Creating a Collective Identity through Facebook in Times of Political Crisis and Division

(1)

Creating a Collective Identity through Facebook in Times of

Political Crisis and Division

A Case Study of Undivided: a Youth Driven Campaign in the Wake of Brexit

Name: Anne van Meerveld Student Number: 10598995

Email: anne.vanmeerveld@student.uva.nl University: University of Amsterdam Course: New Media and Digital Culture

Supervisor: dr. A. Cossu Second Reader: dr. K. Beelen Submission Date: 29th June 2018

(2)

Abstract

After Britain voted for Brexit on 23rd June 2016, a strongly divided British society was under the spell of an ongoing heated debate. In the wake of the EU Referendum and the controversy around it, a group of 30 young people came together and started a campaign called Undivided. They launched this campaign driven by the strong belief that the voice of younger citizens had been largely neglected in the Brexit negotiations up until then. In doing so, they attempted to radiate Undivided’s collective identity upon youngsters, in order to promote unity in times of division, political crisis and instability. Taking this into account, the research attempts to unravel the kind of activist network Undivided is and explores how they imposed that on a platform such as Facebook in order to try to create a sense of collective identity. To achieve this, Undivided’s online and offline activities were examined, including a social media content analysis of their most significant Facebook posts and deriving user activity. Ultimately, the research was able to conclude that there was an overall lack of collective identity represented in the user activity. Ironically, therefore, Undivided’s attempt to use social media to unite the younger population only served to highlight how divided youngsters really were as a result of political crisis and instability.

Keywords

(3)

1. Introduction

1.1. Framing the debate beyond left and right

On the 23rd of June in 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) held a referendum to decide whether the UK should Leave or Remain in the European Union (EU). Leave won by 51.9% to 48.1%, meaning that the citizens of the UK voted for Brexit (Hunt & Wheeler n.pag.). The outcome of the referendum provoked controversy in all layers of British society. Traditional news sources pointed out that young people in particular are “bemused, angry and resentful” at the decision to leave the EU which they largely blame on older generations […]” (Cowburn n.pag.). Younger people naturally used various social media channels to express their feelings on the matter. During this time, a group of 30 young people came together in the wake of the referendum and started a campaign called Undivided. They manifested themselves both online as offline, as they were housed at a non-profit youth agency called Livity while managing several social media accounts at the same time. These social media accounts included Facebook and Twitter pages dedicated to informing and updating young people about relevant topics in the ongoing Brexit negotiations and debates. On their website they explained that they would like to hear all demands from young people, ranging from 13-29 year olds, in the UK. Using these responses, they were able to identify the top ten demands of young people regarding the Brexit negotiations (“About” n.pag.). Undivided selected this age range based on the European definition of a young person, which is 15-29. “We decided to opt for this age range because we wanted to gather the opinions of young people at different stages of youth and early adulthood. [...] All of these perspectives are valuable in ensuring we have a wide breadth of opinion,” explains Undivided.

For nearly nine months, they collected these nationwide youth opinions, so that they could present the results to the Parliament, because: “As young people, it’s time for us to decide our future, not have it decided for us” (“About” n.pag.).

In order to contextualize Undivided’s place in the ongoing political debate, it is crucial to analyse what ultimately moved Britain to vote for Brexit, and even more interesting, how British youngsters generally engaged with the EU Referendum. Henn and Sharpe were motivated to explore the latter, observing a fragile and complex relationship between young people and

(6)

British democracy (n.pag.). _{“In the run-up to the 2016 EU Referendum, a key challenge for the} political class was therefore to activate the youth vote in a contest that in time will almost certainly radically re-shape Britain’s relationship with itself and the rest of continental Europe,” explain Henn and Sharpe (n.pag.)._{For this reason, they worked with young people to co-produce} a project called ‘Me and EU’, which was supposed to digitally provide youngsters with

information regarding the referendum, in order to better help _{young people in their}

decision-making on whether and how to vote (Henn & Sharpe n.pag.)_{. The digital platform} subsequently connected users to the ESRC-funded ‘UK in a Changing Europe’ project, which involved research and events organised by contributors to this project _{(Henn & Sharpe n.pag.).} Ultimately, Henn and Sharpe were able to explore youngsters’ reasoning behind the preference for either remaining or leaving the EU. The group that preferred to remain in the EU were primarily concerned that the state of the British economy, trade and employment would be negatively impacted by Brexit (Henn & Sharpe n.pag.). Henn and Sharpe furthermore explain that the same people tended to have a preference for a collective approach to matters such as sustainability, security and human rights, that the EU maintains (n.pag.). On the other hand, the youngsters that were pro-Brexit believed that leaving the EU would be beneficial for the

improvement of national political sovereignty, re-directing investment from the EU towards the UK, and greater control over immigration (Henn & Sharpe n.pag.). Finally, there existed a group of respondents that “expressed a lack of certainty about the claims and counter-claims of both the Leave and Remain campaigns. This supports previous research that young people found politics in general to be confusing and difficult to engage with” (Henn & Sharpe n.pag.). Naturally, this contributes to worsening the existing multi-layered division within British society.

