Soon, Uniting Political Bloggers in Diversity

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Uniting Political Bloggers in Diversity: CollectiveIdentity and Web Activism∗

Carol Soon

Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore, 1C Cluny Road, House 5, Singapore 259599.

Randy Kluver

Department of Communication, 4234 Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843–4234, USA.

In contrast to the common view of blogging as a highly narcissistic activity, this study explicates howblogging is a communal activity and the emergence of a collective identity which drives collectiveaction. 41 interviews with activist and nonactivist bloggers revealed that shared consciousness, dis-tinctive blogging practices, and the articulation of a common adversary contribute to the developmentof a collective identity. Furthermore, identity multiplexity points to the emergence of “individualizedcollectiveness,” which extends beyond networked individualism and is reinforced by offline partici-pation in activism and pre-existing social ties with other activists.

Key words: Blogs, collective identity, collective action, internet activism, typology, Singapore.

doi:10.1111/jcc4.12079

Introduction

Scholars from media studies and political sociology have expounded on the capabilities of internet tech-nologies in mobilizing individuals with common political and social agendas towards specific outcomes,such as the impact of social media in Iran, and more recently, protests in the Middle East. Blogs and socialmedia are increasingly normalized into political, commercial and social life, and yet there remains a hazyunderstanding of what bloggers represent in the communicative landscape. Described by Jenkins (2006)as a form of egalitarian grassroots movement (p. 178–181), the use of blogs as alternative news for Amer-icans in the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns was the subject of media and scholarly scrutiny (Davis,2005; Kaid, 2009). Observations of how blogs are shaping political terrains are not limited to countriesin the West, but extend to a number of Asian countries, although there are vast differences in the conse-quences of political blogging in many of these nations. For example, in 2008, the Malaysian blogospherewas rife with outright criticisms about the government’s alleged (mis)management of the country’s econ-omy. Combined with the government’s failure to tap into the blogosphere, the general elections in 2008saw the unprecedented gain of seats by opposition parties in the 222-member parliament (Sani, 2009).Likewise, in Singapore, Ibrahim (2009) described the blogosphere as putting up “politics of resistance”as individuals leveraged on the medium to challenge the boundaries of accepted norms in the society(p. 192).

∗Accepted by previous editor Maria Bakardjieva

500 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 500–515 © 2014 International Communication Association

Irrespective of the country origin of existing research, one unifying theme is that in spite of highlyindividualized actions by bloggers, they act in concert with one another in order to have a larger collectiveimpact. The global phenomenon of blogging as a form of resistance politics echoes Castells’ (2004) earlierthesis pertaining to the networked society, one that is defined largely by a politics of personal identityand the prevalent use of highly advanced communication technologies in building global constituencies(p. 5–70). His work demonstrates a significant leap forward from earlier research on collective politicalaction, which typically focused on organizational factors of political action.

Although a number of scholars have sought to address the spontaneous formation of collectiveaction through social media, such as Rheingold’s (2003) concept of “smart mobs” (p. 157–182) and Well-man et al.’s (2003) “networked individualism,” there remains scant empirical research that examines theintersection between the individual, collective identity, and action. In this paper, we first review currentliterature on collective web action and collective identity theories that guide our empirical analysis. Abackground on the political and regulatory landscape in Singapore contextualizes the study. Through ananalysis of interview data with political bloggers, we argue that the foundational paradox of blogging -individuals, acting in highly individualistic fashion to advance their own expressive goals, end up havinga much more meaningful collective impact — is true. We discuss the relationship between this identityand collective action participation in a sociopolitical context that is characterized by paternalistic andauthoritative governance, and its implications on theory of collective identity and collective action.

Blogging as Collective Web Action

Using the internet as a site of analysis, this study is situated within the intersection of social move-ment and communication studies and addresses the interplay between individuals’ technology use andcollective action. A large body of work demonstrates how internet technologies amplify the impact ofpolitical organization and expand existing repertoire of collective actions. A new “repertoire” of poten-tial collective actions, distinguished by the role Internet technologies played (Internet-support versusInternet-based) as well as the “threshold” of participation (low versus high involvement) provides agreater array of participation modes to individuals who want to pursue political and social causes (VanLaer & Van Aelst, 2010). The progression of online technologies from “web 1.0” to “web 2.0,” manifestedin the shift from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from information publishing toinformation creation, has engendered ongoing and cocreation among disparate users (Flew, 2005, p.xv–xxii).

As a “web 2.0” technology, blogs are highly interactive and the interactivity has led to the building ofnetworks among individual users who leverage the medium for self-promotion. Earlier research on blogsfound that blogging is driven by the need for self-expression. Personal-type journal blogs were the mostprevalent (70.4%) and were used by bloggers to “report on their lives and share their inner thoughtsand feelings” (Herring, Scheidt, Bonus & Wright, 2004, p. 6). Similarly, in Trammell’s (2005) contentanalysis of 358 Polish blogs, self-expression was found to be the main motivator for blogging, followed byone’s need for social interaction and entertainment. Blogging as an activity driven by individualistic andnarcissistic needs was also established by Papacharissi (2007). In her study, she found that the primarymotivator for blogging was a desire to be read by friends or family.

However, it soon became evident that blogs rendered effects that extended beyond the personal tothe political. By stimulating online discourse pertaining to critical issues of the day, bloggers challengedtraditional political and media authorities (Bar-Ilan, 2005; Bosch, 2010). Circumventing mainstreamnews sources in France, “banlieue blogs” enabled marginalized communities living in sub-urban areasto comment on the challenges experienced by the “socioeconomic fringes of French society” (Echchaibi,2009, p. 19). Other than shedding light on the relationship between blogging and civic engagement,

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 500–515 © 2014 International Communication Association 501

scholars have also looked into how blogs lead to the formation of online communities and social network(Adamic & Glance, 2005; Hargittai, Gallo & Kane, 2008). The overarching finding of these studies isthat bloggers connect with others whom they perceive share similar ideologies. In the US, significantlydifferent blogging behaviors are found among political bloggers with different political ideologies, suchas the liberals and the republicans (Adamic & Glance, 2005; Hargittai, Gallo & Kane, 2008). What suchstudies suggest is that the social networks formed among bloggers are based on homophily, similar totraditional social networks in offline contexts.

