Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Jen, a subject you touched on yesterday, and mention a lot in the
book, is the question of the digital divide. My day revolves around
about four digital devices (including my smart phone), all of which
are recent, and all of which take advantage of abundant bandwidth.

That is certainly echoed in the access many of the people you
followed on the right in your research: older, tended to have recent
computers and cellphones, tended to have good internet connections,
and a lot of support. On the left, the opposite tended to be more
true: may, at best, have a phone. They often did not have reliable,
or fast internet connections. Sometimes they had to go to the
library to get reliable access. And that is magnified when it comes
to access to digital audio and video editing tools and other aids to
preparing materials to get online.

Should we be paying more attention to the digital divide? Has it
changed at all in the decade (more!) since you began your research?
Are there ways to better ameliorate its effects?
  

    
Your words in #23 are really clarifying, especially about the
pre-2016 invisibility to others of what you had already seen. The
invisibility is part of how it could happen, yes? A kind of guerilla
tactic. Just as the quiet take-over of school boards was.

This is very much a side-question, but I see that all your public
appearances listed are at universities, none at bookstores. Since we
are speaking here some about the various fora of visibility, I'm
curious about that--it must have been a decision, what was the
basis? A matter of practical connections, or of philosophy?
  

    
As I talk about in my book, digital engagement, like any type of
communication takes a lot of work. As a parent and full-time
professor, organizing a book tour has already taken a lot of work,
so I have had to rely on my network organizing events. Yes, more
bookstores and public spaces are ideal!
  

    
It's Monday and I'm back at work, so to speak, so a good time to
dive into Ari's earlier question about Antonio Gramsci and why I use
his theoretical framework in my book (and why others have too). Many
have (rightly) critiqued Marxism for focusing exclusively on the
economic mechanisms of exploitation and power. Gramsci's appeal is
that he theorized power and hegemony as the linkages of civil
society and practices - it's not just corporate power. So, for
example, when I talk about the conservative digital media
eco-system, it's not just the Koch brothers, it also takes other
social institutions, including very grassroots groups
re-circulating, sharing and creating content. The word propaganda
comes from the word propagate in Latin, so to propagate crops, one
needs more than the seeds or even the fertilizer - one needs fertile
soil and the right environment.

Dylan Riley, a Berkeley sociologist, wrote a comparative historical
analysis of the development of fascism in Europe a century ago.
Rather than fascist leaders filling a vacuum of the lack of a strong
civil society, it was the very countries that *had* strong civic
institutions which turned fascist. I also found that very active
civil society groups - Tea Party, prepper and other conservative
groups were key with digital engagement. They also, coincidentally,
had very democratic practices *among* their own membership. Leaders
emerged from local areas - especially some women who felt alienated
by the Republican party, much like Gramsci described "organic
intellectuals" - albeit from the other side of the political
spectrum.
  

    


interesting, jen. could you unpack that last paragraph a little more? 


also - could one of our Inkwell hosts perhaps post the dates from
http://therevolutionthatwasnt.com/book-tour/  into appropriate Well
conferences such as News, and any regional or city conferences mentioned?
it might also provide a good context for inviting more Welloids into this
conversation...
  

    
Will do, Tiffany. Good suggestion.
  

    
Inkwell conversations are a two week commitment for our guests; for
this one, the commitment is through Monday, February 10. That's not
the whole story: if you want to keep the conversation rolling,
please feel free to keep posting after that date. 

Reminder that if you're reading this and not a member of the WELL,
you can send comments and questions to inkwell at well.com, and
we'll post 'em.
  

    
I'm in the midst of the first week of classes at Sciences Po here in
Paris, and I have students from all over the world. I always ask
them at the beginning of the semester, if they had to delete all of
the apps on their phone except three, which three apps they would
keep. I do this to get a pulse of their digital context (Instagram
wins - WhatsApp is second). And there were over 30 apps listed for a
class of just 20 students. Those are big learning curves. There is
this myth that apps are super simple to learn and master. But that's
the problem - and difference - with digital technology that is
different from tracking adoption rates of other forms of technology
(phones, TVs, etc). And this difference gets to one of Ari's earlier
questions about digital inequalities. 

Engaging online with digital politics requires what I call ASETs -
access, skills, empowerment and time. These tracked with social
class divisions. It's more than just having internet access - though
that is a huge barrier for many people. Some folks rely on a library
or a relative's house just to go online - or they'll lose their job
- and their data plan for a month or two. Skills are also key - I
found that online participation levels tracked with how well both
individuals and groups understood the algorithms and other digital
tricks of the platform trade. Next is empowerment. One woman said
when I asked about Twitter, "I don't get up there." A lot of
working-class folks expressed that they were not computer people -
that it was something that "other" people did. Or, some feared
losing their jobs or other types of repression for engaging in
digital politics, so the fear factor was a barrier. Finally, time
may seem like many of us spend way too much of online, but for
people who had a job where they weren't allowed to have a gadget, it
was harder for them to have that consistent engagement online.