Several scholars have researched how politics has changed over the past years and how that change has affected societies and vice versa. Inglehart and Norris, for instance, showcase this in their research on the rise of populism: “The rise of populist parties reflects, above all, a reaction against a wide range of rapid cultural changes that seem to be eroding the basic values and customs of Western societies” (Inglehart & Norris 30). According to Inglehart and Norris, one of these basic values that seems to be put in a tight spot nowadays is the ethnic configuration of advanced industrial societies; the differences between the newcomers and the native

(7)

population reinforces the impression that established norms and values are wearing away (30). This finding reflects the voting behavior of Britain’s citizens during the EU referendum. In the final weeks, the Leave campaign strongly focused on immigration, state Goodwin and Heath (324). The fact that the West Midlands voted 59.3% Leave is therefore no surprise; this area knows a history of euroscepticism and anti-immigration sentiment, followed by the East Midlands (58.8%), the North-East (58%), Yorkshire and the Humber (57.7%) and Eastern England (56.5%) (Goodwin & Heath 324). On the other hand, Goodwin and Heath state that the campaign attracted its weakest support in Scotland (38%), London (40.1%) and Northern Ireland (44.2%) (324). Authors of the London School of Economics and Political Science blog

discovered that there was a correlation between these statistics and the Twitter activity regarding the referendum (Bauchowitz & Hänska n.pag.). Districts that voted Leave had more Twitter users who were tweeting in favour of Leave, explain Bauchowitz and Hänska (n.pag.). Furthermore, despite the fact that Twitter is assumed to consist of younger users, more users overall were promoting Leave, and did so more intensely than those tweeting for Remain

(Bauchowitz & Hänska n.pag.). Therefore, users of this platform, as well as Instagram, Facebook and Google, were exposed to more eurosceptic posts from more eurosceptic posters than of those promoting Remain (Bauchowitz & Hänska n.pag.).

Brexit thus showcases a correlation between the countries’ contemporary politics and (the voting behavior of) British society, which can be seen through online activity on social media platforms. Goodwin and Heath state that “the result of the 2016 referendum revealed a society which had, on the issues of EU membership and immigration, become divided by social class, generation and geography” (324). Hobolt confirms this by explaining that “concerns about immigration and the loss of a distinct national identity were important to many who favoured Brexit, and they were issues that clearly divided the Leave and Remain camps” (1273).

Furthermore, she states that lower class voters in particular were concerned about immigration and multiculturalism, whereas younger, upper class people represented a considerable portion of the Remain camp (1273). Thus; “the results of the Brexit referendum portray a deeply divided country, not only along class, education and generational lines, but also in terms of geography” (Hobolt 1273).

(8)

However, other scholars do not always agree with this line of thinking. Dorling, for instance, believes that immigration is unfairly blamed as the source of contemporary problems such as worsening health and declining living standards (1). It could be argued instead that the growing economic inequality and the public spending cuts were the route cause of these problems in the UK; and that in order to distract British citizens form these national failings, they have been encouraged to blame immigration and the European Union (Dorling 1). Moreover, he states that the UK “has been systematically underfunding education and training, increasing student loans and debt, tolerating increasingly unaffordable housing, introducing insecure work contracts, and privatising the services the young will need in future” (1). It is therefore unfair to blame

youngsters for not voting in sufficient numbers, when the UK encouraged them to become individualistic (Dorling 1). Now, the British youth blame the older generation for Brexit, while they should instead direct their displeasure at the post-1979 UK governments “that have allowed economic inequalities to rise so high; that prevented a fair proportional voting system being introduced; and that have placed future generations in peril” (Dorling 1). Indeed, there are youngsters and youth campaigns that blame the outcome of the EU referendum on the older generation. The team of Undivided, on the other hand, chose to be united instead of divided, in order to get the best possible deal for young people. In doing this, they attempted to detach themselves from a divided nation by coming together to present youngsters’ opinions at the Brexit negotiation table. In this way, Undivided distinguishes itself from the previously

discussed projects, as they are driven to do more for youngsters than merely provide them with information and insights about the EU Referendum. Moreover, the aforementioned projects were chiefly focused on the period before the referendum, whereas Undivided was founded in the wake of Brexit. For this reason, it could be said that Undivided’s campaign is a renewed version of the ‘Me and EU’ project, instead in the form of a ‘Us and EU’ project; which formed after Britain voted to leave the EU.

At the core of the online and offline activities the campaign carried out in order to fulfill their goals lies the (networked) public sphere. Therefore, the next section will provide historical context from Habermas and examine the evolution of the public sphere to the new perspective of the networked public sphere.

(9)

1.2. The (networked) public sphere and different forms of activist networks

In defining the _{public sphere}

, Habermas brings up several key elements of this concept. Briefly

said, the public sphere is a domain in our social lives where a public opinion may be formed in order to influence political action (Habermas 55). According to Habermas, this means that citizens can discuss general affairs in an environment where they can speak their mind without being persuaded or suppressed to do otherwise (55). The public sphere becomes political when public discussion contains objects that are related to acts of the state (Habermas 55).

Furthermore, he explains that the public sphere mediates between state and society: the public operates within the sphere as a shifting representation of the public opinion, with the principle of publicity as a corresponding factor (56). This representation of the public opinion refers to the public sphere as a field that is dominated by larger structures of public discourse such as

mass-media and socializing institutions like family, schools and so forth (Benkler 10; Friedland et al. 23). In the digital era we are in now, this representation is no longer accurate. Therefore, a new perspective referred to as the _{networked public sphere}

has been introduced. The networked

public sphere _{“enables many more individuals to communicate their observations and their} viewpoints to many others,” states Benkler (11). They are able to do this without the mass-media or institutions as a intermediary: “It is this freedom to seek out whatever information we wish, to write about it, and to join and leave various projects and associations with others that underlies the new efficiencies we see in the networked information economy” (Benkler 140). In this way, the networked public sphere surpasses these larger structures and creates “a new form of life that influences core forms of intersubjective communication [...]” (Friedland et al. 23). Moreover, it rejects the hierarchical system of the aforementioned institutions and therefore shows that the online flow of communication is embedded in highly complex, interlinked, non-hierarchical environments (Friedland et al. 24). To such a degree, the networked public sphere enables us to be potential participants in discourse, instead of merely potentials viewers (Benkler 140).

It is interesting to consider the Undivided campaign within the context of the networked public sphere; as this is the environment from which the campaign began. A number of people felt the urge to contribute in the political debate and negotiations about Brexit, so they used their right to start the Undivided campaign in order to do so. Furthermore, by means of giving every

(10)

British young person between 15-29 years old the opportunity to submit their demands, they allowed others to become part of the campaign and therefore the networked public sphere. Another way in which they did this was through their online and offline activities. Their offline activities consisted of events, talks, debates and creative workshops, along with their online activities such as the establishment of a blog, a Facebook page, a Twitter account and accompanying relevant hashtags (“Events” n.pag.; “Media” n.pag.).

