television, movies) permitted previous generations of youth to conceptualize themselves within a broader group, networked publics facilitate contemporary youths’ understanding themselves as members of a global citizenry (boyd, 2014).
Connective action may thus have particular relevance for these young people, whose civic engagement is fostered through ICTs—and tends to be personalized through their “expression of personal hopes, lifestyles, and grievances” (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012: 743). Research recently found “a stronger relationship between online (versus offline) information seeking for internal political efficacy and political action” (Middaugh et al., 2017: S128) in online and offline contexts among youth. Young people are able to employ ICTs to instantaneously (oftentimes collaboratively) learn about and respond to issues of concern they encounter—rapidly sharing, reacting, and taking action (e.g. signing a petition, donating). Thus, “[t]he distance between information and action is reduced” (Middaugh et al., 2017: S128). Such personalized, proximal participation shapes youths’ “civic and political concerns, identity and purpose, academic engagement and achievement, and health and well-being.” (Middaugh et al., 2017: S128) promoting beneficial, lifelong developmental outcomes.
Contemporary youth are also able to explore new avenues of political engagement through the participatory nature of internet-mediated communities and cultures that appeal to them. For instance, fan activism has been recognized as a powerful advocacy tool, enacted through existing community structures and practices (Jenkins et al., 2016; Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2011). Fandom refers to communities with a shared affinity for specific cultural object(s), oftentimes items of mass media (e.g. movies, books; Author, 2019). These cultural objects act as “public engagement keystones” (Hinck, 2012: para 5), in which diverse individuals and groups are brought together under a specific point of reference. Fan activism consists of any form of intentional civic engagement and/or political participation that is a direct result of fandom involvement (Brough and Shresthova, 2011; Jenkins, 2015). Shared media experiences, a subsequent sense of community, and a mutual desire to help may result in fan activism activities by individuals and collectives (Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2011).
Thus, internet-based fandom communities can come together through the framework of the cultural object(s), engaging in networked, “fanlike” activities to provoke some form of social change (Brough and Shresthova, 2011; Jenkins, 2015; Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2011). While a comprehensive overview of fandom-based organizing is beyond the scope of this article, in many instances these activities have been focused on aspects of the source media itself (e.g. “Save Our Show” campaigns; Guerrero-Pico, 2017; Jenkins, 2015). More relevant to this discussion, fan activism efforts have also collectively addressed broader social and political injustices, as well as human rights concerns, both within and beyond the source media (e.g. equitable media representation, inequitable public policies, sociocultural disparities) through both in-person and online activist activities (Checkoway et al., 2005; Jenkins, 2015; Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2011; Pupavac, 2008). Fandom communities have also at various times provided contexts for progressive political debate, as well as been influenced by, and have facilitated organizing for, marginalized communities (e.g. feminists, sexual and gender minority activists; Brough and Shresthova, 2011; Jenkins, 2015)
Fandom-based advocacy also consists of other forms of socially-oriented volunteering. For example, in internet-based contexts, fans have collectively raised funds for non-profits and charitable causes (e.g. Project for Awesome; Can’t Stop the Serenity). Emerging from the intersection of cultural and political participation, fan activism illustrates the importance of examining forms of advocacy that may deftly incorporate both collective and connective action, recognizing the robust context networked publics provide for the “contemporary dynamics of civic participation” (Brough and Shresthova, 2011: 3). The increased accessibility of fandom content and communities facilitated by ICTs may offer new opportunities for internet-based fan activism to be leveraged for the civic engagement of youth populations (McInroy, 2019)—including through formalized IMSAOs
Youth-oriented fan activism: the Harry Potter Alliance
Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, the first book in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, was released in 1997. Over two decades later, children who grew up reading about Harry are young people for whom the stories had a significant impact. These young people are also members of a generation whose networked public spaces are often as integral to their lived experiences as their in-person environments (Bird and Maher, 2017). Rowling’s work with an NGO informed her novels, and she has encouraged young fans to use their skills and knowledge to improve society; “we do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: We have the power to imagine better” (Smith, 2008). The connections between Harry Potter and social justice have been taken up by many through fan activism, even repeatedly challenging Rowling herself on multiple instances of anti-transgender commentary (The Leaky Cauldron, 2019).
Established in 2005, the Harry Potter Alliance (HPA) is an archetypal example of a youth-oriented IMSAO. An official non-profit, the HPA (www.thehpalliance.org) employs characteristics of the source media (i.e. the features and characters of Harry Potter’s wizarding world) to make activism accessible through both internet-mediated and in-person opportunities. As of 2012, the HPA had over 100,000 individual members, 100 chapters nationally and internationally, and a 40-person staff comprised of paid employees and volunteers (The Harry Potter Alliance, 2019). The membership is overwhelmingly comprised of young people—reportedly an intentional move on the part of the organization, which focuses their campaigns on youths’ emerging civic participation via individual service to challenge structures which maintain inequality at the community, national, or global level (Jenkins, 2015). The HPA’s youth-oriented branding and tactics (e.g. Expecto Equality, Voldemedia) have harnessed the advantages of internet-mediated ICTs for member engagement, organization, and activism to meet strategically identified advocacy goals.