In spite of the promises web technologies herald for increasing political and civic participationamong the public, there are doubts pertaining to the relationship between communication on theweb and its outcome in terms of engendering participation in collective campaigns (for example,Barney, 2008; Rojas & Puig-i-Abril, 2009). This line of critique states that although social media amplifyindividual voices, it does little beyond providing an avenue of expression. To properly understandthe role of the internet in facilitating collective action, a number of separate processes thus need tobe identified. First and foremost among these is the issue of identity. This is because current rhetoricsurrounding internet technologies, including social media, raises the question of how exchanges inthese communicative spaces lead to the formation of collectives which are bound by shared identities,which social movement theorists argue are necessary in order for collective action to materialize.Wellman, et al (2003) posit that “more people are maneuvering through multiple communities ofchoice where kinship and neighboring contacts become more of a choice than a requirement,” orin other words, one “chooses” one’s community identity in a way unprecedented in previous socialconstructions.

This paper thus explores two research issues: (i) Does a collective identity exist among political blog-gers, and what is the nature of such an identity? (ii) How are individual identities reconciled with thecollective identity political bloggers experienced with others? Scholars have called for more reflexiveanalyses which beget a closer scrutiny of the sociopolitical contexts within which the medium is har-nessed by individuals and communities for political gains (Bruns & Adams, 2009, p. 85–110; Siapera,2009, p. 29–46). By examining the case of political bloggers in Singapore, this paper elucidates howcontextual factors may galvanize individuals into participating in collective action. To situate the debatebetween online collectives and individual technology use, the next section identifies main argumentsarticulated in collective identity theories.

Collective Identity and Collective Action

A number of new social movement theories (such as the French School in the late 1960s) depart fromclassical social movement theories such as resource mobilization theories and provide a radically differ-ent lens for study of collective action. Breaking forth from resource mobilization perspectives, new socialmovement theorists analyze the formation and role of collective identity, establishing that the socialconstruction of a collective identity that is symbolically meaningful to participants precedes logical cal-culation of the costs and benefits of joining collective action (Buechler, 1993, 1995). The overarchingargument is that a collective identity shared by individuals pursuing a common goal is essential to a suc-cessful movement. Thus, in this essay we seek to identify and highlight the presence of collective identityin the discourse of bloggers. We adopt Polletta and Jasper’s (2001) definition of collective identity as “anindividual’s cognitive, moral, and emotional connection with a broader community, category, practices,or institution” (p. 285), and Taylor and Whittier’s (1992) description of collective identity as solidarityexperienced by challengers of those in power.

We put forth three dimensions of collective identity, drawn from examining previous literature insocial movement studies and recent research from internet research. The first dimension of collective


identity is the presence of a shared consciousness among members of belongingness to the same environ-ment or community. This shared consciousness is built on commonality such as similar values, motives,goals, religious or ethnic background, and nationality (Adams & Roscigno, 2005; Van Summeren, 2007).It further translates into being aware of what being a member entails, the ways of doing things, and anability to identify themselves and others in terms of “collective affiliations and characteristics” (Jenk-ins, 2002, p. 18). Second, a group’s identity is expressed through identity signifiers such as distinctivesocial and cultural practices. These practices or behaviors (e.g. the wearing of easily identifiable cloth-ing by Muslims living in The Netherlands) act as boundary markers which help members of a groupdistinguish themselves from “the others” (Cohen, 2000, p. 1–14; Van Summeren, 2007). Observationsof momentous events and customs are another type of identity signifier. For instance, the workers’ andwomen’s demonstrations on May 1and May 8 are symbolic events participated by workers and womenfrom different parts of the world who show their support to advancing workers’ rights and women’sliberation (Della Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 89–113). The third dimension of collective identity which weincorporate in our study includes the presence of a common adversary. In other words, the recognitionof a common opponent and explicit expressions of opposition to a dominant culture or group consti-tute an important dimension of collectiveness experienced by a particular community (Castells, 2004,p. 5–70). In the context of online behavior, common points of discussion, reference, or the boundariesof discourse provide a “marker” of identity (Nip, 2004).

Finally, although collective identity is based on a shared consciousness of what the group stands for,it does not imply homogeneity and constancy. This is because identity formation is a social process whichinvolves constant negotiation and renegotiation (Della Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 89–113). The women’smovement, underscored by class-driven and racial identities, has a multiplex identity (Buechler, 1993).The multiplexity of identity is particularly true in the online world, where temporary alliances are formedand dissembled in the blink of an eye. As individuals leverage new media platforms to promote theirown identity, the question of whether an antagonism between the self and the collective exists, and howsuch an antagonism is reconciled for the larger good of collective action becomes a pertinent one. Weseek to understand the role of individual activity in establishing collective identity and the sociopoliticalconditions embedded within.

Technology and Shifting Political Opportunities in Singapore

The focus of our research is on political bloggers in Singapore because even though Singaporeans arehighly educated and vitally integrated into the global community, the extent to which the internet hasbeen deployed as a democratizing tool has been limited. This paradox deepens given the government’ssuccessful initiatives in increasing access to information technologies across the population. However,this paradox can be explained by the government’s regulation of offline and online discourse. The gov-ernment’s curtailment of speech and political expression makes Singapore an ideal context for examiningcollective identity and action among online citizens, and what that identity entails.

