"Cyber-movements, New Social Movements, and Counter-publics." In Counterpublics and the State. Ed. Daniel Brouwer and Robert Asen. New York: SUNY Press, forthcoming 2001.
Catherine Helen Palczewski, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Northern Iowa
Cyber-movements, New Social Movements, and Counterpublics
In the last decade, studies of public participation and social movement have recognized that assuming a multiplicity of publics is a more productive approach than operating with a singular opposition/state model of agitation and control. Jürgen Habermas's (1989) influential writings about the public sphere are premised upon a distinction between the political public sphere, in which "the public discussions concern objects connected with the practice of the state," and the public sphere, which "mediat[es] between state and society, a sphere in which the public as the vehicle of public opinion is formed" (230-1). Building upon and reacting to his concept of the public sphere, theorists such as Rita Felski (1989) and Nancy Fraser (1992) have argued that we need to theorize beyond the monolithic public sphere, and recognize the existence of counterpublics as sites which develop critical oppositional discourses. Accordingly, in order to understand how social movements develop, scholars need to extend their focus beyond how movements appeal to the state for legitimacy. Absent an understanding of how counterpublics develop oppositional communication practices, a study of the relationship between counterpublics and the state becomes shallow. Ultimately, that relationship has as its precondition, and its directing force, the framework provided by the in-group discourse. Attention to both state-focused political activism, as well as culturally driven discursive politics, is necessary.
Given the increasing role that emerging communication technologies are playing in activism, particular attention needs to be directed to how the Internet impacts counterpublics' formation and public spheres activism. Because substantial scholarly attention has been given to Internet activities directed toward political institutions, this essay seeks to focus on the activities of cyber-movements that are both necessary for, although not solely valued in relation to, interchange with the state. In fact, it may well be that the traditional theoretical approaches we take, and sharp distinctions we make, are counterproductive when studying emerging communication technologies' interface with social activism. As David Poster (1996) notes in his discussion of cyber-democracy, the Internet institutes "new social functions" which "can only become intelligible if a framework is adopted that does not limit the discussion from the outset to modern patterns of interpretation" (202). He continues:
For example, if one understands politics as the restriction or expansion of the existing executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, one will not be able even to broach the question of new types of participation in government. To ask, then, about the relation of the Internet to democracy is the challenge or to risk challenging our existing theoretical approaches to these questions. (202-3)
To ask about the relationship of cyber-movements to the state, we must first challenge our existing theoretical approaches to the questions we ask. Instead of focussing questions on counterpublics' relation to the state as it exists, perhaps we ought to examine how cybermovements as counterpublics allow us to challenge the very conceptions of the state.
Unfortunately, as emerging communication technologies (such as the Internet) influence the function and form of participation (as seen in the December 1999 Seattle WTO protests and the April 2000 World Bank and IMF protests), discussions of the Internet have not attended to developments in social movement and protest theory, particularly to counterpublic sphere theory. As a result, Internet studies replicate both traditional social movement studies' focus on the state and modernists' limited understandings of political participation.
Studies of cyber-activism have tended to focus on how the Internet can increase direct citizen participation in institutionalized politics (e.g. Browning 1996; Rash 1997; Grossman 1995; Selnow 1998; Hill & Hughes 1998; Tsagarousianou et al. 1998) and rarely speak of the potential for exclusively discursive politics offered by the Net. And, when the political functions of the Net are discussed, people tend to focus not on its interactive nature, but on its ability to transmit information (see W.M. Grossman 1997). Discussions of the democratic potential of the Internet, even when they recognize its interactive nature, still limit the form of interaction to political sphere participation (see L. K. Grossman 1995; Rheingold n.d.; Hill & Hughes 1998; Browning 1996; Sobchack 1996; Kinney 1996).
Perhaps the best representative of this approach is Rash's Politics on the Net: Wiring the Political Process (1997). When analyzing "political discussion" on the Net, he primarily is concerned with political parties (7). However, he does discuss the use of the Net by grassroots organizations, single-issue groups, and ad hoc committees, describing the Net as "an electronic life force that not only makes these groups function well but that may in fact make them possible" (10). However, Rash's explanation of this possibility is based not on the unique communicative function of the Internet, but on its cost-effectiveness as a tool, as in the description: "access to electronic communications can save money and time, increase flexibility, and provide a pathway for organization" (11). Rash highlights the utility of the Internet for "smaller, less traditional groups that do not have the membership numbers to get noticed[ and i]nstead, they must be able to communicate efficiently, act quickly, and use technology to substitute for people and money" (89).
Activist sites also limit themselves to modern modes of relation to the state. For example, the Activist's Oasis (matisse.net/politics/activist/activist.html) primarily has links to institutionalized politics' mailing lists. The Electronic Activist (berkshire.net/ifas/activist/) is a state-by-state directory of the email addresses of members of Congress, state legislators, and national and local media. Similarly, the 2MinuteActivist site (ccnet.com/zen&/Zen7.html) focuses on direct involvement in the traditional political process. Given the limits of many existing sites, it is easy to understand why theorizing also is limited.
Cyber-theory and cyber-activism's state focus would not be problematic if commentaries on cyber-activism treated it as distinct from traditional social activism. However, recent writings about citizen activism on the net include myriad parallels between cyber-activism and social movements. Just as social movements seek to mobilize others of like mind, virtual communities are a way in which "the creative powers of controversy can spread beyond local communities" (Riley et. al 1995, 259). Riley, Hollihan & Klumpp (1997) expand on this theme: "Internet communities redefine the concept of local concerns, however, as people can begin to form communities with like-minded individuals who share their interests even if they live in different states, cities, or even countries" (205). In fact, some sites manufacture a sense of virtual citizenship by using the rhetoric of nationality. One site offers the chance to join a virtual country simply by signing an environmental pledge (Dixon 1998) and Bastard Nation (bastards.org) uses the metaphor of national identity to create community between adoptees (Albright 1997).
Popular press reports about cyber-activism also employ phrases typically linked to social movements. Phrases such as hacktivists (Farley 1999; "Hacktivists" 1999; Harmon 1998), cyber-protest, the Billion Byte March (Kokmen 1998), virtual sit-ins (Harmon 1998), hacktivism and Electronic Civil Disobedience (Paquin 1998) provide evidence that connections between social movements and cyber-activism are emerging. One of the co-founders of the Electronic Disturbance Theater, Stefan Wray, describes his actions protesting Columbus Day celebrations as a way of "transferring the social-movement tactics of trespass and blockade to the Internet" (quoted in Harmon 1998). Not only are similarities between practices noted, but also sites themselves sometimes are described as movements (Rubens 1996, 5).