Single-issue movements, social movements, political movements, interest groups, pressure groups and advocacy groups can be grouped together within this networked public sphere. They exist on the basis of a common feature, though they differ in terms of their interests and how they were created and structured. In this research, these movements and groups will be referred to as activist networks. Activist networks manifest in intertwining ways when it comes to their online and offline activities. In various examples of networked social movements that Castells discussed in his book, protests shifted from the social networks into the streets, for instance (241). Naturally, this also happens vice versa. The fact that activist networks reciprocate between online and offline activity applies to Undivided as well; as they performed offline activities in both an informative and political manner while also engaging with their supporters online with similar motives. Therefore, it is interesting to examine what kind of movement or group is behind the Undivided campaign; and how they fit in within the definitions and

constitutions of the preliminary existing activist networks that are relevant to this research. Thus, the next section will begin to explore the body of existing research regarding activist networks that operate primarily on social media.

1.3. Activist networks and their collective identity

When it comes to research on social media activism, there is a current tendency to focus on the strategic approaches adopted by the activists to achieve their goal, state Gerbaudo and Treré: “In this context, social media is merely seen as ‘tools’ or channels carrying certain messages, as it is typical in what James W. Carey called the ‘transmission view of communication’ (1989), an approach which neglects the ritual and symbolic nature of communicative processes” (867). As a result, the actual content conveyed through these channels has been frequently overlooked within

(11)

the current body of research (Gerbaudo & Treré 867). According to Gerbaudo and Treré, this tendency to explore only the strategic approaches used in social media activism limits our understanding of the underlying cultural dynamics and meaning-making processes of digital protest communication (870). Additionally, contemporary forms of protest action are generally personalized and exploit _{personal action frames}

, which “reflects young people’s suspicion

towards traditional forms of collective organizations such as political parties or trade unions,” states Gerbaudo (268).

With this clear limitation regarding the existing body of research in mind, it seems beneficial for this research to instead consider how the content itself has been used to create a sense of collective identity - and how this was received and responded to by the younger British population. Gerbaudo writes that “What we are witnessing in fact, in this time of economic and political crisis and instability, is a new desire for collectivity, in which individualized social media communications are often perceived simply as a springboard for a process of social and physical recompositions” ( 268). In this way, we are able to surpass a techno-determinist approach that merely takes the structure of the medium into account and look at the historical and cultural configurations that ultimately shape the content (Gerbaudo & Treré 870). In the case of Undivided, these historical and cultural configurations lie in the political crisis and instability, which has already been outlined in the first section. This has a direct impact on the content and meaning of their online and offline activities. Particularly with their online presence, interaction and discussion by use of metrics such as likes and comments is crucial for strengthening the construction of a collective identity. Generally speaking, “in social movements, this takes place on different levels: first, the two-fold communications flow between the protest organizers and the followers’ base, both top-down and bottom-up; second, in the horizontal communication between followers themselves” (Coretti & Pica 953; Gerbaudo & Treré 868). It is essential to grasp all these different forms of communication, in order to understand the collective identity, explain Coretti and Pica (953). Hence, they demonstrate that both individuals and groups construct an ever-evolving process within activist networks, through their reciprocal and

repeated interaction. In other words, they argue that the centrality of activist networks should be perceived “as a whole rather than as a mere sum of individualities” (Coretti & Pica 952). This

(12)

brings us back to the concept of a collective identity; as technology brings people together, but we cannot ignore that collective identification processes are essential. Britain’s voting behaviour as discussed in the first section shows disunity between citizens and generations, which leaves us to explore the kind of stitching mechanisms Undivided used to overcome those divisions.By means of using a qualitative methodology that provides in-depth discernment, the symbolic processes of their online and offline activities can be thoroughly examined in this sense (Gerbaudo & Treré 868). In this way, the transformation of a collective identity in a digital era will be tackled to empirically ascertain “the nature and dynamics that collective identity acquires in a society marked by the pervasiveness of social network sites and digital platforms”

(Gerbaudo & Treré 870).

This research will make use of the following structure, in order to achieve this. First, the literature review will analye research about several activist networks and their online and offline manifestations. In doing so, Undivided will thereupon be contextualised within the existing theory. Subsequently, Undivided will be thoroughly examined on their attempts to create a collective identity. This will be achieved through the following methodology. To begin with, a semi-structured interview with one of Undivided’s members will give insights on how the campaign came into existence. In doing this, the role of Undivided’s pre-existing networks and alliances will be discussed, which will result in an examination of the accompanying offline activities. At the same time, Undivided’s beliefs and goals will be clearly defined in order to understand what triggered them to start the campaign. Next, their offline actions will be related to their online activity on Facebook in order to see how they used this platform to develop a sense of collective identity. This will be done through the Netvizz tool, by means of a social media content analysis of Undivided’s shared posts and the user activity resulting therefrom. By implementing these methods, it will become evident where Undivided came from, what kind of activist network they are, what they believe and how they impose that on a platform like

Facebook in order to try to create a sense of collective identity in times of political crisis and instability.

(13)

2. Literature review

2.1. Defining single-issue movements, social movements and political movements

The literature review will examine different forms of activist networks, that is to say _single-issue

movements,

social movements, _{political movements}, _{interest groups}, _{pressure groups}and

advocacy groups

. Analyses of these different kinds of movements and groups will be carried out

in both an online, offline as well as a youth driven context, which will enable the research to place Undivided and their various manifestations carefully in pre-existing literature about the various types of activist networks.

In order to decide what constitutes and defines a single-issue movement, social movement and political movement, it is critical for this first section to bring several definitions and perspectives from different scholars together.