First, through a highly regulated legal and social system rationalized on the grounds of promotingethnic and racial harmony among a diverse migrant populace, the government has gone a long waytowards minimizing the potential for political conflict and dissent (George, 2003; Rodan, 1998, 2003).The development and growth of a vibrant civil society was stymied through legislative mechanisms -civil society organizations are required to register under the Societies Act, with the state having thediscretionary power to deny permit to groups without having to give an explanation for rejection (Koh& Ooi, 2004, p. 181). Second, the vulnerability of the state, given its geographical location, diverse ethnicand social makeup, is a reason used by the government to justify its curtailment of political expression in


cyberspace, as with traditional media such as radio and television. From time to time, specific actions aretaken against individuals or groups deemed to pose a threat to social stability, signaling the government’sintent in policing the internet to the populace (Gomez, 2002). In early 2011, The Online Citizen, a groupblog, was gazetted as a political association, a move perceived by critics to limit the group’s activities(Hussain, 2008).

However, more recent analyses suggest that the internet is opening up possibilities and spaces forfringe groups, spaces which did not exist in days prior to the emergence of the internet (Ho, Baber &Khondker, 2002). Web technologies are also engendering a form of contentious journalism which chal-lenges hegemonic perspectives sustained through the mass media by those in power (George, 2006). Theinherent characteristics of the internet and the economic benefits associated with its widespread adop-tion make it difficult for the government to regulate new media in the same way that it did with traditionalmedia such as print and broadcast (George, 2003). A recent survey showed that new media are gainingpopularity in Singapore, with 70% of the population communicating via social networks, blogs, instantmessaging, e-mails, and peer-to-peer platforms (Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, 2009).On the part of the government, it has started to deploy myriad technologies to engage the public (Kluver,2008, p. 57–74; Soon & Kluver, 2007). Such developments culminated in optimism among political andmedia observers in the internet technologies in providing opportunities for deliberative discourse andthe lobbying for policy changes.

Methodology

To establish if a collective identity existed among Singapore political bloggers and the nature of thatidentity, we first identified seed blogs - Singaporean political bloggers - through keyword searches (“Sin-gapore blogs,” “Singapore political blogs,” “Singapore bloggers,” and Singapore political bloggers’’) viacommercial search engines (i.e. Google and Yahoo!) and blog aggregators (Singapore Daily and Singa-poreSurf). In the U.S. context, Gil de Zuniga, Veenstra, Vraga, and Shah (2010) defined “political blogs”as “those that have mostly political content” (p. 40). In this study, we sharpened this operationalizationand defined political blogs as those which focus on issues related to Singapore politics and governance.By tracing hyperlinks from the blogroll of each seed page, we then created a “snowball” sample whichculminated in 224 political blogs. Ineligible units in the form of personal blogs which were strictly socialin nature or functioned only as online diaries were sieved out.

In order to explore the development and nature of collective identity, we used a semistructuredin-depth interview guide to obtain qualitative descriptions of the bloggers’ life world (Kvale, 1996, p.124–127) as well as their interpretation of what blogging and collective action meant to them. All 224political bloggers were approached either via e-mail or their blogs’ comment page to participate in thestudy, and 41 agreed to the interview. The interview guide was organized according to categories devel-oped from theoretical conceptions concerning identity and collectiveness, and it included questionson bloggers’ reasons for blogging and their blogging practices (e.g. “Why do you blog?” “What are thegratifications (satisfaction) you derive from blogging?” and “Who is your target audience?”), their par-ticipation in activism (“Are you involved in any activist activity?” “What motivated you to get involvedin activism?”), and their perceptions of other political bloggers (“What do you perceive are some of thesimilarities you share with other bloggers?” “What are some of the differences which you think set youapart from other bloggers?”).

Of the interview sample of 41 political bloggers, 29 self-identified themselves as activists, while 12of the bloggers were not involved in any form of activism activities although they blogged about polit-ical issues mentioned earlier. We deliberately included both activist and nonactivist bloggers in orderto identify trends in their understanding of their activities. Appendix A1 provides brief background


information on each of the informants. The interviews were conducted from February to April 2010by the first author. Conducted in English which was the lingua franca and the medium of instructionin all Singapore schools, the interviews were audio-taped with informants’ permission and transcribedverbatim.

Upon completion of transcription, the transcripts were studied in their entirety and coded sentenceby sentence. Condensation of meaning (Kvale, 1996) where bodies of interview text were compressedinto brief statements, representing various themes raised during the interviews, preceded the categoriza-tion and clustering of themes. We allocated metacodes to clusters of themes (e.g. reasons for blogging,target audience for blog, gratification from blogging, similarities/differences among political bloggers, senseof solidarity, asserting individualism) which facilitated the analysis of similarities and variances amongbloggers’ responses. Metacodes (e.g. uses of blogs, impact of blogs, motivations for activism, collectivenessamong political bloggers, and dichotomy between the collective and individual) were then used to classifythe text by appending them to the margins of the transcripts. In the following section, we include sup-porting excerpts from the transcripts to maintain the integrity of data interpretation, and pseudonymsto protect respondents’ identity. For brevity, ellipses (… ) indicate material that has been omitted fromthe transcripts.

Findings & Discussion

We categorized activist and nonactivist bloggers into three groups based on patterns in their activismparticipation which emerged from the interview data, and building on Van Laer and Van Aelst’s (2010)typology. The categorization also captured political bloggers’ group memberships (see Appendix B2

for the profile of the organizations that political bloggers belonged to). Offline-Based Activists com-prise of political bloggers who were highly visible activists, engaging primarily in offline activismactivities and using internet technologies to support their activism campaigns. Based on Van Laerand Van Aelst’s typology, these bloggers fall into the high-threshold/internet-support categoryand they are “offline-based” because their first foray into activism and current involvement werelinked to prominent offline organizations. Most of them also joined organizations prior to usingthe internet for activism purposes. Most of these organizations are registered with the Registry ofSocieties in Singapore, such as opposition political parties (e.g. Workers’ Party, Singapore DemocraticParty) and nongovernmental organizations (e.g. Singaporeans for Democracy and Transient WorkersCount Too).