This cursory review of literature on cyber-movements and cyber-democracy raises two interesting questions for those interested in emerging communication technologies, counterpublic spheres and the state. First, are cyber-movements functioning as counterpublics in the same way as actual social movements? Many of those engaged in cyber-activism seem to believe that it is the next stage of social movement development, that those things provided by the actual movements of the past can be provided by the virtual movements of the future. However, if we examine the function of movements through the lens of counterpublics, there ought to be more wariness concerning the possibility that cyber-movements can generate counterpublics. Second, do existing examinations of cyber-democracy represent the range of communicative possibilities of the Internet? Much of the writing about the democratic potential of the Internet focuses on its ability to access the political sphere, and tends to disregard the potential of cyber-activism to generate counterpublics. Given Poster's analysis, perhaps we should expand our assessments beyond the limits of traditional conceptions of the state.
At first glance, my two questions seem to pull in opposite directions -- one urging caution regarding cyber-activism's potential to replace traditional social movements and the other chastising scholars for overly limiting the power of the Internet to the political sphere. However, these two questions stem from a common concern with the vitality of counterpublics. In those systems where the dominant public, often unfortunately contiguous with the political sphere/state, marginalizes large segments of the population, how do we generate spaces in which dialogue may flourish? How can counterpublics develop discourses counter to the state, while not severing all potential for dialogue with it?
This chapter focuses precisely on these concerns. First, I argue that if social movements function as counterpublics when they develop oppositional discourses, then the present practices of cyber-activism fall short of constituting social movements. Second, I argue that we are not going to be able to envision the possibility of cyber-activism growing into cyber-movements unless we no longer limit our theories to merely discussing the ways in which cyber-activism can influence the political sphere. A full understanding of the democratic potential of the net requires that we examine both how it facilitates contact with the state and whether it can provide communicative arenas free from the surveillance power of state and commercial interests. A full analysis of the interactions of counterpublics and the state requires that we explore the myriad and emerging ways in which counterpublics seek to maintain contact with the state even while they attempt to challenge it.
<H1> Cybermovements as counterpublics: The (always already changed) reality
This section of the chapter quickly reviews existing counterpublic and social movement theory, recognizing how social movement theory has been advanced by recognition of the form and function of counterpublics. In particular, counterpublic theory encourages scholars to reconsider the role played by identity. Counterpublics, as temporal, discursive, and even physical spaces, are not merely defined by identity, but aid in the definition of identity.
Social movement and counterpublic sphere theories have recognized the importance of identity creation and self-expression to the disempowered. While social movements originally were viewed as a violation of the smooth workings of society or as a form of deviation in need of explanation, scholars have come to understand the central role movements can play as a site for identity formation, which counters the state's designation and naming of identity (see Lake 1983, 1991, 1997; Flores 1996; Diani 1992; Habermas 1987; Melucci 1985; Scott and Smith 1969; Tucker 1989). In particular, recent work on new social movements (NSMs) as counterpublics has noted their ability to function outside the dominant public, as a site of critical oppositional force, especially as the state and other mechanisms of control have come to colonize the lifeworld (e.g. Fraser 1992, Felski 1989).
NSMs as counterpublics are distinct because they no longer strive toward a universal understanding of the human condition but, instead, are "directed toward an affirmation of specificity in relation to gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual preference, and so on" (Felski 1989, 166). The specificity allows one to develop and explore one's identity and counter repressive characterizations of it (Flores 1996). But, it is difficult to affirm that which is not present. Although I recognize the dangers of essentialism present in affirmation along the lines of physical and/or singular characteristics, I also recognize the utility of the necessary fiction of identity (see Butler 1993). One should not underestimate the energy generated by the comfort of being with others like you. Instead of guarding against the "spirit murder" associated with marginality (Wing 1997, 28), it becomes possible to feed one's spirit (hooks 1989; Lorde 1984).
As such, what happens within a movement in terms of identity creation may be as important as, if not more important, than the outward directed rhetoric. For example, Melucci (1985) argues: "The new institutional form of contemporary movements is not just 'instrumental' for their goals. It is a goal in itself. Since the action is focused on cultural codes, the form of the movement is a message, a symbolic challenge to the dominant patterns" (801). Thus, when creating one's own communicative norms, the issues addressed encompass who may speak, about what, to whom, in what way, and in what language. Instead of seeing a movement as a "unity, to which one attributes goals, choices, interests, decisions," Melucci argues we should examine these elements as results instead of as points of departure (793). Defining themselves as movements is one of the core actions of the movement. And, in this very naming, Melucci argues one may find a rejection of dominant patterns.
The power of the oppositional force relies on both an inward and outward trajectory to the group's rhetoric. Social movements seek both to convince the dominant social order to change (e.g. Griffin 1952; Griffin 1969; Bowers et al. 1993/1971) and to validate group members' sense of identity and worth (Gregg 1971; Cathcart 1978; Scott & Smith 1969). Despite attention to in-group rhetoric, the scholarly focus long remained on in-group rhetoric's ability to reaffirm worth as in the case of consummatory or confrontational rhetoric, or to increase cohesion by distinguishing the group from the dominant public through the act of symbolic negation. Until recently, little to no attention was given to the power of in-group rhetoric to affirmatively construct its own discourse, its own standards for communication.
Recent work on groups' ability to construct their own identity, counter to that proscribed by the state or the economy, is best represented by counterpublic sphere theory. Fraser and Felski, two prominent counterpublic theorists, have enumerated several distinct qualities of counterpublics, particularly in relation to their ability to develop discourses relatively independent of the dominant public. Their writings indicate that counterpublics create safe spaces in which: 1) alternative validity claims may be developed; 2) alternative norms of public speech and styles of political behaviors can be elaborated; 3) oppositional interpretations of identities, interests and needs can be formulated; 4) cultural identities can be constructed through idiom and style; and 5) activists can regenerate their energy to engage in political battles in the political and public spheres. Obviously, emerging communication technologies will effect, both stylistically and substantively, how these qualities are developed. By assessing present cyber-activism's ability to fulfill the functions of counterpublics, we may begin to answer whether it can function as a counterpublic sphere.
<H2> Alternative validity claims and communicative norms
Initially, it would seem quite plausible that cyber-movements can contest the basis of existing norms and develop alternative validity claims. Given that these activities primarily are discursive, the Internet's discursive format would seem amenable to this. However, despite the potential, it does not seem that the Internet is exploiting its dialogic potential.
The dialogic nature of chat groups and discussion lists would point toward the possibility of developing counterpublics. Rheingold (n.d.b), in his description of the "electronic democracy toolkit," recognizes the power of the Internet to provide space safe from the universalizing power of the mass media:
Net technology makes possible a more democratic medium of expression than did previous communications technologies. A BBS-like public conversation is open to anyone who wants to join the discussion; it is not a "few-to-many" medium like television, talk radio, newspapers or magazines, but a "many-to-many" medium that gives large numbers of people access to large numbers of people. The power to persuade and educate -- to influence people's beliefs and perceptions -- is radically decentralized when people can communicate in this way: control is spread throughout the network.
Additionally, just as counterpublics often renegotiate the distinctions between the public and private, so may web-sites. For example, Wood and Adams' (1998) study of Kathy Daliberti's Web site (swanine.com/yellowribbon), which reacts to the imprisonment of her husband in Iraq, concludes that a home page can be considered "a space of rhetorical contest between human notions of public and private dimension" (219). In other words, just as Goodnight (1982) notes that the boundaries between the public and personal can be renegotiated through rhetoric, the net may enable this as well.
