poli334 - the grassroots-intensive uncontrolled decentralization and hyper fragmentation of...

“War has rules, mud wrestling has rules - politics has no rules.”

-Ross Perot

The “online politicking 3.0” model

Media technologies at the center of contemporary formal and informal political processes;

Two dimensions of the “online politicking 3.0” model:

Uncontrolled decentralization of politicking (3 axes);

Hyper fragmentation of politicking. (multiples axes)

The Tea Party movement is one of the first mainstream manifestations of this model.

Source: Raynauld, 2013

Recent political movements/mobilization initiatives that have adopted a Tea Party-inspired mobilization model:

Sources: Mascaro, Novak et al., 2012; Gaby and Caren, 2012; Sawchuk, 2012; Twenge, 2008; Wattenberg, 2008


High levels of mobilization “net geners” despite low levels of political knowledge

The gun debate in the United States and the rise of the “patriots”:


Source: Youtube.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

“Broadcast politics” paradigm

Highly hierarchical top-down transfers

of “controlled information”

Limited number of traditional political

and media elites

Deceitful;Negative;Manipulative.

Geographically-dispersed

mass audience

Limited interactions

Costco-style politics?

Sources: Trippi, 2004; Putnam, 2001; Bennett and Manheim, 2006; Chadwick, 2006; Shah, Cho et al., 2005

The rise of the political Web in the United States

Sources: Williams and Gulati, 2006; Davis, Baumgartner et al., 2009; Foot, Schneider et al., 2009; Xenos, and Foot, 2008

Four distinct stages of Web-based politicking: Emergence phase (1994-1998);

1996: “Kitty Hawk” moment of Web politics

Definition and diffusion phase (2000-2002);

Maturation phase (2004-2006); Post-maturation phase (2008-…)Gradual emergence of the “online

politicking 3.0” model shortly after the 2008 U.S. Presidential election

cycle

Web 1.0

Context of the “online politicking 3.0” model

Source: PEW Internet & American Life Project, 2012

social media

Source: PEW Internet & American Life Project, 2012


social media

Sources: Vergeer, Hermans et al., 2011; Gulati and Williams, 2010; 2011; Tau, 2011

Lowering of the threshold for political participation (offline and Web 1.0 media vs. Web 2.0 media)

Reduction of financial costs; Reduction of the digital knowledge

and technical expertise required; Reduction of time constraints;

Accessibility (e.g.: apps, software, etc.);

Content generation. Etc.


social media

New opportunities?

Sources: Correa, Hinsley et al., 2011; Putnam, 2002; Farthing, 2010; Jackson, Dorton et al., 2010; Selwyn, 2009

Set of dispositions compatible with “informal, personal and fluid” digital participatory patterns:

Openness to “extraversion” (new political and media experiences);

Desire to be creative, innovative and autonomous;

Willingness to be self-expressive and socially-active;

Propensity for individualistic self-promotion through “affirmation and validation”.

Post modernistic mindset


Set of dispositions compatible with “informal, personal and fluid” digital participatory patterns:

Readiness for greater personal and collective transparency;

Openness to the playful nature of social media technologies;

Self-efficacy towards politics and Web-based media platforms.



Sources: Correa, Hinsley et al., 2011; Putnam, 2002; Farthing, 2010; Jackson, Dorton et al., 2010; Selwyn, 2009

Sources: Twenge, 2006; 2008; Bennett, Wells et al., 2009

Dispositions anchored in personal values: Freedom; Assertiveness; Self-mastery; Empowerment.



Self-instigated or highly entrepreneurial

form of political engagement

Rapid incubation of politically-oriented digital “hipster narcissism” or identity-centered egoism:



Sources: Papacharissi, 2009; Chadwick, 2009; Malikhao and Servaes, 2011; Chi and Yang, 2011

The use of the concept of narcissism in this context does not refer to the clinical

personality disorder, but to a culturally and technologically-induced state of

“introspection and self-absorption that takes place in blogs”, social network

sites and other user-generated media platforms.

Zizi Papacharissi

Sharp contrast with the dutiful or managed citizenship model:

Link with self-actualizing approaches to offline politics: “Lifestyle politics”; “Subactivism”; “Sub-politics”.



Individuals are motivated “by a sense of duty to incur costs to participate for the good of society by voting and joining with others in sanctioned civic organizations that promote

civic spirit”.