Single-issue movements are generally formed and therefore compiled as the result of “a momentary rising feeling about an isolated, temporary concern [...]” (“Single Issue-Movement” n.pag.). Mitra argues that these movements base their appeal on a relatively restricted platform and become politically prominent within a short span of time (47). In doing this, they draw support from across established political and sociological cleavages (Mitra 47).

“Characteristically, the single-issue movement galvanises support from different political camps on the basis of a single, all-encompassing issue, and, predictably, disappears once the issue has been articulated and aggregated into the political agenda,” states Mitra (47). Thus, single-issue movements are mostly about (political) interaction, something which has been put forward by Tilly; a sociologist, political scientist and historian that profoundly researched social movements.

The term social movement has been subject to change from the moment Tilly proposed his more complex approach in his book _{From Mobilization to Revolution}

(1977). Before he introduced his

changing view on the concept, the common perspective on social movements was a “rather static understanding of protest politics centered on the analysis of organizations” (Passy 353). Hence, Tilly claims that a social movement is about interaction. In this respect, he introduced the term

(14)

collective action

: “collective action results from changing combinations of interests,

organization, mobilization and opportunity” (11). Another main feature of social movements that focuses on interaction is the concept of _{contentious politics}

, which refers to all kinds of

‘collective political struggle’ (Mcadam et al. 100). Tilly specifically formulates the concept as follows: “I_{nteractions in which actors make claims bearing on someone else's interest, in which} governments appear either as targets, initiators of claims, or third parties” (5). Thus, contentious politics is about three features of social life: contention, collective action and politics (Tilly 5). Furthermore, Tilly explains that participants of a social movement perform concerted public representations of WUNC; worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment (308). Participants can use these _{WUNC displays}

on the part of themselves as well as on behalf of the rest of the social

movement. These can vary from slogans to statements or, as is often the case, idioms that most people will be familiar with (Tilly 308). Examples of this are unifying matching badges,

headbands etcetera. When it comes to commitment, one can think about resistance to repression, subscription or benefaction and so forth (Tilly 309). Idioms vary from one setting to another, but the general communication of WUNC connects them: “we, the people, have the right to voice on our own initiative; worthy, united, numerous and committed, we have the capacity to change things” (Tilly 309).

Later on, scholars proposed and added new concepts and phenomena to this field of research. Tilly’s perspective on movements and his study of demonstrations as displays of worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment is mainly focused on “the broader and more diverse forms taken by contention across time and space” (Della Porta & Diani 3). Tilly, and other American proponents, therefore tend to focus on the underlying structures of movements, by providing a framework for the analysis of the actual mobilization process (Melucci 16).

European authors, on the other hand, “have contributed to a better understanding of the process through which collective action is formed in highly differentiated — or postindustrial — systems,” states Melucci (16). In his work, Melucci tries to bridge these approaches by connecting the cultural element of movements with the wider structure of society (16). In this way, he avoids focusing specifically on one or the other school and their associated approach to social movements. Della Porta and Diani also acknowledge in their book that it is better to look

(15)

at the overall responses that social movement researchers provided to a few key themes and issues, instead of adopting one specific school and their approach (6). One of these key themes is the attention that has been paid to organizational forms of social movements, these forms range from loosely networked groups to highly bureaucratic and formal social movement organisations (SMOs) (Abrutyn 556). “The fact that professionalized SMOs tend to be run by members of the middle class and are funded by recoursed patrons, often without members, has been interpreted as an elitist shift in advocacy more generally,” states Abrutyn (556). Abrutyn explains that when SMOs become too elite by means of staff, i.e. formalized leadership, they lose their leverage (557). More loosely networked groups have their own limitations, such as problems with mobilizing their members (Abrutyn 557). The advantages and disadvantages of these different organizational types “comprise a longstanding theoretical debate in the literature,” as they both have their own sets of limitations, states Abrutyn (256; 257). Another response to the key themes and issues in social movement theory, is the interdisciplinary contribution of Tarrow; he

connects social movements studies to other streams of political research by means of shaping the contentious politics program (Della Porta & Diani 8).

Kleidman explains that Tarrow advocates for a “dynamic statism” in this same line of thinking; it recognizes the importance of states and the reciprocal interaction of states and movements (839). Building on this, McCarthy calls for the fact that there can emerge a range of formal and informal mobilizing structures at different times and in different places from both political opportunities and framing efforts (Kleidman 839). Johnston recognizes this political aspect and indicates the term political movement in his book _{What is a Social Movement}

(2014).

“Social movements are key forces of social change in the modern world. [...] Another key characteristic is that they mobilize and do their business mostly outside established political and institutional channels,” according to Johnston (1). Thus, although social movements mostly operate outside established political and institutional channels, they can have a strong political dimension that results in the conception of a political movement. According to Johnston, a political movement usually makes their claims in the context of the modern national state: “their targets are mostly politicians, policymakers, and government administrators who are in positions to put into force changes that reflect the specific demands and interests of the movement” (49).

(16)

Social and political movements are clearly central to contemporary political life, states Downing: “The widespread decay of inherited political institutions [...] are factors further

intensifying the current significance of social movements on the world stage. Media

research makes itself look silly if it does not foreground them” (43). Further on, he indicates five issues where collaboration between social movement specialists and alternative media

researchers would be fruitful and is urgently needed from both corners, namely: _{media and}

social change

, _{political mobilization}, _framing, _{networks and audiences}, and _{transnational}

movements

(Downing 44). Specifically the overlapping fields of ‘political mobilization’ and

‘networks and audiences’ ask for an in-depth and thorough approach in this research, as activist networks and (alternative) media intersect here. The fact that Downing proposes a collaboration between social movement specialists and alternative media researchers is interesting here. Activist networks indeed intersect media in the context of this case, but media is consistently not alternative anymore, as activist networks like social movements are increasingly dealing with mainstream platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Platforms nor activist networks seem to be completely autonomous anymore; success of protests can easily be made possible by shareable and actionable features of the social web, which makes centralized supervision unneeded (Deseriis 445). “Shirky’s key insight is that by building cooperation into the infrastructure the social web has caused a vertical fall of the economic costs of coordinating group activity,” states Deseriis (445). Thus, these phenomena will be further examined in a later section, by looking into the manifestation of activist networks online and the different forms resulting therefrom.

