Reclaiming, proclaiming, and maintaining collective identity in the #YoSoy132 movement in Mexico: An examination of digital frontstage and backstage activism through social media and instant messaging platforms

This article starts from the recognition that digital social movements studies have progressively disregarded collective identity and the importance of internal communicative dynamics in contemporary social movements, in favour of the study of the technological affordances and the organizational capabilities of social media. Based on a two-years multimodal ethnography of the Mexican #YoSoy132 movement, the article demonstrates that the concept of collective identity is still able to yield relevant insights into the study of current movements, especially in connection to the use of social media platforms. Through the appropriations of social media, Mexican students were able to oppose the negative identification fabricated by the PRI party, reclaim their agency and their role as heirs of a long tradition of rebellion, generate collective identification processes, and find ‘comfort zones’ to lower the costs of activism, reinforcing their internal cohesion and solidarity. The article stresses the importance of the internal communicative dynamics that develop in the backstage of social media (Facebook chats and groups) and through instant messaging services (WhatsApp), thus rediscovering the pivotal linkage between collective identity and internal communication that characterized the first wave of research on digital social movements. The findings point out how that internal cohesion and collective identity are fundamentally shaped and reinforced in the social media backstage by practices of ‘ludic activism’, which indicates that social media represent not only the organizational backbone of contemporary social movements, but also multifaceted ecologies where a new, expressive and humorous ‘communicative resistance grammar’ emerges. Introduction, outline, and methods This article is based on the recognition that one of the main concerns of the first wave of digital social movement studies, i.e. the exploration of the dimension of collective identity and its connection to the (internal) communicative dynamics of protest movements, has progressively disappeared in the current literature on social media platforms and digital activism 2.0. In contrast to this tendency, relying on an extensive ethnography of the Mexican #YoSoy132 movement, this article shows that the concept of collective identity is still able to yield relevant insights into the study of current social movements, especially in connection to the use of social media platforms. The article first introduces the controversial concept of collective identity and critically reviews two waves of analyses on digital media and social movements, arguing that a) the interest for collective identity has progressively been replaced by the attention to technological affordances and organizational dynamics, b) this disregard has been paired by an excessive attention to the data that can be gathered on the frontstage of social media platforms (Twitter streams, Facebook posts, etc.), at the expense of the backstage (Facebook chats and groups, email lists, WhatsApp exchanges, etc.). After examining the emergence of the #YoSoy132 and its main characteristics, drawing on theoretical contributions from different strands of literature (social movements scholarship, radical democracy theory and media studies), the article demonstrates that through the appropriations of social media, Mexican activists were able to reclaim, proclaim and maintain their collective identity. First, the same emergence of the movement is regarded as an act of identity reclamation in opposition to a biased media portrayal that was ignited on YouTube and then spread on Twitter. Second, it is pointed out how Mexican activists proclaimed their rightful belonging to the history of Mexican insurgencies, in order to ground and strengthen their collective identity. Third, it is argued that the emergence and the development of new networks of trust and solidarity among Mexican protesters were able to maintain over time the collective identity of the movement. Throughout the analysis, and particularly in relation to this last point, the importance of social media backstage practices carried out on Facebook chats and groups and instant messaging services such as WhatsApp is stressed, thus rediscovering the linkage between collective identity and internal communicative dynamics. Finally, I examine how internal cohesion and identity are shaped and reinforced in the ‘digital comfort zones’ constituted by the backstage where practices of “ludic activism” (Banski et al, 2013, p.6) unfold. The findings indicate that social media represent not only the organizational backbone of contemporary social movements, but also complex environments where a new ‘communicative grammar’ strongly emerges. The article is grounded in a two yearlong multimodal ethnography that relies on the triangulation of different methodologies. 