The second group of political bloggers, Online-Based Activists, started their activism work in theonline context. Online groups such as Singapore Queer and Straight Alliance (SinQSA), No To RapeCampaign, and Free Burma Campaign Singapore were different from offline groups in two ways -their lack of formalized membership structure and the reliance on internet technologies for organizinggroup activities and social networking. Although interactions among activists from this category wereonline-based, their activities sometimes spilled over to the offline setting when required. These bloggersengaged in what Van Laer and Van Aelst described as high-threshold/internet-based activism. Stan, oneof the founders of SinQSA, described his activism work as mainly “information activism.”

I would go to different blogs that provide a view that I do not agree with or a view that is full ofmisinformation and myths, and I would post a comment and tell them “maybe there is another wayof looking at this.” I will also try to get aggregated as much as possible, and I will write to TheStraits Times. So it is communication and information-based, and not physical. (Stan, male, mid20s, graduate student and cofounder of SinQSA)


Other Online-Based Activists confined their activism involvement to online activities only, suchas signing e-petitions, displaying campaign logos on their blogs and posting links to campaigns andactivities. They would be classified as low-threshold/Internet-based in Van Laer and Van Aelst’s typology.Finally, Nonactivist Bloggers were political bloggers who neither belonged to any organization nor tookpart in any form of activism, whether online or offline. Their participation was limited only to writingcommentaries of sociopolitical events and issues regarding Singapore.

Shared Consciousness Among Activist BloggersThe interviews revealed the presence of a shared consciousness among political bloggers, one that wasbased on an articulation of who members of the collective were, a common understanding of the politicalenvironment they were embedded in, and their shared role in local politics. First, there was commonknowledge among activist bloggers that being political bloggers entailed the responsibility of bringingto the public’s eyes issues and facts which they felt that the public were ignorant of. Rachel describedhow she used her blog to publicize information on her organization’s antideath penalty campaign workfor a Malaysian male (Yong Vui Khong) who was charged with drug trafficking, a crime punishable bydeath in Singapore, which was unavailable in mainstream print and broadcast media.

I was blogging about Yong Vui Khong who was going to be executed last year… I met up with hisbrother and we heard his story. I had first-hand information and I post it on my blog, almost aheadof the mainstream media. People read my blog and blog aggregators put up my updates. A lawyercame up to me saying that he read this from my blog and he said he was grateful that he receivedfirst-hand information. (Rachel, female, late 20s, a preschool teacher and human rights activist inSingaporeans for Democracy)

More importantly, activist bloggers self-identified themselves as part of a larger collective of“sociopolitical bloggers” The term “sociopolitical blog” was self-ascribed and consistently used by bothOffline-based Activists and Online-based Activists when asked about the function of their blogs. In spiteof their different background, these bloggers did not shy away from the term “sociopolitical blogger,” asillustrated in the case of George.

I think my blog partly falls in the category of socio-political blogs, so I usually write about politicalissues, mainly concerning Singapore, sometimes regarding international affairs, very occasionally Iwill muse about personal things. But I usually try to keep it to just political commentary. (George,male, early 30s, technology consultant and opposition party member)

Other than identifying themselves with the “sociopolitical” blogging community, there was a consis-tent acknowledgment of group membership and explicit references made to the self and other politicalbloggers as part of a collective. Chong made specific references to the “blogging community” of whichhe said he was part of. His sentiments were echoed by Madcow who described his sense of belong-ingness to the blogging community. These experiences specifically supported Jenkins’ (2002) argumenton how shared identity among movement actors encompasses self-identification as members as well asidentification of others in the same group.

Nip (2004) advocated that collective identity is cultivated based on shared goals. In the case of Singa-pore political bloggers, there was a common vision experienced by bloggers who were active in politicaland civic activities. Offline-Based and Online-Based Activists perceived a need to fill a void which theyfelt existed in several realms -in civil, political, and media discourse. Their common vision for blogging


was to foster a greater interest among the citizenry in political and social issues. These bloggers hopedthat their blogs would empower citizens to take charge of their own lives by playing an active role incampaigns, reflecting a clear desire to mobilize their readers into taking charge and making a difference.For instance, V5 derived a sense of gratification when his readers lent their support to the antideathpenalty campaign. Similarly, Michael hoped that his blog would encourage his readers to take action onspecific policies pertaining to film censorship.

I encourage people to get involved and to get in touch with me, and we build something fromthere…We blogged about the anti-death penalty campaign… We asked people to come forwardand people did… they helped out, and attended the forums that we post on our blog andFacebook. (V5, male, late 20s, visual artist and video editor)

I use my blog to tell people about these issues pertaining to the Films Act because there are sectionsto the Act that do not just involve film makers but everybody who owns a copy of a licensed film....perhaps convert some of them to take action. (Michael, male, late 30s, filmmaker and politicalactivist)

On the other hand, although Nonactivist Bloggers also blogged about similar topics and shared sim-ilar desires to contribute to civic discourse, they typically cited a lack of common vision and did not seethemselves as being part of a community of sociopolitical bloggers. Unlike activist bloggers, althoughthey too blogged about similar political and social issues, they stressed that their main objective for blog-ging was personal, with their blogs serving as an archive for them to pen their thoughts, and to cultivateintrospection rather than to influence or bring about any action, as in the case of Benedict:

My blog is personal and it is more for me than for anyone else to read. I created this blog todocument my own journey and learning, and I am not sure how long this will last. This blog is likea personal diary for me. (Benedict, late 20s, student)

For activist bloggers, the acknowledgement of being part of a larger group of sociopolitical bloggers;attachment to the community of political bloggers and the recognition of a shared vision of promotingpolitical empowerment was an integral part of their shared consciousness.