First, the research will shed light on advocacy groups, pressure groups and interest groups. This will be done in order to assemble phenomena that relate to each other, even though they are worth to be examined independently. By researching them independently from different angles, it will become apparent how the group of people that founded Undivided can be

embedded in the extant literature about the pre-existing interpretations of various types of movements and groups.

2.2. Defining interest groups, pressure groups and advocacy groups

(17)

what constitutes and defines interest groups, pressure groups and advocacy groups. Holyoke describes interest groups as a small number of people who share a common interest around a specific need or desire (11). He continues by explaining that interest groups are private

organisations that exist outside the government. They are there to politically represent citizens in an informal way, “usually by persuading lawmakers that it would be valuable to enact policies that help these citizens pursue strongly felt interests” (Holyoke 12).

Thus, interest groups are basically formal aggregations of people sharing the same interest (Holyoke 12). Interest groups are placed in several debates, ranging from the politics or organizational designs within these groups to the way they contribute to policy decisions.

Choi contributes to these debates by approaching interest groups as groups that interact with politicians by means of contributing to their campaigns, on the basis of a common interest or concern (1734). They do this because they want to influence the policy outcomes that politicians choose and they want to help certain politicians win the election (Choi 1734). The latter follows the first reason after their efforts to influence policy outcomes prove successful, because they can then decide which politicians to financially support. “Given the amount of campaign contributions and various policy issues over which they want to influence, the influence of interest groups on politicians’ decisions is an important issue in politics and economics,” explains Choi (1734). For this reason, he “[...] studies the effect of a politician’s ideological strength on campaign contribution that the politician receives from interest groups” (Choi 1733). Halpin studies interest groups from a somewhat different angle by looking at the dynamics within interest groups and how that affects the type of influence they have and to what extent this influence is significant. Provoking the way we understand and interpret groups and the group system allows for new understandings and respect for the importance of organizational design (Halpin 1). Haplin argues that the intense focus of scholars on influence has painted a distorted picture of groups that interact with policies and policymakers: it seems like the process of pursuing control over these policy decisions is straightforward. “By contrast, I suggest that lobbying by groups is best conceived as diverse policy work, which in turn provides more space to recognize the importance of organizational form as a key variable,” states Halpin (176).

(18)

concern. However, when interest groups starts to pressure an interest or particular cause, they become a pressure group. The division between an interest group and a pressure group is

therefore decided by the method these groups apply. Thus, it is possible to have an interest group that is not a pressure group, but all pressure groups are an interest group by their very definition, as they push for a specific interest (“Interest Groups and Pressure Groups” n.pag.). Advocacy groups focus on other aspects in their actions and approaches, which begs for a singly

examination of this kind of group.

Kim and Mccluskey delineate advocacy groups as “[...] groups that engage in a variety of strategic efforts involving access public officials, attempting to affect public opinion through campaigns or news attention, or directly engaging in public mobilization” (793). They state that it is crucial to look beyond the dichotomy of inside and outside lobbying of advocacy groups. Manheim describes this dichotomy as on the one hand communication that is informational i.e. managing information and on the other hand communication that is focuses on exercising influence i.e. managing relationships. Instead, they propose four distinctive categories, namely:

Traditional Inside Lobbying

, _{Informational Mobilization}, _{Participatory Mobilization} and _Activist

Facilitation

(Kim & Mccluskey 793).

Traditional Inside Lobbying refers to the kind of lobbying that is likely to be most common; advocacy groups try to influence public policy by means of building interpersonal relationships with governmental officials to express a group’s preferences (Kim & Mccluskey 793). Another category for expressing group’s preferences and concerns is Informational Mobilization; which applies to “a group’s efforts to provide relevant information on issues of concern with latent issue publics (e.g. position papers and supporting documents, voting records of elected officials)” (Kim & Mccluskey 794). Both scholars subsequently describe Participatory Mobilization as attempts to convince supporters to mobilize the public by means of acts such as signing petitions and getting in touch with public officials (794). In both the categories

Informational Mobilization and Participatory Mobilization advocacy groups tend to use digital technology, in order to decrease costs and target relevant people and organisations. Another advantage of using the Internet is the possibility to form horizontally integrated networks, even if

(19)

they lack an institutionalized and bureaucratic structure: “Since fewer resources and fewer fixed members are needed for collective action, organized interests rely less on membership and bureaucratic structure” (Kim & Mccluskey 794). This phenomenon will be further discussed in the next section. The last category both scholars indicate is Activist Facilitation, which focuses on selective (tangible) benefits for group members, based on formal membership in order to sustain and maintain the organization (794). Kim and Mccluskey’s categories all together provide a progressive and comprehensive view on what constitutes advocacy groups and how they are increasingly entangled with technology.

The next section will focus on the manifestation of these activist networks online and the different concepts resulting therefrom. Different perspectives on online activist networks will consequently add to the understanding of this case, as Undivided seemed to mainly apply

strategic attempts in creating a collective identity on Facebook. In analysing various perspectives on activist networks, it will ultimately become evident which place Undivided takes in the existing literature and debates around (online) activist networks. Furthermore, the research eventually explores if the campaign and the establishment of a collective identity therein is lead by their online existence or rather serves as a tool.

2.3. The manifestation of activist networks online and the different concepts resulting therefrom

As mentioned above, Tilly introduces the concept collective action, which refers to the outcome of “changing combinations of interests, organization, mobilization and opportunity” (11). In the past decade, social media platforms have become the organizing agents through this process. Social media platforms are inseparably connected with Web 2.0 and user generated content, considering they are “a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User

Generated Content” (Kaplan & Haenlein 61). The integration of these social media platforms in the practises of social movements is thoroughly researched by various scholars.