Despite this potential, it seems as yet unrealized. Numerous examples exist of how social movements have developed new vocabulary, including the women's movements' development of the concepts of marital rape, sexism, sexual harassment, and acquaintance rape; the civil rights movement's development of the concept of environmental justice, and the women of color movement's development of the concept of reproductive freedom. Additionally, contemporary social movements also have challenged the norms of public discourse, as when AIDS activists redefined medical issues into public health ones and translated technical data into public evidence (see Fabj and Sobnosky 1995). However, evidence of cyber-movements' ability to generate alternative validity claims is yet to be seen. Kathy Daliberti's website, to be discussed in more detail later, is highly dialogic but does not really focus on challenging validity tests or the basis of existing norms. The only example of alternative validity claims I could find comes from Co-founder of the Electronic Disturbance Theatre, Stephen Wray. He sees an inherent potential for cyber-activism to challenge dominant validity claims. He explains: "The entire notion of information warfare needs to be approached cautiously. Always remember who it is that is creating the language, rhetoric, discourse, definitions, etcetera, of infowar" (quoted in Paquin 1998). He would like to see his attempts at electronic civil disobedience redefine Infowar and make it a plausible form of activism because "We need to seriously question and abandon some of the language that the state uses to demonize genuine political protest and expression" (quoted in Paquin 1998).
The development of alternative validity claims requires a vibrant collection of previously silenced voices and their recognition of the Net as a venue in which to exercise their voices. Although the narrow-cast format of the Internet might enable it to affirm the ascriptive characteristics of gender, race, ethnicity, age and sexual orientation, such a potential cannot be realized if those groups never make it onto the Net. As the next section details, those groups are the very groups who often are excluded from the Net. It is difficult to envision the possibility of expression about that which previously has been "buried alive" if you feel like roadkill along the side of the information superhighway.
<H2> Oppositional interpretations and constructions of identity
Fraser includes women, workers, peoples of color, and gays and lesbians in her list of subaltern counterpublics, defined as "parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourse to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs" (123). Given the central role counterpublics play for those traditionally marginalized groups, questions arise about the inherent inequalities built into the Internet. Counterpublics are praised because of their ability to open space for the marginalized to generate interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs. Counterpublics enable marginal groups to overcome the discursive barriers to participation because, by definition, they expand discursive space and provide discursive systems counter to those which exist.
Although the Net is theoretically as open as counterpublics, material barriers to open and full participation exist. If cyber-space is to generate alternative interpretations of identity, it needs to make sure it does not place structural barriers to access. Unfortunately, it appears that two things limit the ability of cyber-space to foster oppositional interpretations of identity. First, studies of actual usage indicate those most in need of an oppositional interpretation of identity are the very groups who most lack access. Second, existing sites actually discourage the formation of identity.
Despite the Internet's ability to bring together like people, it does not guarantee freedom from discrimination. Although some argue the virtual world allows for the dissipation of the impact of discrimination linked to physical characteristics because of the lack of actual face-to-face communication, the reality is that discrimination continues, albeit in a masked form. Studies of the Internet contest its ability to function as the "great equalizer." Wolf (1998) argues: "The data presented in this chapter clearly fail to substantiate the legitimacy of the Great Equalizer metaphor. . . . At this point in its evolution it appears that the Internet serves only to equalize the differences among young, college-educated, middle-class, white males" (30).
The most comprehensive study to date, Falling Through the Net, supports this analysis (Lieberman 1999). The 1999 Commerce Department report indicates, "Whites are more likely to have Internet access at home than Blacks or Hispanics are from any location." Not only that, the way in which one uses the Internet is determined by one's degree of subordination. For example, "demographic characteristics not only determine whether and where one uses the Internet. Income, education, race, and gender, among other characteristics, strongly influence what a person does online" (Commerce Department 1999). Those belonging to subordinated demographic groups are more likely to use the Internet in public places, like at schools or community centers, and they are more likely to use it to take courses or conduct job searches. It is used as an instrument to enter the economic system of paid labor, and is not used as a means to engage in the formation of public spheres. Shapiro (1999) echoes this concern when he notes that discrepancies between users will exist not only within countries, but also on a global scale. Ross-Larson (1999) also worries about this, noting that 88% of users live in developed countries, which account for only 18% of the world's population. Despite falling computer prices, "the Internet revolution is largely bypassing the poor, minorities, and those who live in rural communities and inner cities" (Lieberman 1999, 1A).
The general differences in usage do not dissipate when one examines cyber-activism in particular. In their study of Internet activism, Hill & Hughes (1998) find that Internet users are "considerably younger than the general public" and that "Internet activism is overwhelmingly male" (29). Specifically, "[n]on-political Internet users are divided about 60/40 between males and females, while Internet activists are 72% male" (29). Interestingly, though, "Internet activists actually contain a higher percentage of non-white users than the other three groups, though the difference is small" (29). They also find that the Internet is not likely to politicize someone who is not already political, explaining people "are probably not converted from typical citizens to political junkies but are more likely to be political junkies to begin with" (72). The implication of this gap is made clear by Riley, Klumpp & Hollihan (1995): "The use of electronic resources is heavily skewed toward current power groups and away from marginalized citizens" (259).
Not only do economic barriers limit the ability to challenge identity, but even in those cases where non-dominant groups make it onto the Internet, they tend to limit the identity creation potential. For example, the Webggrl site (webgrrl.com), which "aims to provide a non-competitive environment for women techno-heads to get together on the Internet in an industry dominated numerically by men," limits its transgressive potential when its creators make clear that it is "not a political or feminist organization but simply one for women in a male-dominated industry to make contacts, get ahead, and have some fun" (Rubens 1996, 5).
Some groups even go so far as to reject the notion of membership. For example, the PGA, the People's Global Action Against Free Trade and the WTO (agp.org), explains: "The PGA has no membership, and it does not and will not have a juridical personality. No organisation or person represents the PGA, nor does the PGA represent any organisation or person. The PGA will only facilitate coordination and information flow with the help of conferences and information tools" (PGA Bulletin 1997a). Despite its lack of willingness to recognize group identity, the PGA site does challenge dominant identity forms in other ways. In fact, the PGA urges people to think beyond national boundaries, explaining:
We cannot confront transnational capitalism with the traditional tools used in the national context. In this new, globalized world, we need to invent new forms of struggle and solidarity, new objectives and strategies in our political work. We have to join forces to create diverse spaces of co-operation, equality, dignity, justice and freedom at a human scale, while attacking national and transnational capital, and the agreements and institutions that it creates to assert power. (PGA Bulletin 1997b)
Given the global scope of many problems, communication systems that are global in scope may also be necessary. Ironically, it may be the globalization of communication that enables activists to counter the economic globalization they find so troubling. Additionally, the way in which the Internet flattens time and space may create the time and space in which to fight problems of a global scale. The PGA recognizes this possibility when it writes: "These tools for co-ordination and empowerment provide spaces for putting into practice a diversity of local, small-scale strategies developed by people all over the world in the last decades, with the aim of delinking their communities, neighborhoods or small collectives from the global market" (PGA Bulletin 1997b).