50 individual interviews were conducted with activists of #YoSoy132, in particular with key informants who created and managed digital platforms, had a prominent role in handling relations with the press, or were active participants in the ‘Media Taskforce’ for the democratization of the Mexican media. In addition, I performed four group interviews with 9 activists of Mexico City, 7 activists of Guadalajara, and 3 activists of Querétaro, with the aim of bringing a richness of perspectives from the most active centre of student protest (Mexico City), but also from other relevant sites of protest (Guadalajara), and from more peripheral realities (Querétaro). The ethnography also comprised several short periods of participant observation (during 2012 and 2013) in demonstrations, meetings, assemblies both at the local and at the national level, along with participation to informal encounters, and academic venues with intense dialogue between scholars and activists. A qualitative content analysis was performed on digital media and online platforms, including the official Web site of the movement, Facebook pages, chats and groups, Twitter accounts, WhatsApp messages of local committees and collectives part of #YoSoy132, documents, posters, leaflets and manifestos produced by protesters in diverse Mexican cities. The different gathered data sets were uploaded, organized, and analysed with the NVivo software. The controversial concept of collective identity In the wake of the cycle of protest that culminated in 1968, a new wave of scholars pointed to non-class based movements as the new agents of social and political change. Unsatisfied with more instrumental explanations of collective action, such as resource mobilization theory and the political process model, new social movements’ theorists (Melucci, 1985; Touraine et al, 1983, 1987) highlighted the relevance of collective identity as the factor that accounts for mobilization and individual attachments, and pointed out the need to consider cultural factors, emotions, and networks of meanings when analysing social movements. If the concept of identity is one of the most controversial concepts of the social sciences, the notion of collective identity has also always been at the heart of a heated debate, especially regarding the slippery contours of its definition (Flesher Fominaya, 2010; Polletta & Jasper, 2001). The concept has also been criticized as an orthodoxy (McDonald, 2002), but its usefulness has been recently restated as a “concept that continues to yield rich insights into the understanding of social movements” (Flesher Fominaya, 2010: 401). At its most basic level, collective identity is a shared sense of ‘‘we-ness’’ and ‘‘collective agency’’ (Snow 2001). Italian sociologist Alberto Melucci describes it as “an interactive and shared definition produced by several interacting individuals who are concerned with the orientation of their action as well as the field of opportunities and constraints in which their action takes place” (1995, p. 44). Taylor and Whittier (1992) agree with Melucci on the idea that collective identities require that a group share definition about its place in the larger society, but add three additional analytical tools: boundaries, consciousness, and negotiation. With boundaries, they refer to ‘‘the social, psychological, and physical structures that establish differences between a challenging group and dominant groups’’ (111). Consciousness denotes instead ‘‘the interpretive frameworks that emerge out of a challenging group’s struggle to define and realize its interests’’ (111). Finally, negotiation entails ‘‘the symbols and everyday actions subordinate groups use to resist and restructure existing systems of domination’’ (Taylor and Whittier 1992, p. 111). Hence, collective identity can be seen as a process enacted through a set of rituals, practices and cultural artefacts where the dimension of negotiation is central (Taylor & Whittier 1992, p. 18). From an extensive review of the literature regarding the processes by which action ‘constitutes’ identity, della Porta and Diani (2006) have outlined three main mechanisms. First, as highlighted by the model developed by Taylor and Whittier, actors have to define boundaries. The identification of the ‘other’, defined as responsible for the actor’s condition and against which the protest arises is as indispensable as the construction of a ‘we’ characterized by common traits and solidarity. In their conceptual framework, Benford and Snow (2000) also stress the existence of oppositional frames that explain the problem and identify the enemy. Therefore, the construction of identity presupposes a positive definition of those participating in a certain group, and at the same time a negative identification of those who are opposed. Second, “collective identity connects and assigns some common meaning to experiences of collective action dislocated over time and space” (della Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 95), what Adler (2012) calls “common origin frames”. Accordingly, activists link together events from past struggles in order to inscribe themselves within an enduring fight that precedes, justifies and reinforces the meaning of the actual form of collective action. Finally, the production of identities is accompanied by “the emergence of new networks of relationships of trust among actors, operating within complex social environments” (della Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 94): these networks form the basis for the development of informal communication networks, interaction and support among activists. The role of collective identity within two waves of studies on digital media and social