When power makes the public
Also, deadline for Misinfo & Marginalization TODAY and new pieces from Tressie McMillan Cottom
(research summary by Katherine Furl)
What do researchers lose by failing to consider power when studying digital networks and right-wing publics? In “Recentering power: conceptualizing counterpublics and defensive publics,” Sarah J. Jackson and Daniel Kreiss argue that without considering the ways many right-wing publics defend longstanding systems of inequality, we fail to understand the impact these right-wing publics have on democracy at large—and we minimize the vital work of counterpublics that truly challenge unequal systems.
Jackson and Kreiss trace how communications scholars use the concept of “counterpublics” to see how its meaning has become muddled over time. In contrast to an imagined singular public sphere with shared ideals, counterpublics emerge to address social, economic, and political inequalities and hold values shaped by these unequal systems of power. Counterpublics vary widely, but whether they tackle systemic racism, sexism, heteronormativity, colonialism and imperialism, or other inequalities, they all serve to challenge dominant values aligned with and upheld by groups in power.
But as studies of digital networks focus on larger datasets and ever-more sophisticated computational methods, Jackson and Kreiss find that many new studies apply the term to any publics seen as “alternative” and deviating from the mainstream, even when they promote values aligned with prevailing systems of power (as is the case for right-wing groups advocating white supremacy through overt racism, for example.) As they put it: “what some scholars take to be right-wing ‘counterpublics’ are often instead a backlash in the defense of established social, racial, and political orders.”
Failing to recognize important differences between counterpublics that challenge systems of power and right-wing publics that defend those systems because both use “alternative” means runs run the risk of “legitimizing anti-democratic movements at best, or furthering them at worst.”
In response, they recommend three practices that apply to many studies of social movements:
In studying publics, counterpublics, and defensive publics, remember their historical, national, and international contexts; we can’t understand relationships between these groups without also understanding how they emerged.
Consider differences within and between groups and be mindful of who is left out of which conversations and how different groups must strategize to have their voices heard.
Be mindful of how institutions, resources, and unequal access amplify or silence counterpublics challenging dominant systems and the inequalities they uphold.
These analyses keeping power at the center of research and ensures that we better understand the important distinction between counterpublics challenging the status quo, defensive publics upholding longstanding systems of inequality, and the impact of both on democracy as a whole.
Publications and appearances
“Social media platforms are also following a 2016 playbook and failing to protect U.S. democracy. Based on observations from a series of research projects on the 2020 elections, we hoped that platform companies would uphold pro-democratic principles during the 2024 elections. After the 2020 elections, our research team hailed the unmistakable steps the major U.S.-based platforms took to embrace their roles as “democratic gatekeepers”… In the last few weeks, however, social media platforms have walked away from their commitments to protect democracy. So much so that the current state of platform content moderation is more like 2016 than 2020.” Daniel Kreiss and Bridget Barrett sound the alarm about changes in platform policies that jeopardize the 2024 election.
“How exactly did hip-hop beat the odds? Its brilliance is its brand of excess. For a culture often derided as derivative, hip-hop has three generations of cultural innovation.” It’s nothing to do with social media or search, but Tressie McMillan Cottom’s essay on the 50th anniversary of hip-hop in Vanity Fair touches on innovation, abundance, and the celebration of resistance.
“I asked the professors what they wished the public understood about their dilemma. They said they wished you knew how much they care about their jobs, how seriously they take their work as a public trust. They wished you knew that they do not do their work for the money. Many professors signed up for so-called boring jobs. They would rather be doing those boring jobs. They also wished you knew that leaving their jobs is not as easy as it sounds.” Tressie McMillan Cottom also wrote about the impact of new limitations on faculty speech and organizing in Florida in her New York Times column.
Coming soon
October 16 at CITAP: Misinformation and Marginalization Symposium. Extended abstracts due today!
October 18 at AoIR: Alice Marwick, Yvonne Eadon, and Rachel Kuo are among the co-organizers of an AoIR preconference on future of conspiracy https://aoir.org/aoir2023/preconfworkshops/#future
October 22 at the Annenberg Public Policy Center: The Post-API Conference. Proposals due July 17.