Perhaps the cyber-activity that most resembles a full-fledged movement is the Blue Ribbon Campaign, which emerged in response to the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and has been reactivated in response to the Internet School Filtering Act and the "Son of CDA" bill (Futrelle 1998). Inspired by the POW/MIA yellow ribbon and AIDS/HIV red ribbon, the Campaign asks those who agree with its position to place a virtual blue ribbon on their websites. Those who opposed the signing of the original CDA also engaged in a virtual protest, the Thousand Points of Darkness, in which they turned their web pages to a black background for 48 hours in order to mourn the death of the Internet after the CDA's passage. Perhaps most interesting about this protest is its thoroughly virtual nature: it protested a perceived assault on the Internet, using the Internet, contacting others through the Internet. "Whether the Net-based protest accomplished anything is a matter of opinion, but the answer is quite probably no" (Randall 1997, 271). Although the campaign mirrored many of the political activities of social movements, it does not seem to have created a counterpublic sphere. Instead, as might be predicted by the writings about cyber-democracy, it focused its activism not on countering the public sphere, but on engaging the political.
Ultimately, if marginalized groups are not represented on the Net, then oppositional interpretations of identity become impossible on the Net. Report after report indicates that those who most need access to counterpublics tend not to have access. If Fraser is correct that unless subordinated groups have "venues in which to undertake communicative processes that were not, as it were, under the supervision of the dominant groups . . . they would be less likely than otherwise 'to find the right voice or words to express their thoughts' and more likely than otherwise 'to keep their wants inchoate'" (123), then cyber-space is not expanding the discursive arena. Instead, it merely is replicating the "modes of deliberation that mask domination" as it absorbs the less powerful into a dominant cyber-we. An appearance of deliberation is created in cyberspace, as folks are able to give feedback, not deliberate, or are targeted as a potential consumer group. A series of monologues, or monetary bytes, transversing the web do not substitute for critical engagement. The reason why inequitable Internet access should be troubling is not only because it mirrors other inequalities in society, but also because it can mask the very existence of those inequalities. It is difficult to recognize absences of some groups if you cannot even identify who is present.
<H2> Space safe from surveillance
Some potential for community and identity formation may be emerging on the Internet. However, even these sites tend to rely on existing identities, rather than on the critical formation of identity. Recently, a number of ethnic identity based sites have appeared on the Web (e.g. BlackPlanet.com, BlackVoices.com, Asia.com, Latino.com, and quepasa.com). In an April 9, 2000, episode of CNETnews.com, participants in these sites noted how they offered minorities a sense of community and allowed interaction in a functionally closed community. A number of independent grrl/gurl/gerl focused sites also have been developed (e.g. Tangy.net, Gerl.org, Plastique.org, and Narcissistic.org). However, the way these sites are constructed is central to their function. Recognizing the $275 billion worth purchasing power of young girls, a number of economically driven sites have begun to vie for attention (e.g. Alloy.com). The way in which commercial interests drive some sites clarifies that safe space issues are not resolved simply by group membership or a lack of state interference. Commercial and state interests can interfere with safety, states through tracking and naming and commercial interests through tracking and commodification (see hooks 1992).
Central to the ability to develop discourse counter to the dominant is the possibility of safe space. Space free from the surveillance by the dominant enables activists to regenerate energies, to be free from the small acts of discrimination that constitute spirit murder, and to be in a space where exploratory discourse is possible, where one is able to make mistakes knowing the opportunity to correct them exists. For the Internet, though, surveillance comes not only in the form of governmental patrol of usage, but also commercial tracking.
Much research on movements, especially identity based movements, notes the central role that internal movement rhetoric performs. Although not discussed in the same terms that Fraser and Felski use in their description of how counterpublics function as spaces in which alternative validity claims can be developed and needs and wants can find voice, researchers have recognized the way in which identity formation is central to contemporary social movements. For example, Randall Lake (1983) responds to others' declarations that the Red Power movement was unpersuasive by explaining that such assessments "are problematic because they misanalyze this rhetoric's primary audience" (128). Instead, "For the Indian audience, Red Power rhetoric is persuasive insofar as it serves consummatory purposes prescribed by traditional Indian religious/cultural precepts" (Lake 1983, 128). Writing about Chicana feminists, Lisa Flores (1996) offers a similar observation about the function of the "rhetoric of difference." Her essay notes the centrality of discursive space to Chicana feminist rhetoric, much as Fraser identifies the need to be free of the supervision of dominant groups. Flores explains: "By employing a rhetoric of difference, in which Chicana feminists construct an identity that runs counter to that created for them by either Anglos or Mexicans, Chicana feminists begin the process of carving out a space for themselves where they can break down constraints imposed by other cultures and groups" (143). Clearly, the actual form of a movement is central to its functioning, for in the form a space is opened -- temporally, discursively and sometimes physically -- in which the movement exists.
In some ways, the Internet necessarily creates space for oppositional discourse and identity formation as it challenges our very understanding of space. For example, Adams and Wood (1998) argue: "the WWW creates a space for women to resist patriarchal constraints" (220) because the "WWW, by its nature, creates the space to interrogate gendered assumptions naturalized through architecture, such as the concept of home" (221). Unlike an actual home, a home page on the web can be "found" and "visited," yet "one can never open the door, for in reality, it doesn't exist" (223). Similarly, they argue that the WWW version of the AIDS quilt (aidsquilt.org/quilt) lessens feelings of isolation, the very things identity linked movements challenge: "In response to the potential for isolation, control, and violence, we argue that quilt and quilting (as product and process) merge to create an environment of community, liberation, and safety" (225).
In particular, Adams and Wood analyze the architecture of one page in particular: Kathy Daliberti's. In their evocative analysis of this page, they point out the potential power of a page to operate in ways central to the constitution of a counterpublic. They explain, "As with the physical process of quilts, Daliberti's page provides the means of communal expression. Unlike traditional uses of the electronic media, this use of computer technology empowers people who are otherwise unaffiliated with a power structure. Like the communal quilt, co-constructed in traditional 'bees,' Daliberti's Web site provides the opportunity to add one's own panel" (225-6) making the goal "not individual consumption but a communal production of a response to a tragedy felt by people around the world" (226). In at least one instance, Daliberti's web-site protesting the arrest of her husband in Iraq creates space for community: "Rather than attempt to command an isolated (and isolating) machine, Daliberti illustrates the power of technologically mediated interaction -- the heart of the modern generation of computers -- to liberate through the creation of community" (230-1). However, as Adams and Wood note, this website is atypical in its community building focus.
Other web sites describe themselves as spaces in which people may come together as a community, even though they do not replicate the highly interactive nature of Daliberti's site. For example, Webgrrls International claims it "provides both a local and global community of women devoted to making technology a vital part of every woman's personal and professional life" (webgrrls.com/benefits/). However, it is not simply the site that provides community, but also the meetings, classes and events the group organizes. In many ways, this site recognizes its own virtual limits.