As an indicator of status as an IMSAO, organizationally the HPA is characterized by a “mixture of strong leadership, dispersed membership, social networks, and flexible structures” (Jenkins, 2015: 214). They offer numerous participation avenues to various stakeholders (e.g. staff, board, volunteers, donors, members) from across the world (The Harry Potter Alliance, 2019). Structuring the organization in a flexible, decentralized way allows HPA members and chapters to engage in independent activities, while also collaborating on organization-wide campaigns. This explicit approval of independence is highlighted by the Granger Grant for Excellence in Community Organizing (established in 2014), which provides grants of $5000 to HPA chapters to “assist with innovative ideas and projects” (The Harry Potter Alliance, 2019: para 1).
While an overarching mission of addressing social equality through acts of “joyful activism” (The Harry Potter Alliance, 2019) has guided efforts, HPA initiatives span a wide array of topics. These include education access, gender and sexuality, economic justice, media reform, and violence prevention. Consistent with the structural definition of IMSAOs (Hestres, 2015; Lewis et al., 2014), the HPA “is not defined around a single mission: rather, it embraces a flexible framework . . . enabling it to respond quickly to any crisis or opportunity” (Jenkins, 2015: 214). Effective initiatives (www.thehpalliance.org/success_stories) have included #WithoutHermione, focused globally on barriers to girls’ education; the Accio Books Campaign, which has donated over 390,000 books, and contributed to building libraries in the United States and internationally; and Protego, a campaign for empowering members of the transgender community and educating cisgender allies. The HPA has engaged members in a variety of political participation efforts, including letter writing campaigns, petitions, and fundraising activities (Hinck, 2012). In addition to ongoing initiatives, HPA activism has also included reactions to specific sociopolitical events—evidencing the rapid coordination of collective responses typical of IMSOs (Earl et al., 2017). For example, members raised $123,000 for medical supplies to be sent to victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake (Terrell, 2018). Through the Granger 2020 project, the HPA is channeling the “passion and skills of fans into imaginative, effective organizing during and after this election cycle . . . [to collaboratively] reclaim and rewrite the story of civic engagement in America” (The Harry Potter Alliance, 2020).
While HPA has demonstrated longevity and multi-faceted scope as an IMSAO (Jenkins, 2015), other organizations with significant internet-mediated fan activist elements have also demonstrated similar sustainability and tangible impact (e.g. the Organization for Transformative Works, transformativeworks.org; the Project for Awesome by the Foundation to Decrease Worldsuck, projectforawesome.com). Fan activism may provide young people opportunities to develop personal and collective experience, skills, and infrastructure necessary for effective organizing. According to Jenkins (2015), internet-based fandom communities may be a “powerful training ground for future activists and community organizers” (p. 211). Furthermore, fandom communities are not the sole internet-based locus of advocacy and activism for young people—many IMSAOs which do not center around fandom also indicate evidence of successful youth engagement (e.g. It Gets Better, itgetsbetter.org). Such advocacy organizations may be more general, or center around other participatory, Internet-mediated cultures and communities.
Engaging youth in connective action
Technologically literate young people are increasingly at the forefront of internet-mediated organizing and social change efforts (Earl et al., 2017). Importantly for professionals, community leaders, and others who want to engage them—ICTs have also influenced the ways in which youth are politically socialized and participate in political movements, as well as the contexts in which youth activism occurs (Earl et al., 2017). Within internet-based communities young people create hybrid narratives of identity in which cultural and civic topics are intertwined, increasing accessibility and enhancing connection to opportunities for political participation and knowledge-building (Ito et al., 2015). As demonstrated in this article, internet-mediated tools and strategies have a potentially significant impact on social advocacy efforts. Through ICTs, young, diverse, and marginalized voices are now able to disrupt inequality—creating social change and countering perpetuated images of apathetic or disaffected youth (Stornaiuolo and Thomas, 2017).
The benefits of formalized IMSAOs have been increasingly acknowledged for facilitating the engagement of young people (Obar, 2014). While youth involvement in activism positively correlates with civic engagement later in life by training them in political processes and raising social consciousness (Terriquez, 2015), studies have indicated that traditional organizational methods of promoting youth political and social participation (e.g. youth councils, community-based youth groups) have struggled to recruit and retain participants. Many young people perceive such organizations as elitist and non-representative. In addition, youth advocates have been found to view politics in fundamentally different ways than those promoted by traditional NGOs—in which democracy should represent collective concerns and utilize controversy and contention (Taft and Gordon, 2013). In contrast, IMSAOs are able to utilize ICTs to address barriers to youth participation in traditional NGOs (e.g. geographic location, lack of transit access, risk of being seen participating) that may contribute to the perceived disconnects between NGOs and advocacy-minded young people (Bourn and Brown, 2011; Edelman Trust, 2017). When adult leaders authentically involve youth through facilitation, apprenticeship, and joint work, youth are provided genuine learning opportunities for social action (Kirshner, 2008). IMSAOs are ideally suited for this type of cross-generational collaboration.