Social media make it possible for activist networks to become big and substantial. Bennett pinpoints this phenomenon by defining it as a _{scale shift}

(20)

activist network can potentially go viral by targeting the right people and therefore cause a scale shift. The concept thereby focuses on the role social media plays in the construction of the volume of these networks, which reinforces the notion that they do not need mainstream media to become big i.e. well known (Bennett 149). It becomes evident that these concepts hinge on the fact that we are nowadays no longer dealing with just interaction, in the form how Tilly

presented it in 1977. Instead, activist networks that depend on social media in their practices are about online interaction.

Bennett and Segerberg present the outcome of this process of online interaction within activist networks as a _{connective action network}

(752). Because these networks establish

themselves through social media, strong hierarchies are no longer needed (King 967). Instead, the features of these platforms help people to connect. Castells acknowledges this as well: “[...] Internet and mobile phone networks are not simply tools, but organizational forms, cultural expressions and specific platforms for political autonomy” (103). However, when people connect by means of these platforms it does not necessarily mean that it mobilizes them. This leads us back to the concept of collective action; when the collecting sense of identity is pursued, it highlights the difficulties surrounding an attempt to truly mobilize an individual in the pursuit of a greater public good (Bennett & Segerberg 749). There can be a big task in this for collectives or organisations that are willing to unite individuals and bridge the gap between different ideas. The concept of _{self-motivated participation}

is a big component in achieving that as well: “In

place of the initial collective action problem of getting the individual to contribute, the starting point of connective action is the self-motivated [...] sharing of already internalized or

personalized ideas, plans, images, and resources with networks of others” (Bennett & Segerberg 753). In this way, it becomes apparent that people do not just come together as a mere byproduct of the affordances of social media, but because they are motivated by the desire to be part of a collective.

This relates to the fact that people need to be engaged, in order to care and therefore be motivated to contribute to a common good. In light of the focus of the research question, this research is specifically interested in this engagement in a political way. So how is political engagement most likely to transform into mobilization by means of social media? The concept

(21)

that emerges herefrom is _{digital activism}

, which Car explains as follows: “The infrastructure of

digital activism is based on the digital network — an interconnected group of devices that use digital code to transmit information” (217). Furthermore, he demonstrates that networks enable connectivity to be distributed: they do not connect us solely to the centre; they link us to each other as well. “And, when large numbers of citizens are able to more easily connect to one another, to send and receive original content, and to coordinate action, they are able to create effective political movements” (Car 217).

In the past decade, there were various remarkable online activist networks. Considering the scope of the research, the next section will focus on the activist networks that were youth driven.

2.3.1. Examples of remarkable youth driven online activist networks

Recently, there were some outstanding forms of youth driven online social and political movements, interest groups, pressure groups and advocacy groups that, when studied, provide some valuable insights into the nature of such networks. Before we head to the examination of these activist networks, it is worth reviewing literature that places them into debates around youth and activism. top-down

One of the most striking aspects of recent collective mobilizations and civic

participations is the use of digital media as a recourse for these phenomena. Using these devices were crucial in expressing demands and organizing protest, which favoured the rise of informal political and civic action (Alberto Simões & Campos 128). Moreover, Alberto Simões and Campos state that “these are practices where young people, socialized in a digital era, have played a relevant, but not exclusive, role as a visible face of widespread dissatisfaction” (128). This can be assigned to the fact that especially young people are competent users of digital devices and platforms, something which they deployed in recent protests in Europe and other parts of the world (Alberto Simões & Campos 142).

Overall, there is a sceptical tendency towards youth being politically engaged: “Surveys found that youth were less interested in politics, less likely to keep up with the news, and less likely to be members of advocacy organizations” (Earl et al. 2). Research on political

(22)

socialization has challenged these common views on youth socialization and engagement, which are often indicated as the _{deficit model}

(Earl et al. 3). Earl et al. explain that scholars disagree

with this model by noting that youth engagement is not declining, but that it takes on different forms nowadays (2). This can be assigned to the rise of digital devices and platforms and their increasing role in activism. In this way, it becomes apparent that youth is not disengaged but rather shifted to engagement by performing protest on social media i.e. online social networks. In other words, they are rather part of an _{engaged citizenship}

model by embedding politics in their

daily lives (Earl et al. 2). Thus, youth has to be approached as subjects with agency: “This is not to deny the range of institutions and structures relevant to youth activism, whether family, friends, schools, or social stratification, among others, but rather to rebut the tacit belief by many that adults need to manage and control youth activism” (Earl e.a. 8). In other words, Earl et al. state that institutions like family, friends, and schools are not vital for youth’s political

socialization, yet they can socialize youth to a certain extent and provide so-called equipment in order for them to be politically engaged (4).

Another factor that favours youth is the fact that they are young, unmarried, unemployed and childless, which easily enables them to participate in activism. This is referred to as

biographical availability

by various scholars (Earl et al. 3). Based on this concept, research

suggests that it has an impact on tactical innovation in social movements: “Movements must innovate in order to effectively agitate for change, but more seasoned activists (in most cases, adults) may be more likely to draw on the same tactical repertoires that they used for past campaigns” (Earl et al. 8). Whereas adults experience overall difficulty with adapting to new (online) tactics, youth are more able to adopt these tactics with ease (Earl et al. 8). In this respect, youth seem to have the upperhand when it comes to participating in activism. On the other hand, they have their own dilemmas, such as not being taken seriously by movements and social movement organisations (Earl et al. 8).