The Internet also offers way to expand community by involving more people than might typically be involved in a group. Unique to the Internet is its ability to expand space and time, and include people in ways actual movements may not be able to. "[Net activist Jim] Warren says that because of the time-shifting ability of the nets that allows people to carry on conversations in something other that real time, the nets avoid sitting people out who work off shifts or spend long hours commuting" (Rash 1997, 94-5). Because the "nets are particularly well-suited for helping people who normally would not be able to participate in such political activities find a home and take part in the debate, even if they cannot do so personally" it means that the Internet's "organizational possibilities extend beyond just getting people to vote or attend rallies" (Rash 1997, 94). What is most interesting, however, is that left-oriented groups are the ones who tend to actively promote community expansion. Rash's (1997) analysis of politics on the Net notes that
education and outreach . . . seems more prevalent in groups that classify themselves as being on the left politically. We found, for example, that some Web sites, notably the Institute for Global Communications (http://www.igc.org) in Palo Alto, California, provide links to dozens of organizations involved in issues from antinuclear protests to labor and women's issues. The list runs from Amnesty International to Zero Population Growth. We did not find a similar site that identifies itself as part of the far right. (92-3)
Theorists of the Internet also recognize the way in which new uses of the medium may enhance its community generating potential (see Foster 1996). Rheingold (n.d.b), author of The Virtual Community, and owner of his own home page, highlights a few of the new techniques: "Conferencing systems structure discussions according to topic, making it easier for people to find others who share their interests . . . . By organizing information this way, I networks of people can serve as informal support systems for one another . . ." While the re-energizing that comes from safe spaces would be difficult in a totally computer-mediated world, there is evidence that computer contacts can lead to face to face communication. Rheingold (n.d.c) describes how "The Brainstorms Community," a project where people from around the world come together to talk about technology, the future, life online, and other things, is resulting in increasingly frequent face to face meetings. He explains that "The goal is to raise the bar for the level of discourse online &endash; and not to forget to have fun."
The question for researchers is whether we are using the new technologies to expand our ability to connect, communicate and challenge, or whether we have limited ourselves to seeing the Internet as merely a tool, a mechanism through which to transmit information instead of a collective development of meaning. Other concerns about the space generating potential of the Internet arise when scholars attend to the privacy issues that emerge with a technology that is susceptible to surveillance.
Three challenges to safe space emerge within the Internet. First, the ability to track actions on the Internet interferes with the activities of some direct action groups. Second, the actual structure of the Internet, where the public and private is collapsed, begins to erode our own sense of interiority. Third, the anonymity attendant to the Net makes it difficult to develop trust between members of a group, trust which is essential if one is to feel free to be one's self.
The issues involved with the need for privacy cannot be underestimated. Simply because of the speed and scope of the Internet, privacy is undermined: "For all of the advantages of placing public data on the Net, it does have its downside. For example, it allows much faster and more efficient invasion of privacy" (W. M. Grossman 1997, 167). In fact, the emergence of search engines intensifies this problem, as personnel directors will soon be using them to check out prospective employees. As Wendy Grossman (1997) notes, "tomorrow's equivalent of today's failed urine test may be the discovery that you once posted a message to alt.drugs" (168). In particular, some groups face problems conducting direct action on the Internet; Enough!, Hunt Saboteurs, Reclaim the Streets, EarthFirst! and Greenpeace all have voiced concerns about the ability of Internet activism to safely achieve their goals (Dixon 1998).
The collapse of spatiality further limits the ability of cyber-activism to create safe space outside of the realm of the public. Sobchack (1996) writes:
Our sense of spatiality also has been transformed so that even to pose the notion of a 'public sphere' &endash; as opposed to a 'private sphere' &endash; is problematic in the age of electronic pervasion. . . . While our personal access to the space of others has been appreciably amplified through television and computers, our privacy has been simultaneously reduced. Given to watching screens and what they display, our sense of surface and exteriority has been amplified, while our sense of depth (a function of bodily movement) and interiority has been reduced. (82)
In other words, if a group is attempting to develop an alternative sense of self, if it is attempting to develop "oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs," then a sense of "their" needs to be maintained. To the extent that the identity, the "I," of a group is swallowed by a universal "we" as part of the process of political deliberation, their distinct needs are made inchoate. Thus, "[s]ubordinate groups sometimes cannot find the right voice or words to express their thoughts, and when they do, they discover they are not heard" (Mansbridge 1998, 143). If a total loss of the interior is one of the results of the collapse of space that seems to pervade the Internet, then the potential for safe space to emerge is limited. And, all of this is complicated by the Commerce Department's study which notes the different ways and places in which diverse peoples use the Net.
Safe space also involves issues of trust. The risks faced on the Internet are the development of false trust and the inability to develop trust. W.M. Grossman (1997) notes that the feeling of intimacy created by the Internet may make users trust too quickly:
. . . in a small community, online or real, you assume that everyone you meet is trustworthy unless proven otherwise, in a large one, you assume the reverse. The difficulty is that no matter how infinite and populated cyberspace becomes, it will always feel small, partly because we experience it in the privacy of our own computers, and partly because everywhere you look people are dividing themselves into small groups: newsgroups (which often split if they get too big), conferences, IRC channels and chat rooms, and not small online discussions on Web sites organized around those sites' official content. (183)
If events make clear the trust was unwarranted, then the risk is that as trust erodes, an additional level of mediators will emerge who can "sell our trust back to us. They will be the brokers in the new power structure that is already forming on and around the Net, however much people might like to think that all Netizens will always have an equal shot in the meritocracy of ideas" (Grossman 1997, 183).
Clearly, the medium of the Internet problematizes issues of space and time to such an extent that activists and theorists should attend to it. However, we cannot do this unless we are willing to entertain the possibility that the Internet is more than a quicker and easier way to access our political representatives. Theorizing about the counterpublic possibilities of the Internet becomes a prerequisite for removing ourselves from the web of state and corporate control.
<H1> Cybermovements as counterpublics: The (always already possible) ideal
Existing theoretical discussions of the possibility for cyber-democracy provide an overly limited role for the Net. Just as Fraser critiques those who would ignore the democratizing potential of counterpublics in highly stratified societies, I would challenge writers who limit the democratizing potential of the Net in their discussions of cyber-democracy. As noted in the introduction to this chapter, theorists need to expand their thinking beyond "modern patterns of interpretation" and consider "new types of participation." Earlier, I identified writings in which modern patterns of interpretation are visible. I now would like to identify possible locations on the Net where new types of participation are emerging. In particular, I challenge scholars to rethink the ways in which cybermovements can function as counterpublics and, in so doing, redefine relations with the state.
