This article argues that the type of individualized social media activism that has been conceptualized as ‘connective action’ has affinities to populism, and may have detrimental consequences for democratic procedures and the bureaucratic structures that enable them. We trace the normative allure of individualized digital engagement to the libertarian roots of techno-utopianism and argue that this, in combination with a form of mobilization fueled by digital enthusiasm, has potentially dire democratic and organizational consequences. Digital enthusiasm generated on social media platforms entails self-infatuation, here conceptualized as a form of individualized charismatic authority in the Weberian sense. This individualized form of charismatic authority is fundamentally focused on personalized engagement, and simultaneously interconnected through the technological affordances of social media platforms. If individualized charismatic authority becomes institutionalized as a legitimate and predominant manner of organizing, it may have large-scale implications for societal organizing at large by promoting populism. In sum, we argue that digital enthusiasm not only provides democratic opportunities for protest and contention in civil society, but that the fickleness of the individualized charismatic authority it generates may also put democratic procedures and respect for bureaucratic structures at risk.

This article takes a comparative qualitative approach to explore the intertwined external accountability and legitimacy attempts of independently wealthy philanthropists. By comparing accountability forums and institutional logics stated by philanthropists, it is investigated to whom they are externally accountable and how they legitimate their controversial funding of public goods. The study compares the external accountability and legitimacy attempts of philanthropists with that of public agencies, corporations, and fundraising-dependent nonprofits. Empirically, this is a cross-sectional study of funders supporting human embryonic stem cell research in either California or Sweden. The study shows that it is through local isomorphism, rather than any specific accountability forum or institutional logic, that philanthropists are accountable and thus legitimate their giving. This is in contrast to other types of funders, which are more similar within each form when comparing accountability forums across societies, and more similar within societies in their usage of institutional logics, with certain patterned statements. In addition, philanthropists in both societies are more detached than any other type of funder as regards both specific patient populations and the general electorate. This finding raises questions on what philanthropists’ private funding for public purposes actually entails.

In this paper, we explore the assumption that blame-attribution can be an effective rhetorical strategy for non-elite interest groups who want power holders to be attentive to their demands. Through a qualitative analysis of two pro-migrant campaigns led by grassroot activists in Sweden, one taking place in 2005 and the other in 2017, we offer a nuanced empirical examination of non-elite initiated blame-games. We show how perceived responsibility influences these blame-games, and explore which policy consequences might emanate from them. We demonstrate that blame-making, under certain conditions, can be a successful strategy to gain policy influence, but that this strategy is conditioned by the complexity and transparency of the institutional arrangements of accountability within the policy sector. The focus on non-elite blame-making in order to change policies enables us to contribute to the theoretical discussion on the relationship between anticipatory and reactive forms of blame-avoidance behaviours, and to discuss the democratic implications of blame-games in both shorter and longer time perspectives. One implication of this study is that successful non-elite blame-making at one point in time actually can lower the chances of successful blame-making in the future.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the role of inscriptions on social media in enabling action at a distance. The purpose is addressed by investigating how and by what mechanisms inscriptions on social media can shape action at a distance.Design/methodology/approachWe conduct a qualitative analysis of the Facebook page of a crowdfunded grassroots initiative, where the founders and their stakeholders interact.FindingsWe identify two mechanisms by which inscriptions on social media can shape action at a distance: a flow of micro-level inscriptions and a joint stabilisation of inscriptions. By signalling achievement, creating a sense of closeness and highlighting powerful explanations, these mechanisms guide what action at a distance is taken and by whom. Action thereby becomes a mutual exercise between centres of calculation and distant peripheries, highly intertwined with the stability of inscriptions. The two mechanisms indicate the importance of the boundaryless nature of the inscriptions in shaping action at a distance.Originality/valueOur findings indicate new forms of inscriptions and, consequently, of novel conditions for action at a distance. These insights add to the literature on Web 2.0 and accounting, which has mainly revolved around the relationship between centres of calculation and distant peripheries that act upon each other rather than around the inscriptions that enable such action.

Recent crisis situations have witnessed a growing number of loosely organised networks (LONs) that deliver welfare services and employ social media platforms to coordinate their actions. Focusing on the 2015 'refugee crisis' in Sweden, we explore the role of LONs in Swedish resilience policy. In the absence of standardised heuristics characteristic of established organizations, the LONs refer to social media for generating a common stance on the policy problem and their relation to the state. The study indicates challenges in governing LONs, showing that although a LON may become co-opted by the state, this co-optation may lead to its demise.