After our discussion, I’m curious how more recent protests like #Ferguson (and Black Lives Matter more broadly) should shape understandings of each of the three most prominent  theories of collective action in contemporary society.  This is particularly interesting given the expansive nature of these protests and their position seemingly at the intersection of mass collective action and crowd collective action.

Convergence theory suggests that “collective action happens when people with similar ideas and tendencies gather in the same place” (Class Notes, 12/4). Sparked by the murder of Michael Brown, many people gathered in Ferguson to protest police violence and brutality. This seems to be fairly well explained by convergence theory. However, twitter, as well as other digital and social media platforms, played a significant role in the #Ferguson protests and others at the core of the emerging Black Lives Matter movement. By nature, participants in digital-based protests do not have to be (and often are not) in physically close proximity as convergence theory would seem to demand. Bonilla and Rosa suggest, however, that tweets form part of [a] nonplace” (7). This notion intrigues me. Is it possible that digital social media has changed the social landscape so much that online spaces have become non-physical places in such a real way that convergence theory still explains them?

It seems possible to apply and translate contagion theory’s suggestion that “collective action arises because of people’s tendency to conform to the behavior of others whom they are in close contact” (Class Notes, 12/4) in a similar manner. Not only are the people who are actually in Ferguson compelled to act because of those with whom they’re in physically close contact, but the people in the “nonplace” of #Ferguson are encouraged to act because of their close digital proximity to others who are acting. This could also explain, at least in part, the behavior of white (and otherwise privileged) individuals who are compelled to protest digitally despite not holding a relevant “reservoir of grievances” to motivate protest behavior (Rosenfeld 499). Building on this, emergent norm theory’s focus on “keynoters” is certainly applicable in the context of #Ferguson and Black Lives Matter protests. Deray McKesson and Johnetta Elzie, for example, have risen to great prominence through their actions both on the ground and online related to #Ferguson and Black Lives Matter. It seems reasonable to argue that they created new norms for liberal, politically active “inhabitants of twitter who then made the individual decision to join the #Ferguson efforts.

By considering convergence theory, contagion theory, and emergent norm theory in the context of collective action related to #Ferguson and Black Lives Matter, we are able to see the strengths and weaknesses of these theories. It seems that digital-based collective action is best explained if we consider social media platforms like twitter to be non-physical places.  Moving forward, I’m curious how the notion of “vicarious citizenship” is best applied in these contexts. Prior to our class discussions and Professor Greene’s lecture, I think I would have argued that this concept is the best way to describe protest behavior on digital platforms, but I’m now less certain. What defines a resident in a non-physical place? How do we best understand proximity outside of a physical context?