Identity Signifiers of Activist BloggersWe define a boundary marker or signifier of collective identity as the perception of an “us” versus “them,”which emerges from processes of self-identification and external recognition (Ayers, 2003; Della Porta &Diani, 2006, p. 93–112). The interviews revealed that the perception of who they (activist bloggers) werewas defined first and foremost by the recognition of who they were not. In our interviews, “the others”who were not seen as part of the same collective of activist bloggers comprised both personal (or social)bloggers and Nonactivist Bloggers, whom in their deliberate disengagement from political activities,became the bystander public (Benford & Hunt, 1994). One identity signifier which differentiated activistbloggers from Nonactivist Bloggers was the type of information they blogged about. The former exerteda deliberate choice not to blog about personal or “trivial” matters, drawing the line at blogging abouttheir own lives unless the subject matter was related to their activism work.

This clash between blogging identities between activist and nonactivists is dealt with in numerousways. First, activist bloggers often referenced to a distinction between themselves and the rest of the“political bloggers out there.” Other strategies involved choices regarding the use of their real identity


when they blogged. When asked about the differences which set them apart from other bloggers, bloggersinvolved in activism typically mentioned the use of their real identity as opposed to staying anonymous,as in the case of Tan in the excerpt below. In our sample, almost all Offline-Based and Online-BasedActivists blogged using their real names, while Nonactivist Bloggers blogged anonymously.

I use my real name and that confines me to people who are active in the activist circle. Many peoplewho are not active in the circle use nicknames. They are online commentators only and they don’tuse their real identity, so I don’t identify with them. (Tan, male, late 30s, property maintenanceofficer and opposition political member)

This quote refers to a common refrain among government officials, that bloggers who comment onpolitics anonymously are “too afraid” to reveal their true identity. By blogging with their real identity,activist bloggers drew a boundary which differentiated them from bloggers who were only interestedin commenting online. Epilogos, a lecturer in his early 40s who blogs anonymously, admitted that heenjoyed the unbridled freedom which anonymity provided. To quote him: “One of the things abouthiding behind a pseudonym is that you feel that you have the freedom to express yourself, even in themost extreme ways.”

Another key differentiator lies in the style and approach adopted by most of these activist bloggerswhen blogging about political issues. What the interviews established is that activist bloggers shared acommon insight that objectivity and reason was key to reaching out to their target audiences and chang-ing their attitudes. The belief in deploying rationality in their online discourse was expressed uniformlyby informants such as Adrian, Andrew, and The Pen, who felt that “the others” tended to engage in“knee-jerk analysis” rather than quality analysis based on facts and supported arguments.

Sometimes when I read their views, I feel a little disturbed. When we oppose, there must be a moralhigh ground to oppose… Sometimes it gets too personal in terms of how the person is bloggingabout his or her thoughts. I feel that such emotions should be kept in check. (The Pen, male, mid30s, businessman and opposition political member)

Their tact, reason and objectivity was juxtaposed with what this group perceived to be the irrespon-sibility and irrationality of the majority of “other” bloggers; ironically, reinforcing the criticism of thegovernment against anonymous bloggers.

Articulation of a Common AdversaryThe impetus to bring about, or be a part of, a collective that changes the existing governing system (whichwas missing from Nonactivist Bloggers) was felt by most of the activist bloggers. It was evident from theinterviews that a “trigger factor” to challenge both the government and Singapore’s tightly governedmedia existed among activist bloggers. Their blogging activities became part of their activism work inarticulating their dissent with established authorities and traditional media. These “trigger factors” tookon myriad forms, such as the lack of pluralism in the existing governing system, and what they per-ceived to be publishing curtailments. For Michael, the ruling party was a common adversary for politicalbloggers with different activism agendas.

The common agenda across the board is that we want a freer society; we want a less authoritariangovernment. Regardless of where our political principles are, I think we all share a common goal.


We may disagree on many things such as gay issues or human rights issues, but all of us agree thatwe need a much more open Singapore. (Michael, male, late 30s, filmmaker and political activist)

The identification of traditional media and the government as an object of challenge is evident inhow activist bloggers described their blogs. Primarily, their blogs were the means to an end for themto challenge hegemonic discourse by providing alternative viewpoints of marginalized groups and indi-viduals. These bloggers perceived themselves as playing an important role in exposing or filling in thecracks in media content, and pushing the boundaries of what is deemed as acceptable discourse. Echo-ing Jenkins’ (2006) claim that blogs are a form of grassroots movement, these bloggers highlighted issuesthat were either not covered or were downplayed in the mainstream media. This is best summed up byAlan on his perceived similarities among activist blogs:

There are similar themes such as showing up cracks in mainstream media stories, so I guesseverybody is trying to keep the mainstream media honest. We are playing the watchdog’swatchdog. (Alan, male, 23 years old, undergraduate and co-founder of The Online Citizen)

A key finding which differentiated Nonactivist Bloggers from activist bloggers was that althoughblogs provided the former with an effective platform through which they could express their opin-ions, they were generally satisfied with the status quo in the political and social realms. Although theyexpressed unhappiness with the government and local issues, they did not desire to change political andsocial realities in Singapore. One of these informants included SA who explained that although his blogprovided a means for him to vent his frustration with specific policies, he was willing to abide by thecurrent governing system.

I’m perfectly happy with how the government has handled things (give and take a few). Anycountry needs a system, good or bad, and this is what we have and we make lemonade. (SA, male,late 30s, consultant)

Dichotomy between Collectiveness and IndividualismSo far, we have argued that the bloggers in our sample expressed group or collective identity in multipleways. However, our study uncovered that the collectiveness was underpinned by a sense of individualismwhich existed on three levels. First, majority of the bloggers admitted that one of their main desireswas to be read and known, and to accumulate a following of readers. For example, Andrew and Zazzidescribed how blogging was a means to making one seen and heard in the cyberspace, alluding to strongundercurrents of competition among activist bloggers for readership. In Zazzi’s case, he spoke of the“marketing” techniques which he used to attract readers and sustain their interest in his blog.