Castells wrote extensively about the advantages and disadvantages of youth activists in several examples of youth driven online networks from the past decade. In the first chapter he discusses the Tunisian Revolution; a street vendor from a small town called Sidi Bouzid set himself on fire

(23)

in front of a government building on the 17th December 2010, after he got humiliated by the local police. “[...] only a few hours after he set himself on fire, hundreds of youth, sharing similar experiences of humiliation by the authorities, staged a protest in front of the same building,” states Castells (22). The street vendor’s cousin recorded the protest and uploaded it online. At the same time, there were other (attempted) suicides that stimulated the anger and courage of youth (Castells 22). Overall, there were several converged significant aspects that fed this revolution. First, there were a lot of active unemployed college graduates involved that bypassed traditional leadership structures. They were able to do this because of the presence of a strong cyberactivism culture and “a relatively high rate of diffusion of Internet use, including household connections, schools and cybercafés” (Castells 29). According to Castells, the Tunisian Revolution became a new form of networked social movement in the Arab world in this way (29).

Another networked social movement in the Arab world that has been founded by youth is the 6 April Youth Movement in the rise of the Egyptian Revolution in 2011. This revolution started for the same reason as the Tunisian Revolution, which means that citizens demonstrated against the police and their terrorizing behaviour in front of governmental buildings. Therefore, it is not a surprise that the Egyptian Revolution was inspired by the Tunisian Revolution: “The Egyptian revolution was dramatized, in the wake of the Tunisian example, by a series of self-immolations (six in total) to protest the rise of food prices that left many hungry” (Castells 55). This inspiration is also reflected in the role of the Internet; the self-immolations were transmitted to the Egyptian youth by one of the founders of the 6 April Youth Movement by means of a vlog that went viral on Facebook and YouTube. “From Internet networks, the call to action spread through the social networks of friends, family and associations of all kinds. The networks connected not only to individuals but to each individual’s networks,” explains Castells (56). In other words, the viral video on social media led and spread the call for support.

Later on, on the 11th May 2012, the presidential campaign candidate Peña Nieto got blamed by several students for the murderous violence of the police against the population in a suburb of Mexico City called Atenco, when he served as governor of the state of Mexico (Castells 240). After Peña Nieto tried to defend himself against these accusations, students started yelling at him and recorded it. After the video was uploaded onto social media, it went

(24)

viral. In a response to that: “Television networks and the PRI leaders dismissed the protest as a political plot and argued that the protesters were not in fact students of the university and that there were just a handful of them” (Castells 240). In return, 131 students uploaded a new video in which they stated their names and showed their student ID cards. Within a few hours, countless YouTube users had forwarded the video and a movement of support for the students was started, explains Castells (241). The hashtag that accompanied the protest was #YoSoy132. Under this hashtag, everybody added him- or herself to the number of students that initially started the protest (Castells 241).

Another movement that is led by resistance to unjust government action is the Umbrella Movement that was founded in 2014: “The protesters were demanding an end to China's

pre-screening of candidates for election of the autonomous region's leader” (“Hong Kong Umbrella Movement” n.pag.). Both young people and social media had a significant role in this movement. When Hong Kong student Joshua Wong founded the activist organization Scholarism he was fighting a Nationalist Education course in his school curriculum (Wong n.pag.). A few years later, his activist organization led a breakthrough past the security barriers surrounding Civic Square in the middle of the Government Offices complex in Hong Kong (Wong n.pag.). Wong explains that this action triggered the whole subsequent movement (n.pag.); “_{this protest} was later referred to as the Umbrella Movement, after the use of umbrellas as a tool for peaceful resistance against the Hong Kong police during the protests” _{(“Hong Kong Umbrella}

Movement” n.pag.)_{. According to Lee and Chan, the role social media played in the development} of the movement was the possibility to participate outside the physical urban space of the

occupied areas (17). The biographical availability of young participants can be limited, so “the digital media activities allowed participants to continue to be part of the movement even when they were not physically present in the occupied areas” (Lee & Chan 17). Moreover, participants that engaged in digital media activities were more deeply involved in the movement: “This finding is consistent with the idea that digital media and connective actions have empowered protest movements” (Lee & Chan 17).

Castells explains at the end of his book that practices of empowerment enacted by fearless youth are enabled by free (online) communication (312). Hence, youth driven online

(25)

activist networks will continue to spring up around the world because of the period of historical transition we are in and the social crises and conflicts that are arising therefrom (Castells 312).

In the next section, youth driven online activist networks will be enriched by literature about their offline existence in relation to their manifestation online. In this way, it will become apparent that activist networks are always represented by an entanglement of both online and offline networks.

2.4. The entanglement of online and offline networks within the overarching activist networks

The aforementioned movements were highly politically engaged, reasonably large and had an effect on a wider scale because of social media. On the other hand, there also emerge offline forms of activist networks that are more specific and appealing to young people’s own

capabilities and direct interests. Cini, for instance, discusses successful offline student activism in contemporary Italian universities. By doing this, he studies mobilizations within institutions by assessing the strategies Italian student activists adopt in order to influence the revision process of the governance structure (Cini 337). In this section, literature about the interaction between offline and online forms of activism will be discussed by linking the use of digital networks to the offline potential of activist networks, and vice versa.

Alberto Simões and Campos explain that the contemporary protest takes place in a hybrid space nowadays; the Internet and the street are interconnected in various ways (135). However, a range of scholars has approached the role of digital networks differently: “An optimistic

perspective tends to emphasize its democratizing and emancipating role. A critical perspective calls into question the capability of the Internet and digital technologies to generate more participation” (Alberto Simões & Campos 135). Especially the role of digital networks in political activities is more complex when its used for several interests and causes: digital

technology can allow communication and the distribution of content and therefore serve as tool, while they can also become the cause of contestation (Alberto Simões & Campos 135). In this way, Alberto Simões and Campos explain; there exist movements for which “the use of such technological resources is relatively secondary as they develop activities mainly offline, as well

(26)

as movements for which the use of these resources plays a crucial role, where the “virtual” space constitutes an important territory for exercising activism” (135).

