Call for papers: Social Media, Politics and the State: Protest, Revolutions, Riots, Crime, and Policing in the Age of Facebook,

Social Media, Poli­tics and the State: Protest, Revo­lu­ti­ons, Riots, Crime, and Poli­cing in the Age of Face­book, Twit­ter and YouTube. Edited by Daniel Trot­tier and Chris­tian Fuchs http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/CFP_SMPS.pdf “Social media” is a new buzz­word, marke­ting ideo­logy and sphere of imagi­na­tion in which contem­po­rary techno-opti­mis­tic and techno-pessi­mis­tic visi­ons are played out. Social media plat­forms like Face­book, Twit­ter and YouTube have made a consi­de­ra­ble impact on contem­po­rary life. A growing corpus of rese­arch consi­ders how these plat­forms have affec­ted marke­ting, iden­tity cons­truc­tion, social coor­di­na­tion and privacy. The scho­lars­hip that this collec­ted volume addres­ses looks at how state power and poli­tics are both contes­ted and exer­ci­sed on social media. Because social media are satu­ra­ted in contem­po­rary life, they have become a tool and a terrain for conflicts between states and a multi­tude of orga­ni­zed and auto­no­mous actors. Social media are cele­bra­ted for “leve­lling the playing field” by empo­we­ring other­wise power­less actors. The ‘Green Move­ment’ during the 2009 elec­ti­ons in Iran was globally broad­cast on Twit­ter. Margi­na­li­zed poli­ti­cal groups can now promote their agenda on free and easy-to-use plat­forms. Even rioters and other actors brea­king the law can orga­nize and discuss their exploits on these plat­forms. Yet in prac­tice, social media often lead to asym­me­tri­cal power rela­ti­ons, as a result of asym­me­tri­cal rela­ti­ons of online visi­bi­lity. Studying social media poli­tics, there are on the one hand techno-opti­mis­tic appro­a­ches that claim that social media helps to revive demo­cracy (exam­ples of such talk include the focus on “Twit­ter revo­lu­ti­ons”, “YouTube demo­cracy”, or a “Twit­ter public sphere”) and on the other hand techno-pessi­mis­tic appro­a­ches that claim that social media are a new threat to demo­cracy (exam­ples of such talk include focus on the omni­pre­sence of crimi­nal thre­ats, harass­ments, terro­rism and violent extre­mism on social media, the talk about “Twit­ter and Black­berry riots”, the stress on the end of poli­ti­cal acti­vism due to the lack of real-life contacts between acti­vists and citi­zens, the focus on how the police and repres­sive regi­mes moni­tor social media in order to repress poli­ti­cal acti­vism, etc). The focus of this collec­ted volume is diffe­rent in that it seeks contri­bu­ti­ons that give a realis­tic assess­ment of the rela­ti­ons­hip between vari­ous forms of collec­tive action (e.g. the Arab spring, the Occupy move­ment, contem­po­rary student protests, contem­po­rary social move­ments in Greece, Spain, and other coun­tries, Anony­mous, Wiki­Le­aks, vari­ous forms of terro­rism, vari­ous forms of crime, vari­ous forms of poli­ti­cal acti­vism, etc) and state power (the police, vari­ous poli­ti­cal regi­mes, inte­lli­gence, the state-indus­trial survei­llance complex, the neoli­be­ral regime of gover­nance, etc) on social media. In the Iranian protests in 2009 just like in the Arab spring, acti­vists have used social media as orga­ni­zing and commu­ni­ca­tion tool in their protests and govern­ments have tried to censor and moni­tor social media, often with the help of survei­llance tech­no­lo­gies produ­ced and expor­ted by Western compa­nies. Wiki­Le­aks has tried to make the power of state actors trans­pa­rent with the assis­tance of online leaking, and poli­ti­cal oppo­nents of the project have answe­red with boycotts and large-scale campaigns. Anony­mous has advan­ced a networ­ked form of poli­ti­cal hack­ti­vism and is facing the crimi­na­li­za­tion of distri­bu­ted denial of service attacks and poli­ti­cally moti­va­ted crack­ing as well as prose­cu­tion of some of its acti­vists. Orga­ni­za­ti­ons concer­ned about police bruta­lity, inclu­ding discri­mi­na­tory and racist prac­ti­ces have turned to social media in order to ‘watch the watchers’ (regi­o­nal CopWatch bran­ches on Face­book, leaking perso­nal data about abusive police offi­cers to the public, drone and citi­zen jour­na­lism of police acti­vi­ties during poli­ti­cal protests). Howe­ver, these very sites render poli­ti­cal acti­vists visi­ble to the police, and the police have deve­lo­ped an inter­est in moni­to­ring social media and using them as survei­llance tools. Social media and mobile phones have been used as commu­ni­ca­tion tools in the London and Vancou­ver riots in 2011, to which the police answe­red with an offen­sive of poli­cing social media, deve­lo­ping new social media survei­llance tools, and publicly decla­ring the need for laws and tech­no­lo­gies that enable the control of riots, crime and terror. Since the start of the global econo­mic crisis in 2008, Europe has expe­ri­en­ced an elec­to­ral shift towards the right in many coun­tries and a growth of right-wing extre­mism and fascist acti­vism that has culmi­na­ted in Anders Brei­viks’ mass killing of 69 people. The public and the police have since asked if Inter­net- and social media-moni­to­ring and control can prevent such massa­cres, by detec­ting early warning signals and help catch crimi­nals and terro­rists before they attack. Privacy and civil soci­ety acti­vists are the same time concer­ned that social media poli­cing and survei­llance bring about a