Perhaps what is so discouraging about the focus on traditional politics is that it might short-circuit any liberatory potential that the Internet may hold. If Riley, Klumpp & Hollihan (1995) are correct in their assessment that we are entering a "post-political age in which public life would need to exist in new institutional sites and with new argumentative forms" (254), then we should not dismiss the possible alternative site of cyber-space before its full potential has been explored. Thus, this section urges activists and theorists to focus not only on the way in which emerging communication technologies expedite access to the state, but also on the ways in which the unique elements of the Net can redefine relations to the state.
However, in the process of theorizing news types of participation, we must attend to the material realities that can limit it. If socio-economic barriers to access exist, they must be remedied. If technology enables the collapse of space and time, then sites that account for this must be developed. Just as Habermas bemoans the encroachment of mechanisms of power and money into the public sphere, we must be wary of the encroachment of the state and corporations into cyberspace. Although cyberspace is theoretically limitless, the way in which that space is filled can create norms and expectations for use. If we are to embrace the Net's democratic potential, we must actively engage it, theorize about it, recognize it.
Some sites and cyber-activism do challenge the limited uses of the net described by theorists. In particular, several sites attempt to open space for the formation of publics and counterpublics. For example, the Institute for the Study of Civic Values (libertynet.org/edcivic/iscvhome.html) focuses on neighborhood empowerment and the Political Participation Project (ai.mit.edu/projects/ppp/home.html) attempts to broaden civic participation in cyber-space. The What's New in Activism Online site (wnia.prognet.com/WNIA/) also has a more counterpublic oriented function insofar as its primary goal is to offer activists access to the WWW to "find other organizations and individuals with similar values and interests." In many ways, it is seeking to create the space for safe discussion of ideas, for the development of alternative validity claims, and for the development of the vocabulary with which the subordinated can articulate their needs.
Activism on the Internet covers far more than presidential web-sites and chat rooms about politics as usual. In fact, a number of revolutionary activities occur which fit within a broader interpretation of politics, activities that matter and contribute to the maintenance of counterpublics. While the Internet may not be able to generate counterpublics in the same way that social movements can, it can provide the means to open those counterpublics to others, to sustain counterpublics and to encourage communication.
One example of how movement's cyber-rhetoric can help maintain the movement can be found in the recent take-over of Rev. Phelps "godhatesfags" web site (godhatesfags.com). According to those responsible, no illegal hacking was done. Instead, the domain for the site changed hands, and the new domain read "godlovesfags"(2600.com/hackedphiles/current/ godlovesfags/hacked). Even though the domain was eventually returned to Phelps, the "godlovesfags" site continues to exist as it has since March. Also noteworthy about the site is that the state was not the direct target of the protest, although the state's sanctioning of homophobia was indirectly challenged. As critical legal scholars have noted, "[g]utter racism, parlor racism, corporate racism, and government racism work in coordination reinforcing existing conditions of discrimination" (Matsuda 1993, 24). If one attacks gutter homophobia, one attacks government homophobia as well.
Another intriguing example of where community may be defined, as well as one's understanding of political action expanded, is on the hacktivism.org web site. Preserved on that site is the discussion of hacktivism that emerged in response to The Legions of the Underground. The Legion, a hacking group, declared an "electronic war" against China and Iraq and threatened to destroy the countries' computer systems in retaliation for human rights abuses. In the debate among hacktivist groups about the Legion's action, a discussion of hacktivism emerged. Many hacking groups condemned the planned war because undermining information infrastuctures was viewed as counter to the goal of political hackers, who try to expand access to information, rather than limit it, as a means of empowerment. As a result of this discussion, hacking groups concluded that hacktivism "covers everything from animal rights groups defacing the Web pages of fur companies to the use of computers by dissidents to promote democracy in totalitarian regimes" (Hacktivists 1999, 9E). In particular, a joint statement of hacker organizations on the hacktivism.org web site defines hacktivism as "using the skills and tools of hacking to advance progressive causes" (A Joint Statement). When faced with a challenge to their identity, hackers came together to develop an intersubjective understanding of their activities. They determined which actions were acceptable and which were not &endash; and the decision was determined by how the group defined itself, as a group that sought to expand access to information. The contents of this debate can be seen on the hactivism.org website, where the statements of hacking groups such as 2600, Chaos Computer Club, Cult of the Dead Cow, LOpht Heavy Industries, and Phrack are posted. The "Joint Press Release of the International Hacker Coalition" indicated the collaborative condemnation of the LoU attempt to destroy computer systems "may signal as a turning point in the underground hacking community."
Adding to the progressive potential of the Net are the emerging interconnections between electronic and physical activists. Quite simply: "The worlds of the hacker and the activist are interconnecting in ways that civil rights organizers and antiwar protesters of other eras could never have foreseen" ("Hacktivists" 1999, 9E). This interconnection may force us to rethink many of the theories that now guide our study of movements, of the net, and of social change.
Despite the interconnections between activists and hackers, and the emerging use of the Internet by activists to create counterpublics that challenge the dominant sphere, progressive politics is not guaranteed. For example, the 2600 (2600.org) site provides a list of recently hacked sites. Although I was encouraged to see that the kkklan.com site had been hacked, the method of hacking was anything but progressive insofar as the hackers wrote over the klan site with homophobic claims that klan members were all homosexuals and that depicted klan members engaging in homosexual acts.
Similarly, Sobchack's (1996) critique of the cyber-rhetoric of punks and hackers establishes that the cyber-sphere is not necessarily liberatory. Her assessment of the type of activism on the Net is not reassuring:
[A]lthough our modes of perception and expression, our individual and social sense of time and space and embodied subjectivity, are being radically transformed by electronic mediation, the economic and political contexts in which this transformation is occurring (and which it will affect in a variety of ways over time) constrain its radical nature and put it to the service of familiar economic and political ends. (87)
The problem is that those who celebrate the new public sphere of the Internet ignore the marginalizations inherent in their visions. Sobchak continues:
What is also revealing about the contradictions evident in the discourse around virtual reality and its focus on sexual activity at the expense of progressive social interaction is that it foregrounds the contradiction underlying the hacker's phenomenological relationship to electronic mediation and its possibilities. . . [T]he hacker is less interested in these clearly-mediated &endash; and thus hermeneutic &endash; forms of public interactivity than he is in achieving complete transparency in his electronic interaction. (85)
<H1> Conclusions
Needless to say, we are at the beginning of the Internet, the beginning of our theorizing about it, and at the beginning of activism on it. The concern that motivated me to complete this project is one that is a concern for all teachers and activists: How can we assist in the development of public dialogue, civil society, change for the better? More particularly, I am interested in how to improve the ability of marginalized and subordinated groups to articulate their wants and needs. Given the unarguable impact of the Internet on contemporary communication, it is essential that we, as theorists and practitioners, begin to both question how it is being used and to envision how it could be used.
As of now, cybermovements are not automatically functioning as counterpublics in the same way as actual social movements. The dialogic potential of the Internet is not being fully explored, although initial attempts are emerging. Material inequalities make Internet access difficult, if not impossible, for those who most need to make their needs heard. And, the surveillance activities of state and quasi-state entities raise concerns about the possibility of safe space. Despite these problems, I do not think we should abandon cybermovements as locations of activism. Unfortunately, existing examinations of politics of the Net do not represent the range of communicative possibilities of cybermovements. The focus on access to the modern political sphere, and the disregard of cyberactivism's ability to generate counterpublics, limits our understanding of cyberactivism and its potential.