Since everybody was online and was sharing their opinion, I wanted to be part of the discussionwhere everybody contributes something to the table. Let’s see who has the best ideas, the bestdiscussions and hopefully it can do something for the better of the society. (Andrew, male, mid 20s,graduate student)

I am a marketing man and I do deploy certain marketing features. Number one - headlines. Youmust learn to write headlines that grab people. So the headlines must catch people [sic]. Secondly,change the style of writing once in a while. I don’t usually use humor but once in a while I do.(Zazzi, male, mid 50s, gay rights activist)


Second, the degree of collectiveness experiences by activist bloggers was underscored by theiractivism involvement and organizational membership. For example, many Online-Based Activists werequick to exert their independence in making their own decision when it came to activism participation,and asserted their individualism and how they were different from one another. What is interesting tonote about this is the negotiation of identity that occurs in these cases, in which bloggers both identifiedthemselves as part of a collective (those who are concerned with Singapore’s future and act on it) whileat the same time trying to demonstrate their independence. This is illustrated by the case of Brian whoseengagement in activism thus far so far involved signing online petitions.

The people who are involved in activism are at the third or fourth level if I were to draw aconcentric circle. They are not in the core of my social network… A few of them are deeplyinvolved in activism. As I said, I am not inclined in that direction, but it is interesting to know themand see their passion for activism. (Brian, male, early 20s, final-year law student)

On the other hand, the solidarity experienced by Offline-Based Activists appeared to be stronger andlinked to their organizational affiliations. Explicit claims to sharing a strong collectiveness with otheractivists at the organization or party level were made by The Pen and Tan. They expressed a strong iden-tification with fellow members and volunteers, and this was distinctly observed among Offline-BasedActivists from opposition political parties. Tan expounded on what solidarity with other bloggers meantfor him, which was to adopt a position that was in line with his party’s philosophy.

I identify with my fellow party members who blog because I understand where they come from andwhat they aspire to do. Every Sunday and Thursday, we meet and interact, and get to know eachother better, not just through our blogs but in person. (The Pen, male, mid 30s, businessman andopposition political member)

We may have different opinions, but we move according to the party’s direction… The party onthe whole can only have one position or one voice. (Tan, male, late 30s, property maintenanceofficer and opposition political member)

The third indicator of individuality was the specific issue that they championed (“pet topics,” inChong’s words), such as Rachel’s Anti-Mandatory Death Penalty campaign, and Michael’s anticensorshipactivism. In addition, the respondents also admitted that conflicting interests underpinned the groupsometimes. For instance, within Bloggers 13, Chong spoke about how, although they were united inthe campaigning for greater internet freedom and deregulation, there were undercurrents of conflictpertaining to other issues such as gay rights due to religious beliefs.

I guess the common ground is that more political space is basically good, for us as well as forSingapore. That’s probably the only common ground. Beyond that, there are different interests…some of us would be on board Zazzi’s gay rights agenda although I wouldn’t be surprised if someare opposed to his agenda due to religious reasons. (Chong, male, mid 40s, professor in journalismstudies and member of Bloggers 13 and Maruah)

These discussions reveal a tension between what activist bloggers perceive as their “individualness”and them being part of a larger collective of activist bloggers. In spite of the differences in the bloggers’agenda, blogging strategies and organizational affiliation, their collaborative efforts through different


groups like Bloggers 13, Singapore Anti-Death Penalty, and Singaporeans for Democracy were foundedon a common political ground—that of democracy, although this construct took on layered meaningsfor the bloggers. The reconciliation of the dichotomy between individualism and collectiveness is bestsummarized by Bill, who used the analogy of a Venn diagram:

Imagine that every person is a circle and inside that circle are the ideas, interests and beliefs that heor she has… It’s very much like a Venn diagram with many circles, all intersecting at one point. Atthat point, you’ll find common beliefs and approaches. In that sense, that’s how we work togetherand experience solidarity. (Bill, male, early 20s, National Serviceman and member of Bloggers 13and TOC)

Conclusion

What we have demonstrated in this study is a distinctive collective identity exists among political blog-gers who are activists, one that sets them apart from political bloggers who do not take part in any formof activism. We have also established the parameters for this collective identity in the constitution of ashared consciousness, identity markers, and common adversaries. Taken together, the findings from thisstudy hold significance for theory and research in several ways. First, grounded on first-hand accounts byactivist bloggers, this study establishes that Singapore’s institutional framework, its history of media cen-sorship created the conditions for the forming of an online activist community among political bloggerswith myriad political and social agenda. The emergence of shared goals – to undermine hegemonic dis-course propagated by the state and traditional mass media, cultivate a more politically-aware electorateand empower citizens - bind different interests together.

While the blogging community appeared to be polarized along party lines in other contexts (Adamic& Glance, 2005; Lin, Halavais & Zhang, 2007), the Singapore blogging community is united by its oppo-sition to the ruling elite, a phenomenon shaped by the long history of governmental control over offlineand mainstream media discourse. A more remarkable point lies in how this cohesiveness in challeng-ing the ruling elite bound Singapore political bloggers with disparate, at times divergent interests. Wehave also isolated specific identity signifiers which differentiated activist from nonactivist bloggers, andreinforced the sense of community experienced by activists. These blogging practices serve as identitymarkers which play a critical role in attracting activist bloggers to one another in an increasingly clutteredcyberspace, facilitating mediated identification among like-minded bloggers. Their common adversary- the government and mainstream media - strengthened the sense of camaraderie among activist blog-gers. Our findings reiterate Russell’s (2009) and Siapera’s (2009) call for considering political and socialcontexts when undertaking the task of examining the impact of blogging.