Social media specifically has been noted as strengthening professional outreach through the speed by which information can be communicated, and subsequently encourage feedback loops (Obar, 2014). The adoption of social media strategies is specifically advantageous in that it allows a shift to internet-mediated platforms with access to the attention and social capital of like-minded young people through compelling visuals (e.g. images, video) in environments they already prefer (Hestres, 2014). It is also highly compatible with youth’s online activities. In 2018, 85% of US youth used YouTube, 72% used Instagram, 69% used Snapchat, and 51% used Facebook (Anderson and Jiang, 2018). The ability to communicate directly and quickly with collaborators and decision-makers supports members’ feelings of engagement and therefore helps to sustain retention and participation (Thackeray and Hunter, 2010).
However, social media simultaneously brings unique challenges to professionals working in partnership with youth. For example, the influence of platforms like Facebook and Twitter on which political engagement occurs, and how their policies and practices are identified and implemented, have been noted for sometimes disrupting the work of advocates (Hestres, 2017). Managing internet-based communities and discourses can also be challenging and labor intensive (Kiesler et al., 2011). Importantly, attempts to use social media and other internet-enabled ICTs with young people must be done in ways intelligible and interesting to those adolescents and young adults. Consultation is critical to effective engagement processes—acknowledging their expertise in their internet-mediated locales (McInroy, 2019). In addition, young people should be full partners in the development of youth-oriented IMSAOs (e.g. guiding governance, policy development), as well as being genuinely involved in the necessary research to better understand these novel organizations.
A new landscape for social advocacy
Although not fully understood, IMSAOs appear to have established their legitimacy, relevance, and significance to current and future social advocacy movements. However, such internet-mediated efforts have not been met with universal enthusiasm. Internet-based advocacy has oftentimes been derided as “slacktivism”—including high-profile viral campaigns (e.g. #BringBackOurGirls, #IceBucketChallenge). Slacktivism attempts to distinguish between civic awareness (i.e. passive engagement) and action (i.e. active engagement) in internet-mediated environments (Glenn, 2015; Kristofferson et al., 2014). Disparaged due to perceptions of minimal effort (e.g. liking/sharing content on social media), slacktivist behavior has been described as actions undertaken by individuals “not truly engaged or devoted to making a change” (UNAIDS, 2010: 143).
However, “armchair activism”—asking for low effort, individual contributions (e.g. small donations) to support lobbying efforts—is just as characteristic of traditional NGOs (Hestres, 2015). Undoubtedly, there are legitimate critiques of internet-mediated advocacy campaigns (e.g. oversimplification of complex social issues; Rainie et al., 2012). However, expressions of disdain for emerging youth-oriented approaches to civic engagement may be due to misunderstanding, a disinclination to take young peoples’ efforts seriously, or an unwillingness to consider fundamentally new frameworks for advocacy (Glenn, 2015; Kristofferson et al., 2014). Youth engagement in sociopolitical issues can increase attention and engender action (Rainie et al., 2012). Furthermore, slacktivism can lead to beneficial outcomes. In 2014, the #IceBucketChallenge raised $115 million dollars (USD) for The ALS Association, which has allowed them to dedicate in excess of $89 million dollars to research funding (ALS Association, 2019). These impacts cannot be characterized as minimal or unimportant, but do require further research into their rapid development and contributions to social change.
As discussed, sustained internet-mediated advocacy efforts are most accurately understood as “organizing through different organizations,” rather than as “organizing without organizations” (Karpf, 2012, p. 209). Described by Ito et al. (2015) as “connected civics,” internet-based participatory resources facilitate strategies and tactics to raise into new networked public spheres those voices previously silenced. Today, youth-oriented organizations are characterized by active participant engagement and commitment through non-traditional strategies and platforms (Raby et al., 2018), offering emerging and beneficial opportunities to stakeholders and cultivating a sense of shared accountability. Counter to traditional forms of collective action, IMSAOs may utilize networked, collective and connective elements that permit youth to critically engage in personalized advocacy efforts—simultaneously promoting collective concerns and resisting social control (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012; Bimber et al., 2005; Taft and Gordon, 2013). Far from being isolated, or civically and politically disengaged, contemporary young people are leveraging internet-enabled ICTs to pursue social justice and enact social change (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012).
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