The results of this chapter should provide some foundation from which to begin detailed studies of cybermovements and cyberactivism. Up to now, scholars have had too much hope and have not allowed themselves enough hope when it comes to envisioning the ways cyber-activism can develop alternative validity claims, norms of public speech, and oppositional interpretations of identities. Presently, we are overstating what is happening on the Net, and perhaps giving existing uses too much credit. If we are to generate cyber-movements that can function as counterpublics, activists need to be more attentive to the internal dynamics of their interaction. Space for dialogic discussion is necessary, and groups need to develop ways in which to guarantee the safety of their spaces. Although lurkers may exist in real and virtual worlds, at least in the real world we have a chance to see them.
Similarly, scholars need to be willing to envision a function for the Internet beyond the ability to access political institutions. The Net is unique in the way it collapses space and time, suspends distinctions between public and private space, and opens issues and interactions to global influences. When theorizing the Net, just as when theorizing the public, scholars should be attentive to those issues, peoples and forms of argument which exist counter to and within it. We need to look for the formation of electronic counterpublics on the Net in the same way we have begun to recognize counterpublics. The challenge that faces us, however, is that if the enclaved and subaltern are difficult to identify in reality, then they may be even more difficult to identify in cyber-reality.
Additionally, I have serious concerns about utopic visions of the Internet which ignore the actual exclusion of the very people who most need the oppositional functions of counterpublics. Just as we are on the verge of celebrating and recognizing the democratizing potential of counterpublics, a technology arises that creates the appearance of being open to all publics, yet which presents economic barriers that make it difficult for the ideal to be realized. My fear is that the appearance of equal access created by the Internet may mollify us into believing that we need not take affirmative actions to encourage democratic participation by all, and to praise participation in all the forms it may take. To account for the Net's potential power and its dangers, researchers might want to consider investigating specific instances of cyberactivism, as well as the usage patterns of those who most populate counterpublic spheres.
Works Cited
Albright, V. 1997. Adoptees make progress; in struggle to be heard. The Columbus Dispatch, March 7, p. 10A. Online. Lexis/Nexis. 13 February 1999.
Blair, C. 1998. Netsex: Empowerment through discourse. In Cyberghetto or cyberutopia?: Race, class, and gender on the Internet, ed. B. Ebo, 205-217. Westport, CN: Praeger.
Blue Ribbon Campaign. Http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html. 13 February 1999.
The Blue Ribbon Campaign. Http://www/lambda.net/blue.html. 13 February 1999.
Bowers, J. W., Ochs, D. J., and Jensen, R. J. 1993/1971. The rhetoric of agitation and control. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Browning, G. 1996. Electronic democracy: Using the Internet to influence American politics. Wilton, CT: Pemberton Press.
Burgess, P. G. 1970. The rhetoric of moral conflict: Two critical dimensions. Quarterly Journal of Speech 56: 120-30.
Butler, J. P. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of "sex". New York: Routledge.
Carstarphen, M.G. and J.J. Lambiase. 1998. Domination and democracy in cyberspace: Reports from the majority media and ethnic/gender margins. In Cyberghetto or cyberutopia?: Race, class, and gender on the Internet, ed. B. Ebo, 121-135. Westport, CN: Praeger.
Cathcart, R. S. 1978. Movements: Confrontation as rhetorical form. The Southern Speech Communication Journal 43: 233-47.
Collins, H.M. 1996. Interaction without society?: What avatars can't do. In Internet dreams: Archetypes, myths, and metaphors, ed. M. Stefik, 316-326. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Commerce Department. Falling through the net: Part II Internet access and usage. Online: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/part2.html
Crowston, K. and E. Kammerer. 1998. Communicative style and gender differences in computer-mediated communcations. In Cyberghetto or cyberutopia?: Race, class, and gender on the Internet, ed. B. Ebo, 185-203. Westport, CN: Praeger.
Diani, M. 1992. The concept of social movement. The Sociological Review (February): 1-25.
Dibbell, J. 1996. A rape in cyberspace: How an evil clown, a Haitian trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database into a society. In Internet dreams: Archetypes, myths, and metaphors, ed. M. Stefik, 293-315. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Dixon, K. 1998. The cyber warriors. The Scotsman, February 25, p. 5. Online. Lexis/Nexis. 13 February 1999.
Ebo, B., ed. 1998. Cyberghetto or cyberutopia? Race, class, and gender on the Internet. Westport, CT: Praegar.
Fabj, V. and Sobnosky, M.. 1995. AIDS activism and the rejuvenation of the public sphere. Argumentation and Advocacy 31: 163-184.
Farley, M. 1999. Dissidents Hack Holes in China's New Wall. Los Angeles Times, January 4, p. A1. Online. Lexis/Nexis. 13 February 1999.
Felski, R. 1989. Beyond feminist aesthetics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Flores, L.A. 1996. Creating discursive space through a rhetoric of difference: Chicana feminists craft a homeland. Quarterly Journal of Speech 82:142-156.
Foster, D. 1996. Community and identity in the electronic village. In Internet culture, ed. D. Porter, 23-37. New York: Routledge.
Fraser, N. 1992. Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In Habermas and the public sphere, ed. C. Calhoun, 109-142. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Futrelle, D. 1998. Net.cetera/CDA II: Congress new campaign to censor the net. Newsday, January 5, p. B15. Online. Lexis/Nexis. 13 February 1999.
Goodnight, G. T. 1992. Habermas, the public sphere, and controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 4(3): 243-255.
-----. 1982. The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Argumentation and Advocacy 18: 214-227.
Gregg, R. B. 1971. The ego-function of the rhetoric of protest. Philosophy & Rhetoric 4: 71-91.
Griffin, L. M. 1952. The rhetoric of historical movements. Quarterly Journal of Speech 38: 184-188.
Griffin, L. M. 1969. A dramatistic theory of the rhetoric of movements. In Critical responses to Kenneth Burke, ed. W. H. Reuckert, 456-478. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
-----. 1984. When dreams collide. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 111-131.
Grossman, L.K. 1995. The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the information age. New York: Viking.
Grossman, W.M. 1997. Net.wars. New York: New York University Press.
Habermas, J. 1987. The theory of communicative action, lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason, Vol. 2. Translated by T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
-----. 1989. The public sphere. Jurgen Habermas on society and politics: A reader, ed. S. Seidman, 231-236. Boston: Beacon Press.
-----. 1992. Further reflections on the public sphere. Habermas and the public sphere, ed. C. Calhoun, 421-461. Cambridge: MIT Press.
"Hacktivists" at center of controversy. 1999. Star Tribune (Minneapolis) February 8, p. 9E. Online. Lexis/Nexis. 13 February 1999.