Second, this paper puts forth an argument for what we are calling “individualized collectiveness” -a convergence of agenda and action underpinned by degrees of individuation based on the competitionfor readership, pet causes, and type of organization affiliation (or lack thereof). The individualized col-lectiveness demonstrates the transcendence of primarily individual goals and identity towards a largercollective action. In so doing, our study reconciles the individualized nature of blogging with partici-pation in collective politics of resistance. Activist bloggers’ individualism was evident in the differentmeanings democracy and political plurality had for activist bloggers. Largely shaped by their own polit-ical and personal background and civic agenda, activist bloggers pursued different strategies towardscultivating what they envisioned to be a more democratic society. This innovation goes beyond the valu-able work of Wellman and his colleagues (2003) as although individuals become “networked” and areable to weave in and out of collective goals or identities, political bloggers in Singapore see group goals assuperordinate over individual goals and identities. Our data do not suggest the loss of individual goals,


motives, and identity, but rather that in certain circumstances, the collective identity assumes greaterpriority.

Third, in unpacking the dynamics of collective identity among individuals who harness user-generated content to achieve activism goals, this study uncovers a connection between collectiveidentity and movement organization type. Multiplexity in terms of the degree of collectiveness andsolidarity is linked to the type of movement organizations which activist bloggers belong to. Thedegree to which political bloggers experienced collective identity with others is not only predicatedby whether or not they were involved in activism, but more importantly, by their level of activisminvolvement and pre-existing organizational ties with other activists. High-threshold/Internet-supportactivists who belonged to offline-based movement organizations experienced greater collectivenessand solidarity with one another. Engaging in offline activism work strengthens “collectiveness” amongactivist bloggers.

In comparison, online-based activists who did not belong to organizations with an offline presencetypically maintained a greater distance in terms of identification with the larger collective of activistbloggers when deciding whether or not to participate in a cause. In spite of these differences, our studyalso shows that online movement groups founded on inclusive themes such as human rights, politicalfreedom, and freedom of speech (e.g. Bloggers 13, The Online Citizen, and Free Burma Campaign),although temporal in nature, fostered what Sunstein (2007) termed as “enclave deliberation” (p. 19–45)by facilitating participatory communication among individuals from diverse backgrounds and con-victions. Furthermore, the ease of participation in online-based groups and comparatively low risk ofpolitical censure induct bloggers who are new to activism into collective action.

One limitation of this study is the potential bias of the methodology. The selection of bloggersthrough the snowball technique based on the hyperlinks of seed blogs may have predefined collec-tives. A further research agenda would involve exploration of the extent to which collective identityand consciousness leads to coordinated action. For example, regardless of the protestations of “inde-pendence” from these bloggers, a link analysis of how they refer to one another’s blogs would provideevidence of responsiveness to one another, another important indicator of collective identity. In addi-tion, the context of study, an authoritarian regime, does not necessary limit the applications of this study.Such collectiveness cultivated among disparate individuals could arguably be an outcome of repressiveregimes (Davenport, Johnston, & Mueller, 2005, p. vii–xxxi); extending this line of inquiry to differentregimes will ascertain how political culture shapes the nature of collective identity among technol-ogy users and hence shape civic engagement. Finally, future research needs to address the intersectionbetween collective identity articulated among different segments of activists and the institutionalization(or de-institutionalization) of movements as current findings suggest a possible connection betweenmovement organizations and activist identity.

In conclusion, this paper establishes that a strong sense of collective identity, community and sol-idarity pervades among activist bloggers, one which unites bloggers with disparate interests, agendaand blogging approaches. Going beyond explicating the dimensions of collective identity among activistbloggers, we have in this paper unpacked the dynamics that influence web 2.0 users to subordinate theirown identity and interests to a larger community when they participate in causes and issues with broadmovement frames, such as those adopted by online-based movement groups.

Notes

1 Available as an online supplementary material on journal’s website.2 Available as an online supplementary material on journal’s website.


References

Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided theyblog. Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data, proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop onLink Discover, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 36–43.

Adams, J., & Roscigno, V. J. (2005), White supremacists, oppositional culture and the World Wide Web.Social Forces, 84(2), 759–778.

Ayers, M. D. (2003). Comparing collective identity in online and offline feminist activists. In M.McCaughey, & M.D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice(pp. 145–164). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bar-Ilan, J. (2005). Information hub blogs. Journal of Information Science, 31(4), 297–307.Barney, D. (2008). Politics and emerging media: The revenge of publicity. Global Media Journal, 1(1),

89–106.Benford, R. D., & Hunt, S. A. (1994, March). Social movement counterframing and reframing:

Repairing and sustaining collective identity claims. Paper presented at the Midwest SociologicalSociety, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Bosch, T. (2010). Digital journalism and online public spheres in South Africa. Communicatio, 36(2),265–275.

Bruns, A., & Adams, D. (2009). Mapping the Australian political blogosphere. In A. Russell, & N.Echchaibi (Eds.), International blogging (pp. 85–110). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Buechler, S. M. (1993). Beyond resource mobilization? Emerging trends in social movement theory.Sociological Quarterly, 34(2), 217–235.

Buechler, S. M. (1995). New social movement theories. Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 441–464.Castells, M. (2004). The power of identity (2nd edition) (pp. 5–70). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell

Publishers.Cohen, A. P. (2000). Introduction: Discriminating relations – identity, boundary and authenticity. In

A.P. Cohen (Ed.), Signifying identities: Anthropological perspectives on boundaries and contestedvalues (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.

Davenport, C., Johnston, H., & Mueller, C. (2005). Introduction. Repression and mobilization: Insightsfrom political science and sociology. In C. Davenport, C. Mueller, & H. Johnston (Eds.), Repressionand mobilization (Social movements, protest and contention) (pp. vii-xxxi). London: SagePublications.

Davis, S. (2005). Presidential campaigns fine-tune online strategies. Journalism Studies, 6(2), 241–244.Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social movements: An introduction (2nd edition) (pp. 33-63,

89–113). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Echchaibi, N. (2009). From the margins to the center: New media and the case of Bondy Blog in

France. In A. Russell, & N. Echchaibi (Eds.), International blogging (pp. 11–28). New York, NY:Peter Lang Publishing.

Flew, T. (2005). New media: An introduction (pp. xv-xxii). Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford UniversityPress.