Sources: Papacharissi, 2009; Chadwick, 2009; Malikhao and Servaes, 2011; Stolle and Hooghe, 2009; Bennet, Wells et al., 2009

Sources: Blumler and Coleman, 2010; Balmas, Rahat et al., 2012; Rheingold, 2008; Stromer-Galley and Wichowski, 2011

Three axes of decentralization:1. Political content production and sharing

processes;2. Overall structure of e-politicking;3. Architecture of political organizations.

The concept of decentralization

The diffusion of the initiative, the execution and the control of digital political communication and mobilization

processes from formal political elites to a rapidly growing number of formal and informal political players with an increasingly diverse range of preferences, interests and

objectives.

Sources: Gil de Zuniga, Jung et al., 2012; Williams and Gulati, 2009; Hughes, Rowe et al., 2012; Huberman, Romero et al., 2008

Political content production and sharing processes:

Reduction of the multidimensional “transaction costs” of being politically-active online;

Anonymity and pseudonimity; Mobilization of previously-peripheral

formal and informal political players: Resource-poor candidates and

organizations; Citizen-driven groups; Ordinary citizens.


Sources: Endres and Warnick, 2004; Xenos and Foot, 2008

Structure of e-politicking: Content-based interactivity:

Hyperlinks; “Liking” or sharing content on

Facebook; Other functions.

Social interactivity: Multidirectional social interactions; Synchronous and asynchronous

interactions; Horizontal political organizing.


Internal structure of political organizations: Declining confidence in formal political

institutions; Rise of “self-organizing” (“organizing

without an organization”); Rise of “post bureaucratic organizations”:

Flexible structure; Constantly adapting to external

environment; Redefinition of formal tasks.

The concept of decentralization or

compartmentalization

Sources: Kreiss, 2009; Pasek, moore et al., 2009: 199; Bimber, Flanagin et al., 2005.; Bennett, Wells et al., 2009

Bruce Bimber

The concept of fragmentation or

compartmentalization

Sources: Bimber, 2005; Bennett, 1998; Brundidge, 2008; Sampedro, 2011; Metzgar and Maruggi, 2009; Webster and Ksiazek, 2012

Multiple axes of fragmentation: Political preferences (political

polarization); Issue preferences; Credibility perception; Socio-demographical characteristics; Etc.

The “breakdown of broadly shared social and political experience [, knowledge, community concerns as well as traditional behavioural

patterns] and the rise of personalized realities” (rise of networks of sphericules)

Meteoric growth of the Tea Party movement

Mainstream emergence in early February 2009:

“Porkulus” demonstrations by Keli Carender (“Liberty Belle”), a Seattle-based activist:

120 participants in President’s Day rally on February 16, 2009;

300 participants in demonstration on February 23, 2009;

600 participants in Tax Day protest on April 15, 2009.

Keli Carender

Sources: Disch, 2001; Berg, 2011; 2012; Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012; Skinner, 2012; Formisano, 2012; kelicarender.net


Mainstream emergence in early February 2009:

Rick Santelli’s rant against foreclosure relief that aired live on CNBC on February 19, 2009.

Rick Santelli

Sources: Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012; Joe, Gimpel et al., 2012; Weaver and Scacco, 2013; Bailey, Mummolo et al., 2012; Youtube.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k


Many authors have defined the Tea Party movement as an Astroturf or “genetically modified grassroots” phenomenon essentially driven by members of the media and political elite:

Interest groups; Media organizations; Media personalities; Elected and non elected politicians; Etc.

Sources: Hay, 2011; Wilson and Burak, 2012; Kirby and Ekins, 2012; Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012


It can in fact be defined as a highly-decentralized and fragmented political mobilization initiative:

Formal and informal political players; Geographically-dispersed; Wide range of interests and objectives:

Healthcare; Economy; Social issues (e.g.: gay rights,

personal responsibility, etc.); Gun rights.

Sources: Hay, 2011; Wilson and Burak, 2012; Kirby and Ekins, 2012; Sckocpol and Williamson, 2012

#TEAPARTY

Quantitative content analysis of #teaparty discourse on Twitter:

Tweets with #teaparty hashtag posted between December 9, 2009 at 22h41 +0000 and March 19, 2011 at 15h40 +0000 (Midterm elections);

Twapper Keeper for data mining and archiving (open-source);

MySQL and Gephi (version 0.8.1 beta) for data analysis;

Challenges and opportunities.