And with all of these hardware and software changes happening all of
the time, digital engagement is a treadmill for many poor and
working-class folks trying to keep up.
 
  

    
Ah, yes, thanks for the query about Gramsci - I did, indeed, pack a
lot in that paragraph!

The main point is that when we look to the rise of digital dominance
among conservatives, it's easy to point to political leaders or tech
companies or other corporate forces that are big digital puppet
masters. While these forces are, indeed, important forces,
local-grassroots right-wing groups (not astroturf) are critical to
keep this conservative digital media eco-system active. 
  

    
So I've talked about two of the factors that create a digital
activism gap - ideology and inequality. The third "i" is
institutions. Rather than the image of a digital activist as a young
anarchist protester who practices horizontal and participatory
decision-making. I found the opposite. Over time, it is hierarchical
and bureaucratic groups who can sustain online engagement over the
long-term. This finding was one of the most surprising - and
unexpected given the hyper-focus on movements like Occupy Wall
Street.
  

    

super interesting.
  

    
Questions today swirling around the Iowa Caucuses relate to the
findings in my book. I found that top-down organizations have more
digital power than bottom-up groups. Right now we're seeing the DNC,
a top-down institution, controlling the technology that can shape
democratic outcomes. This is not a conspiratorial viewpoint - it is
simply a way to understand the constant struggle between the digital
means of democratic production.
  

    
Kinda related to this topic :  Grauniad 'Long Read' ...


Big Swinging Brains and fashy trolls: how the world fell into a
clickbait death spiral
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/07/big-swinging-brains-fashy-t
rolls-clickbait-death-spiral-internet-media>
  

    
I just read Marantz' book, Antisocial, and I'm off to read this
piece. He's got his head around the problem, for sure.
  

    
Jen, earlier in the week you talked about a third "i," (along with
ideology and inequality) that affects organizing, "institutions."
Over time, you write, it is the hierarchical and bureaucratic groups
who can sustain online engagement over the long-term. This, in
contrast to intense flashes like the Occupy Wall Street movement.

I was reminded of this when reading Jane McAlevey's latest book, "A
Collective Bargain," in which she makes the case (among many other
things) that traditional union process, organization, and hierarchy
has a lot to do with success. For the left (although, not
exclusively for the left), unions seem like our strongest example of
that hierarchical and bureaucratic group--except that, your research
talks about organizing around Union-related issues in North
Carolina. So, my question might be, are the Unions themselves
uniquely (perhaps not so uniquely) underfunded and unsupported by
national organizations, relative to where they need to be? I mean,
the Union movement should be the source of funds, training, even
computers and computer support. Are national organizations providing
any significant amounts of same, even today? Or, is there more
funding and support now, but in recognition of the poverty of the
audience, does the focus really belong on face-to-face organizing
and traditional printed materials?
  

    
On a related note:

>Questions today swirling around the Iowa Caucuses relate to the
>findings in my book. I found that top-down organizations have more
> digital power than bottom-up groups.

In this case, misapplied and poorly thought-out power, or did the
use of Shadow come from the local party? Talk more about what
happened here.
  

    
The answer to the question of whether or not we still need IRL
Face-to-Face organizing or more online organizing is ... YES. Both
are important. In fact, it was that combination that propelled
conservatives, as I outline in my book. In response to oligarchic
anti-democratic tendencies in left-leaning organizations - unions or
otherwise - there has been an understandable emphasis on
horizontalism and its connection to digital technology, in
particular. There is this idea that the many-to-many architecture of
the internet goes hand-in-hand with egalitarianism and leaderless
movements. The problem, though, is what happens when the
infrastructure isn't there. But like any communication tool,
concerted effort over time is necessary. A division and
specialization of labor is still needed to sustain online
engagement. 

But what about traditional labor unions? I found that yes, they did
tend to have higher levels of digital engagement because they
understood basic principals - that personalization - manufactured or
otherwise - is essential. Now, when I say manufactured I don't mean
"fake" but there was one teachers'union in North Carolina where the
communications director spent a lot of time honing his digital
skills, as well as carefully choosing the teachers who would "tell
their stories" - their stories were real but he had to actively
recruit them and then edit their interviews to tell a compelling
story. But were they doing the digital training that conservatives
have done? Not this union, really. Certainly other unions have, but
given the digital inequality part of the equation, that is an uphill
battle that needs consistent effort.
  

