A comparative analysis of collective action frames in Nosamo and the Tea Party

Abstract

Classical collective action theories assume that successful political movements must have an organization and the ability to mobilize supporters in support of a common goal. Yet the unprecedented achievements of networked political movements have led scholars to reconsider these assumptions. South Korea’s Nosamo and the Tea Party Movement are unique among networked political movements in that they were aimed at electing specific political candidates. The ability of these two movements successfully to bypass party orthodoxy without a traditional organizational apparatus has bolstered optimism about participatory democracy. However, while both of these movements began as free-flowing horizontal networks, each developed a hierarchical organizational structure. We examine how the development of an organizational structure affected each group’s dominant frame, comparing structures and outcomes in the two cases. In particular, we find out whether there are differences in each group’s ability to affect a unified presence by examining group documents and news coverage. Our results suggest that a cohesive collective action frame is possible without formal organizations, though there may be other requirements that might obtain only under certain circumstances, somewhat weakening prospects for participatory democracy.

Organizing an “organizationless” protest campaign in the WeChatsphere

“…In sum, while emphasizing different aspects of organizing beyond formal organizations, existing studies all point to the “fecundity” of organizational forms in digital activism (Bimber et al, 2012). Indeed, along with formal organizations, the structures of protests may change from one to another pattern, with varying levels of centralization and formal organization, depending on how activists conceive their relationship with techno-structural conditions (Bennett and Segerberg, 2013; Jenkins et al, 2017). Yet few studies have explored when and why protest networks assume more or less decentralized or hierarchical structures, or involve varying degrees of formal organization.…”