Hahn, D. F. and R. M. Gonchar. 1980. Social movement theory: A dead end. Communication Quarterly 28: 60-4.
Harmon, A. 1998. "Hacktivists" of all persuasions take their struggle to the Web. New York Times, October 31. Http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bôgetdoc+site+site +59543+0+wAAA+hacktivist. 13 February 1999.
Hill, K. A. & Hughes, J. E. 1998. Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Holub, R. C. 1991. Jurgen Habermas: Critic in the public sphere. New York: Routledge.
hooks, b. 1989. Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston, MA : South End Press.
---. 1992. Black Looks. Boston: South End.
A joint statement by 2600, the Chaos Computer Club, the Cult of the Dead Cow, !Hispahack, L0oht Heavy Industries, Phrack, and Pulhas. Http://www.Hactivism.org.
Kaplan, T. 1997. Crazy for democracy: Women in grassroots movements. New York: Routledge.
Kinney, J. 1996. Is there a new political paradigm lurking in cyberspace? In Cyberfutures: Culture and politics on the information superhighway, ed. Z. Sardar and J.R. Ravetz, 138-153. New York: New York University Press.
Knapp, J.A. 1996. Essayistic messages: Internet newsgroups as an electronic public sphere. In Internet Culture, ed. D. Porter, 181-197. New York: Routledge.
Kokmen, L. 1998. "Byte Me" is slogan for cyber-protest. The Denver Post, October 26, p. E-10. Online. Lexis/Nexis. 13 February 1999.
Lake, R. A. 1983. Enacting Red Power. Quarterly Journal of Speech 69:127-142
Lake, R. A. 1991. Between myth and history. Quarterly Journal of Speech 77: 125-151.
Lake, R. A. 1997. Argumentation and self: The enactment of identity in Dances With Wolves. Argumentation and Advocacy 34: 66-89.
Lieberman, D. 1999. Internet gap widening. USA Today 9-11 July: 1A.
Lockard, J. 1996. Progressive politics, electronic individualism and the myth of virtual community. In Internet culture, ed. D. Porter, 219-231. New York: Routledge.
Lorde, A. 1984. Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press.
LoU strikes out. Http://www.Hactivism.org. 30 August 1999.
Mansbridge, J. 1998. Feminism and Democracy. In Feminism & Politics, ed. A. Phillips, 142-158. New York: Oxford University Press.
Matsuda, M. J. 1993. Public responses to racist speech: Considering the Victim's Story. In Words that wound, ed. M. J. Matsuda, et al., 17-52. Boulder, Westview Press.
McRae, S. 1996. Flesh made word: Sex, text and the virtual body. In Internet culture, ed. D. Porter, 73-86. New York: Routledge.
Meehan, J. ed. 1995. Feminists read Habermas. New York: Routledge.
Melucci, A. 1985. The symbolic challenge of contemporary movements. Social Research 52:789-815.
Paquin, B. 1998. Hacktivism: Attack of the e-guerillas! The Straits Times (Singapore), December 13, pp. 32, 33. Online. Lexis/Nexis. 13 February 1999.
PGA Bulletin. 1997a. November-December. Http://www.agp.org/agp/en/PGAInfos /bulletin0.html.
PGA Bulletin. 1997b. March. Http://www.agp.org/agp/en/PGAInfos/bulletin1.html
Poster, M. 1996. Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the public sphere. In Internet culture, ed. D. Porter, 201-217. New York: Routledge.
Randall, N. 1997. The soul of the internet: Net gods, netizens and the wiring of the world. New York: International Thomson Computer Press.
Rash, W. Jr. 1997. Politics on the nets: Wiring the political process. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Rheingold, H. n.d.a. Declaration of Howard Rheingold. American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. Janet Reno. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/lawsuit/rheingold.html. 2 February 1999.
-----. n.d.b. Electronic democracy toolkit. Http://www.well.wom/user/hlr/electrondemoc.html. 2 February 1999.
-----. n.d.c. Rheingold's brainstorms. Http://www.rheingold.com/. 3 February 1999.
-----. n.d.d. The Virtual Community. Http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book. 3 February 1999.
Riley, P., Hollihan, T., & Klumpp, J. 1997. The dark side of community and democracy: Militias, patriots and angry white guys. In Argument in a time of change: Definitions, frameworks, and critiques, ed. J. F. Klumpp, 202-207. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
Riley, P., Klumpp, J., & Hollihan T. 1995. Democratizing the lifeworld of the 21st century: Evaluating new democratic sites for argument. In Argument and values, ed. S. Jackson, pp. 254-260. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
Ross-Larson, B. 1999. A human face for globalization. Http://www.undp.org/hdro/E1.html. 1 September 1999.
Rubens, P. 1996. Cyber-movement for women opens Wellington chapter. The Dominion (Wellington) January 29: 5. Online. Lexis/Nexis. 17 February 1999.
Ryan, B. 1992. Feminism and the women's movement: Dynamics of change in social
movement ideology, and activism. New York: Routledge.
Sardar, Z. & Ravetz, J. R. 1996. Cyberfutures: Culture and politics on the information Superhighway. New York: New York University Press.
Scott, A. 1990. Ideology and the new social movements. London: Unwin Hyman.
Scott, R.L. and Smith, D.K. 1969. The rhetoric of confrontation. Quarterly Journal of Speech LV(1): 1-8.
Selnow, G. W. 1998. Electronic whistle-stops: The impact of the Internet on American politics. Westport, CT: Praegar.
Shapiro, A. L. 1999. The Internet. Foreign Policy 115: 14-27.
Shaw, R. 1996. The activist's handbook: A primer for the 1990s and beyond. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sobchack, V. 1996. Democratic Franchise and the electronic frontier. In Cyberfutures: Culture and politics on the information superhighway, ed. Z. Sardar and J.R. Ravetz, 77-89. New York: New York University Press.
Tucker, K. H. 1989. Ideology and social movements: The contributions of Habermas. Sociological Inquiry 59(1):30-45.
Tsagarousianou, R. 1998. Electronic democracy and the public sphere: Opportunities and challenges. In Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities and civic networks, ed. R. Tsagarousianou, D. Tambini & C. Bryan, 167-178. New York: Routledge.
Tsagarousianou, R., Tambini, D. & Bryan, C. eds. 1998. Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities and civic networks. New York: Routledge.
Wilbue, S.P. 1996. An Archeology of cyberspace: Virtuality, community, identity. In Internet Culture, ed. David Porter, 5-22. New York: Routledge.
Wing, A., ed. 1997. Critical race feminism: A reader. New York: New York University Press.
Wolf, A. 1998. Exposing the great equalizer: Demythologizing internet equity. In Cyberghetto or cyberutopia?: Race, class, and gender on the Internet, ed. B. Ebo, 15-32. Westport, CN: Praeger.
Wood, A.F. and T.L. Adams. 1998. Embracing the machine: Quilt and quilting as community-building architecture. In Cyberghetto or cyberutopia?: Race, class, and gender on the Internet, ed. B. Ebo, 219-233. Westport, CN: Praeger.