    
What I'm taking from that is the obvious: Some unions are better
than others, but, at least in North Carolina, Union-related efforts
are significantly underfunded, which is the real issue, without
working through all of the various reasons for that. Given funding,
they could be expected to help provide that social media leadership
on their issues, but, yeah, other face-to-face and print stuff is
still as important or more important.

That's tangential to my understanding of the book, which is, again,
that the notion that social media give leftist causes an edge is
just flat-out wrong, and to the contrary--it is, as we have been
discussing these past two weeks--the right that has benefitted from
social media. And that, as we have been discussing, seems to relate
directly to the existing of traditional, hierarchical organizations
(and the funding to support them) that enables smaller organizations
to build on that work and increase the visibility of right-wing
viewpoints, relevant links, etc.

So, as we wind to the end of this interview, is that a fair summary
of what people should take away from this book and your research:
that social media, in common with other organizing efforts, yield
the best results to the best, consistently-funded side (in our
world, this is consistency the right). If there is a magic bullet,
this is not it.

(And, I'd argue, perhaps consonant to what Jane McAlevey's work
emphasizes, that there still isn't a substitute for the basic, do
the work organizing, overall.)
  

    
Today is the last day scheduled for this interview. Conversation can
continue, of course - it's the WELL, and we never stop talking.

I want to thank Dr. Schradie for participating and getting some very
good conversation going. I'll also repost some reminders about the
book and her work:

For background, here is an interview on Vox:
<https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/3/18624687/conservatism-liberal
s
-internet-activism-jen-schradie>

There is also a long list of links at Harvard, at
<https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674972339>

and the author's own website: <http://schradie.com/>, which includes
upcoming speaking engagements at
<http://therevolutionthatwasnt.com/book-tour/>.
  

    
Jen, before we let you go, what are you working on now? How is it
informed by your earlier research, or is it something relatively new
for you?
  

    
I'm tackling a number of different projects which fits into my
broader research agenda of using empirical data to study "digital
democracy" and inequalities. My first body of research examined
differences in online content. This book project looked at digital
activism. My current research examines the tech economy. All of
these challenge the utopianism of digital society.

It has been a refreshing experience to have such a well-informed
discussion - such a nice change to toxic social media that breeds
hostility and performativity, rather than real dialogue.

Merci beaucoup!
Jen
  

    
Thanks for bringing us into a discussion of your work <schradie>.

I was in Paris during Occupy, walking with a fellow from there.  I had seen
Occupy in London, but not in Paris.  I asked him why.  He said 'we already
occupy Paris'.  We came to a place where the road we were walking down ended
at a street somewhere out near Le Republique.  Spray painted on the wall
were the words 'pend ton patron'.  He pointed to it and said 'that's our
Occupy Paris'.  In France, they have regular strike days that bring an
awareness to the importance of labor, and in this case the consequences of
taking it for granted.  We've lost that, to the degree that we have had it.

Emily Levine (now RIP) had the view that left and right were not as
meaningful a political distinction as quantum mechanics.  Very upset people
would cluster together, as would people who are taking it in stride.  A
political system that allows the most upset people to wear each other out
without harshing the vibe of the people who are taking things in stride
would make better use of our time.

In 2016, I watched Facebook trigger one of the few Trump fans in my small
town.  Every day, they'd push another 'news' item his way and he would share
it with the rest of us.  Mostly the message was to not trust Hillary
Clinton.  The town though went for Bernie and remains in his camp.  The
algorithm missed our proud anomaly.

I could see the power of triggering the most upset with micro-targetting and
analytics that put them in the game, to be the trigger that might flip the
town.  He was happy to play.  He's been resting, but he'll be back.

This year, they say, we will see a huge misinformation effort by the
Republican party.  I took as early evidence of beta testing the recent meme
that it was the Republicans all along.

Of course it was Opus Dei.
  

    
Interesting. I would never be considered a conservative, and I don't
consider activism a right or left weighted item.
my belief is that pure and true activism comes from the heart and
cannot be contained no matter what side of the fence you stand. It's
that push in your heart that causes you to LEAP to action and act as
well as react to Injustice. It's that pure thought & emotion that
something needs to change and the drive and motivation to make
positive changes in this world. 
  

    
That's certainly a good way to view activism on a personal level,
Marcia (and welcome to Inkwell.vue!)

I think Schradie's point is that it isn't enough to effect change.
We need to act together (g activism), and work with other people to
make that happen. And that takes more than mere drive and
motivation.

What have you been involved with? What are your observations about
what has worked or not?
  

    
Hey, I just got the book!
Any suggestions for where to get the specialized training that
conservatives have about how to boost the megaphone and persuade
people?
Or how to recruit other digital activists?
And what tricks can we call people out on?  
(And how to do that?)

Generally, any resources for Advertising Resistance Education?

Because even unpaid socme posts are ads.