Methodology


#TEAPARTY

Overview of the #teaparty twittering dynamic:

1,747,306 tweets with at least one #teaparty hashtag;

79,564 unique twitterers; 96.64 per cent of the #teaparty tweets

with all the correct information (technical issue affecting 3.36% of the dataset).

Overview of the results


#TEAPARTY

Decem

ber 2

009

Janu

ary 20

10

Febr

uary

2010

Marc

h 201

0

April

2010

May

2010

June

2010

July

2010

Augus

t 201

0

Sept

embe

r 201

0

Octobe

r 201

0

Novem

ber 2

010

Decem

ber 2

010

Janu

ary 20

11

Febr

uary

2011

Marc

h 201

1

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

51,197

68,204

60,405

47,787

50,349

156,680

129,215

174,582

181,122204,575

275,408

198,596

42,35733,700

3,113

11,391

Monthly volume of #teaparty tweets (per number of tweets)

Twittering patterns


#TEAPARTY

December

2009

January

2010

Febru

ary 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August

2010

Septem

ber 2010

October

2010

November

2010

December

2010

January

2011

Febru

ary 2011

March 2011

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Monthly number of unique twitterers who contributed at least once to the #teaparty conversation (per number of twitterers

Twittering patterns


#TEAPARTY

85,629 @replies (4.9% of the dataset) by 11,296 unique #teaparty twitterers;

578,939 #teaparty tweets (31.13% of the dataset) by 54,802 unique users served a retweeting function;

1,179,742 #teaparty tweets (67.52% of the dataset) by 54,534 unique authors featured at least one hyperlink.

Twittering patterns


#TEAPARTY

12

34

5

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000 1,179,742

16,982920

837

Minimum number of hyperlinks embedded in #teaparty tweets(per number and percentage of tweets and per number of unique twitterers)

Heavy use of hyperlink

shortening services

Negative impact on the analysis

Twittering patterns


#TEAPARTYTwittering patterns of prominent Tea

Partiers

Political or media personality

Number of #teaparty tweets

Andrew P. Napolitano 35Glenn Beck 12Rush Limbaugh 5Dick Armey 0Sarah Palin 0

Senate contenders Number of #teaparty tweetsJoe W. Miller (Alaska) 921Christine O’Donnell (Delaware) 168Sharron Angle (Nevada) 102Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania) 2Jim DeMint (North Carolina) 1Rand Paul (Kentucky) 0Ken Buck (Colorado) 0Marco Rubio (Florida) 0


#TEAPARTYNetwork analysis

Number of @replies

877

Number of nodes

654

Number of edges

648

Average degree 0.991

December 14, 2009 to

December 20, 2009



Number of @replies

4,424

Number of nodes

3,258

Number of edges

3,542


November 1, 2010 to

November 7, 2010



Number of @replies

4,280

Number of nodes

2,630

Number of edges

3,131

Average degree 1.19

October 25, 2010 to October 31,

2010



Number of @replies

688

Number of nodes

807

Number of edges

624


January 10, 2011 to January 16,

2011


#TEAPARTYHashtag use

49,797 different hashtags (including the #teaparty hashtag) used by #teaparty twitterers;

1,747,306 #teaparty tweets with at least one hashtag;

178,417 different hashtag combinations (hyper fragmentation;

10 most popular hashtags:1- #teaparty2- #tcot3- #p2 4- #sgp5- #gop

6- #tlot 7- #ocra 8- #912 9- #twisters 10- #iamthemob


#TEAPARTYHashtag use

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

Minimum number of hashtags embedded in #teaparty tweets (per number of tweets and unique twitterers)

Number of hashtagsNumber of unique twitterers


Conclusion

The Tea Party movement is a political game changer;

Transformation of the concept of populism: Movement not centered on a single

politician or a small number of issues; Movement not driven by traditional

politics; Movement that is out of control; Etc.

True democratization of populism; The case of the “Maple Spring”.

Great research: “The neighbourhoods of

#cdnpoli”; Health of the Canadian

democracy; Check out theiwebsite.

QUESTIONSor

COMMENTS

poli334 - the grassroots-intensive uncontrolled decentralization and hyper fragmentation of...

Documents

model media technologies

political web

model social media source

media elites sources

modelsocial media

webbased media platforms

informal political processes

managed citizenship