George, C. (2003). The Internet and the narrowing tailoring dilemma for “Asian” democracies. TheCommunication Review, 6, 247–268.

George, C. (2006). Contentious journalism and the Internet: Towards democratic discourse in Malaysiaand Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Gil de Zuniga, H., Veenstra, A., Vraga, E., & Shah, D. (2010). Digital democracy: Reimaginingpathways to political participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7, 36–51.

Gomez, J. (2002). Internet politics: Surveillance & intimidation in Singapore. Singapore: Think Centre.


Hargittai, E., Gallo, J. & Kane, M. (2008). Cross-ideological discussions among Conservative andLiberal bloggers. Public Choice, 1–2, 67–86.

Herring, S. C., Scheidt, L. A., Bonus, S., & Wright, E. (2004). Bridging the gap: A genre analysis ofweblogs. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Track4, Vol. 4, pp. 101–112.

Hussain, Z. (2008, September 6). Engagement in progress. The Straits Times, p. A32.Ibrahim, Y. (2009). Textual and symbolic resistance: Re-mediating politics through the blogosphere in

Singapore. In A. Russell, & N. Echchaibi (Eds.), International blogging (pp. 173–198). New York,NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (2009). Infocomm usage: Households and individualsfor 2008. Retrieved September 1, 2009 fromhttp://www.ida.gov.sg/Publications/20070822125451.aspx#usageHse3

Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers and gamers: Exploring participatory culture (pp. 178–181). New York,NY: New York University Press.

Jenkins, R. (2002). Different societies? Different cultures? What are human collectives? In S. Malesevic& M. Haugaard (Eds.), Making sense of collectivity: Ethnicity, nationalism and globalization (pp.12–32). London: Pluto Press.

Kaid, L. L. (2009). Changing and staying the same: Communication in campaign 2008. JournalismStudies, 10(3), 417–443.

Kluver, R. (2008). Singapore: Elections and the Internet – Online activism and offline quiescence. In S.Ward, D. Owen, R. Davis, & D. Taras (Eds.), Making a difference: A comparative view of the role ofthe Internet in election politics (pp. 57–74). Lanham, MD: Lexington Publishers.

Koh, G. & Ooi, G.L. (2004). Relationship between state and civil society in Singapore: Clarifying theconcept, assessing the ground. In H.G. Lee (Ed.), Civil society in Southeast Asia (pp. 167–197).Singapore: ISEAS Publications.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing (pp. 124–127).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lin, J., Halavais, A., & Zhang, B. (2007). The blog network in America: Blogs as indicators ofrelationships among US cities. Connections, 27(2), 15–23.

Nip, J. Y. M. (2004). The queer sisters and its electronic bulletin board. Information, Communication &Society, 7(1), 23–49.

Papacharissi, Z. (2007). Audiences as media producers: Content analysis of 260 blogs. In M. Tremayne(Ed.), Blogging, citizenship, and the future of media (pp. 21–38). London: Routledge.

Poletta, F., & Jasper, J.M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology,27, 283–305.

Rheingold, H. (2003). Smart mobs: The next social revolution (pp. 157–182). Cambridge, MA: PerseusPublishing.

Rodan, G. (1998). The Internet and political control in Singapore. Political Science Quarterly, 113(1),63–89.

Rodan, G. (2003). Special issue on electronic media, markets and civil society in East and SoutheastAsia: Introduction. The Pacific Review, 16(4), 455–464.

Rojas, H., & Puig-i-Abril, E. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization andparticipation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 902–927.

Russell, A. (2009). Introduction: International blogging – Identity, politics, and networked publics. InA. Russell, & N. Echchaibi (Eds.), International blogging (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Peter LangPublishing.


Sani, M.A.M. (2009). The emergence of new politics in Malaysia: From consociational to deliberativedemocracy. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 5, (2), 97–125.

Siapera, E. (2009). Theorizing the Muslim blogosphere: Blogs, rationality, publicness, and individuality.In A. Russell, & N. Echchaibi (Eds.), International blogging (pp. 29–46). New York, NY: Peter LangPublishing.

Soon, C., & Kluver, R. (2007). The Internet and online political communities in Singapore. AsianJournal of Communication, 17, 3, 246–265.

Sunstein, C. (2007). Republic.com 2.0 (pp. 19–45). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Taylor, V., & Whittier, N.E. (1992). Collective identity in social movement communities: lesbian

feminist mobilization. In A.D. Morris & C.M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theories(pp. 169–193). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Trammell, K. D. (2005, May). Looking at the pieces to understand the whole: An analysis of blog posts,comments, and trackbacks. Presented at International Communication Association conference, NewYork City, New York, U.S.A.

Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires. Information,Communication & Society, 13(8), 1146–1171.

Van Summeren, C. (2007). Religion online: The shaping of multidimensional interpretations ofMuslimhood on Marco.nl. Communications, 32, 273–295.

Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Diaz, I. I. d., et al. (2003). The socialaffordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 8(3). Retrieved April 15, 2012, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/wellman.html

About the Authors

Carol Soon (email: [email protected]), Ph.D., is Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies,National University of Singapore. Dr. Soon’s research interests include social change, collective action,online social networks, and the Internet and governance. With support from the Australian EndeavourAward, Dr. Soon is also Visiting Research Fellow at the Asia Research Centre in Murdoch Universityfrom August to December 2012. Web site: http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/soon-carol/

Address: 1C Cluny Road, House 5, Singapore 259599.

Randy Kluver (email: [email protected]), Ph.D., is Executive Director of Global Partnerships andProjects and Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Texas A&M University. Hisresearch focuses on the political and geopolitical implications of new media technologies, includingdigital and cultural diplomacy, and political communication. Web site: http://communication.tamu.edu/html/bio--rkluver.html

Address: Department of Communication, 4234 Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843–4234,USA.


Documents

Soon, Uniting Political Bloggers in Diversity