tota­li­ta­rian soci­ety, in which inno­cent citi­zens are crimi­na­li­zed and discri­mi­na­ted against, and in which social media poli­cing turns against civil soci­ety, mino­ri­ties (espe­ci­ally people of colour) and poli­ti­cal acti­vists, that conser­va­tive law and order poli­tics are advan­ced, and that a techno-deter­mi­nis­tic ideo­logy emer­ges that over­lo­oks the soci­e­tal causes of crime and terror and beli­e­ves in a tech­no­lo­gi­cal fix to soci­e­tal problems that are rooted in modern soci­ety’s power struc­tu­res. We are expli­citly neit­her inter­es­ted in contri­bu­ti­ons that tell readers which great oppor­tu­ni­ties or thre­ats vari­ous forms of collec­tive action on social media pose, nor in contri­bu­ti­ons that focus on oppor­tu­ni­ties or thre­ats posed by vari­ous forms of state action on social media. We are rather exclu­si­vely inter­es­ted in contri­bu­ti­ons that address how collec­tive action and state power are rela­ted and conflict as two-sides of social media power, and how power and coun­ter-power are distri­bu­ted in this rela­ti­ons­hip. We are compi­ling a collec­tion of rese­arch papers that address one or more of the follo­wing issues: -Social media and the Arab Spring, and rela­ted regime conflicts -Social media and the Occupy move­ment -Social media and student protests / auste­rity protests -Social media and riots / social unrest in urban areas -Social media and poli­ti­cal protests and acti­vism -Social media and margi­nal poli­ti­cal groups -Social media, right-wing extre­mism, and fascism -Social media and reli­gi­ous violence -Social media and orga­ni­zed crime -Social media and poli­cing -Social media and police violence -Social media and the state-indus­trial survei­llance complex -Social media and Anony­mous -Social media and Wiki­Le­aks In parti­cu­lar, we invite rese­arch that consi­ders a) the two-sided nature of power in rela­tion to social media and poli­tics, and that is b) theo­re­ti­cally focu­sed, c) criti­cal in nature and d) empi­ri­cally rigo­rous. -All chap­ters should give atten­tion to theo­re­ti­cal ques­tion that address what poli­ti­cal power is all about in gene­ral and today and how this rela­tes to social media: What is the state? What is power? What is poli­tics? What is the police? What is survei­llance? What is acti­vism? What is civil soci­ety? How does the rela­ti­ons­hip between collec­tive action and state power look like in modern soci­ety? -Which criti­cal theo­ries that concep­tu­a­lize these pheno­mena are there? Which of these theo­ries are feasi­ble in the context of social media? -How can the rela­ti­ons­hip of collec­tive action and state power be theo­ri­zed and how does this relate to social media? -What does it mean to study social media, poli­tics and the state criti­cally? -How should the concepts of power and coun­ter-power be theo­ri­zed? How can such a theo­ri­za­tion be applied to social media? -How can the power rela­ti­ons and asym­me­tries between collec­tive actors and state appa­ra­tu­ses be concep­tu­a­li­zed, theo­ri­zed, and empi­ri­cally studied in a realis­tic and dialec­ti­cal way? Final versi­ons of chap­ters should be no longer than 8000 words, inclu­ding refe­ren­ces and notes. We intend to submit a full propo­sal to Rout­ledge, who have expres­sed an inter­est in this collec­tion. We are currently seeking exten­ded abstracts of 800–1200 words. Please send exten­ded abstracts, along with a brief bio to daniel [ punto ] trot­tieratim [ punto ] uu [ punto ] se (daniel[dot]trot­tier[at]im[dot]uu[dot]se) no later than Monday, Octo­ber 15th, 2012. Tenta­tive sche­dule: Exten­ded abstracts due: Monday, Octo­ber 15th, 2012 Noti­fi­ca­tion of accep­ted papers: Thurs­day, Novem­ber 1st, 2012 First draft of chap­ters due: Monday, April 1st, 2012 Feed­back on chap­ters retur­ned: Monday, June 3rd, 2012 Final versi­ons of chap­ters due: Monday, July 15th, 2012 In order to be consi­de­red, abstracts should adhere to the follo­wing style (800–1200 words in total, please address each aspect sepa­ra­tely and include the speci­fic head­li­nes in your abstract): a) Contri­bu­tion Title b) Full name of the author(s) c) Insti­tu­ti­o­nal affi­li­a­tion(s) d) Postal address(es) e) e-mail address(es) f) Telp­hone number of the corres­pon­ding author Struc­tu­red Abstract 1 Purpose: What are the overall task and rese­arch ques­tion the chap­ter addres­ses? 2 Scope: What is the scope of the analy­sis (time period for the analy­sis, geograp­hi­cal scope, which pheno­mena are inclu­ded in the analy­sis, which one exclu­ded and why, which sphe­res of soci­ety and their inter­re­la­ti­ons are taken into account (poli­tics, state, economy, ideo­logy, etc))? 3 Method: Which theo­re­ti­cal appro­a­ches and empi­ri­cal rese­arch methods are employed for answe­ring the rese­arch ques­ti­ons and attai­ning the chap­ter’s task? How does the chap­ter employ and apply criti­cal social theo­ries for studying social media, poli­tics, the state, power and coun­ter-power? How is the power rela­ti­ons­hip of collec­tive actors and state power taken into account? 4 Results: What are the main results presen­ted in the paper? 5 Recom­men­da­ti­ons: What are the main recom­men­da­ti­ons for soci­ety that the rese­arch allows to draw from a criti­cal and ethi­cal pers­pec­tive? 6 Conclu­si­ons: What are the main conclu­si­ons of the conduc­ted rese­arch for poli­tics, soci­ety, acade­mia, the rese­arch field of Criti­cal Inter­net and Social Media Studies, and the public?