I think there are three major differences between ‘old’ and ‘new’ social movements.
The mix of the physical real and the virtual real, and the ability to make use of affordances in different spaces.
Early studies of the internet (in the first instance) and social media (in the decades following) often focused on who was using these tools, and the possible social side effects of the tools, rather than how the tools were being used. In addition, there was, at least in the initial explorations of the field, a distinction between online spaces and offline spaces – a kind of arbitrary divide between the two with the idea that what happens in one sphere (i.e. the online space or the physical space) didn’t necessarily translate into action in the other. This is still a contested space, and there is much discussion about whether online participation leads to offline participation in social movements. However, we think that ignores the central point: that there is very little in the way of a meaningful divide, and it is not productive to study one or the other; rather, it is necessary to study both – as one thing, holistically. This has been recognised by a number of social organising training groups, especially those working with organisations like unions. For example, Reveille, specifically runs sessions that focus on Online to Offline Organising, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions does something similar with its Digital to Field Organising Program.
This is especially the case when examining young people, as we will be doing below. We say this because, especially for young people, the divide between the physical real and the digital real is a meaningless one. Many of the young people involved in Fridays for the Future and March 4 Our Lives would not recall a time before the ubiquity of mobile technology and social media; hence, their decision to use the affordances present in those paradigms is a natural one, not necessarily a conscious decision to make use of new technology. Bennett (2012) suggests that young people use social media when organising for causes they care about for the same reason they use social media in every other aspect of their lives: because it’s there.
Back to front organising, in that often mass events are the starting point.
This is perhaps the key difference between what we’re calling ‘old’ versus ‘new’ social movements, and even as I say that, I acknowledge that that term is a problematic one. The affordances of technology, as discussed above, mean that organising larger groupings of individuals is much easier than it has been in the past – and the costs of doing so are less than they have been in the past – although there is still risk involved, as discussed earlier.
This often means that the structure – or, as we’ve chosen to phrase it, the life cycle – of social movements is different to what has happened in the past. Previously, social movements often began as reasonably small or localized affairs, and often had a lengthy infancy in this fashion. If they were successful, this might have led to further growth at either a regional or perhaps even an international level. Events beyond the small, local scope, however, were likely to require months of organisation and coordination, and were often the culmination of months or even years of organising work; in other words, they were the culmination of a concerted campaign – the expenditure of carefully hoarded resources in order to demonstrate the strength of a particular movement and demand change from the government, often at a national level.
(I’M NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED ABOUT THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT – NEED SOME FURTHER THINKING HERE)
However, digital tools and the affordances provided by them mean that organising large scale events is something that can happen in the space of a few clicks – and hence it is not the kind of mass event that happened previously. This has meant that, rather than being a culmination, these large scale events can often be a ‘show of strength’ that indicates the arrival of a new social movement, before more organising work takes place. For example, the March 4 Our Lives, (TO BE DISCUSSED LATER?) was able to organise a nationwide school walkout in the space of XXXX weeks after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school. Rather
Of course, if anyone can organise this, then it can be perceived as being less meaningful than in the past; this is a contested point. Opposing forces have always been quite dismissive of the power of organising as a mechanism for social change, and that derision has continued to this day – one need only look at the criticism the Australian government, for example, handed out to youth climate protestors. This is often linked to another feature of these new social movements – the predominance of youth within leadership fo these movement – we’ll discuss this below.
Youth-led, independent, but global in scope
In addition the use of social media tools means that the reach of any such event is much wider than it might have been previously, and it is often immediate in nature. In fact, protests like Fridays 4 the Future are global in scope. While other environmental movements, such as green peace or WWF have perhaps had a global – but they are immediately global.
It is much easier to spread a call for action – and to reach a much larger number of people – so that this is often the starting point for further action, rather than the culmination. In some cases, this has led to the criticism of new social movements – they are less clear in terms of their stated goals than other social movements. This is because these events are early in the formation of the social movements
What does this mean for learning?
Of course, my real interest in this is how these social movements influence, promote and perhaps even encourage learning. There are three key points here:
- The methodological considerations
- Relationships as a proxy of learning
- The challenge of multi-modal analysis