Diani strengthens these observations by linking digital technology to the concept of collective action within activist networks; he states that technology contributes differently to different types of collective action (473). He believes that technology can support the growth of coalitions among actors in social movements. However, it is “more doubtful whether it can create from scratch the longer-term solidarities that are an essential component of sustained collective action in the form of social movements” (Diani 473). Especially nations that lack a stable democracy and therefore strong interorganizational ties, such as Tunisia and Egypt in the aforementioned examples, cannot solely rely on the capacity of organisations to secure

continuity to collective action, states Diani (373). In other words, they cannot “operate as a substitute for the ties created by associations and social groups” (Diani 473). Diani’s work suggests that Undivided does have the capacity to retain continuity to collective action by building and maintaining a strong collective identity between young people in the UK.

Following the methodology in the next chapter, the results will discuss how they operated offline and how they used Facebook in a complementing way, in order to constitute and preserve that collective identity. Thus, the previously discussed ideas and concepts about movements and groups and the role of social media therein, will help to contextualize and embed the results of the semi-structured interview and social media content analysis. In this way, it will become evident from which background Undivided operated, what kind of organizational forms they maintain and how that determined their use of the available online and offline resources.

(27)

3. Methodology

3.1. The case study

On the 23rd of June in 2016, Britain voted for Brexit, which means that the UK would no longer be part of the EU (Hunt & Wheeler n.pag.). The voting records represented a society that was experiencing political crisis and division. For this reason, a campaign called Undivided was founded in the wake of the EU Referendum. The campaign attempted to unite youngsters through several online and offline activities, in which they simultaneously recruited their demands in the ongoing Brexit negotiations. In carrying out these activities, they attempted to radiate and establish a collective identity. For this reason, the research attempts to explore what kind of activist network they are, as this helps contextualizing their activities. Factors such as the background of the team members of Undivided, funds or any other kind of convenience in carrying out their activities, contribute to contextualizing the campaign and therefore answering the research question. The circumstances Undivided is situated in, is unique in the current political situation and thus exclusive as case study; rather than projects, as the ones discussed in the introduction, that are not dependent on youngsters’ willingness to overcome their political preference for the greater good, Undivided does ask this from young people. Undivided and their attempt in radiating and establishing a collective identity would only succeed if youngsters were driven enough to participate, which comes back to the core of activist networks.

3.2. Overall approach

In what follows next, the overall methodological approach of the research will be discussed. As the last section of the literature review explains; online and offline networks are entangled within activist networks. In order to indicate and relate the online and offline activities of Undivided therein, it is necessary to approach the object of study in distinctive ways. By doing this, the research can determine what kind of group or movement Undivided represents and in what ways Undivided attempts to develop a collective identity. In other words, by looking at the style of communication adopted by Undivided, the research can make statements about the kind of activist network they represent and how they attempt to generate a collective identity by means

(28)

of their reciprocating offline activities and manifestation on social media channels. The approaches this research applies in order to retrieve the required data, consist of a

semi-structured interview with one of Undivided’s members, as well as a social media content analysis of Undivided’s Facebook posts and deriving user activity.

3.3. Looking into Undivided’s offline activities by means of a semi-structured interview

The first method that will be applied to obtain the required data is a semi-structured interview with one of Undivided’s members, who will be referred to as ‘the interviewee’. “In a typical semi-structured interview the researcher has a list of questions or series of topics they want to cover in the interview, an interview guide [...], but there is flexibility in how and when the questions are put and how the interviewee can respond,” state Edwards and Holland (29). This specific form of interviewing thus enables interviewees to answer the questions on their own terms, while they stick to a fluid and flexible structure (Edwards & Holland 29). Through carrying out this method, unique and valuable insights were revealed regarding how the campaign came into existence through their pre-existing networks, alliances and the accompanying offline activities. Through these insights, the interview gave clarity on Undivided’s beliefs and goals, and how these inspired them to start the campaign.

The first question that was posed to the interviewee was an enquiry into the origins of Undivided, with a focus on how they initially came up with the campaign. The next question built on the previous one by asking about the alliances of the team and the pre-existing networks between them, which also shed light on their offline activities. Finally, the interview turned to a broader context, with the question: “When we look at Trump's presidential campaign and Brexit it becomes apparent that politics and people's voting behaviour have changed, how does

Undivided manage to bring these present divisions between people together into one voice? In other words, how is the collective identity created?” Subsequently, the focus switched to their use and the affordances of social media within this context, and revealed the approach and particular strategy in the choice of words and (visual) content they applied. An overview of the interview questions can be found in the Appendix, while the results of the interview are weaved into the next chapter.

(29)

The next section discusses their online activity on Facebook through a social media content analysis of posts and user activity, which will ultimately be linked to the results of the interview and vice versa.

3.4. A social media content analysis of Facebook posts and user activity

The second method used for the research was a social media content analysis of Undivided’s posts and resulting user activity. Through this analysis, it was possible to explore how they specifically used Facebook to develop or strengthen a sense of collective identity. This method was carried out by means of the Netvizz tool, utilising the ‘page data’ option within the tool. The research method was therefore in accordance with the digital methods principles, on account of the reuse of this data for social research (Rogers 77). By extracting the data with the Netvizz tool, it was possible to examine it in standard file formats. Therefore, the Facebook data was qualitatively analyzed in order to thoroughly examine the process of creating a collective identity (Rieder 346).

The research focused purely on Facebook data, despite the fact Undivided also has a presence on other social media platforms such as Twitter. This was because it was revealed in the interview stage that the campaign invested all of its time and money into this platform alone. Other platforms, such as Twitter, serve only as an organic medium. Moreover, users in general seemed to take more advantage of the rich variety of engagement options available by Facebook compared to other platforms. Therefore, the social media content analysis discussion takes into account all interactive options available on Facebook, such as ‘likes’ and ‘shares’, thus

considering the specificity of the medium.

So in analysing the content, the following Facebook data was imported through Netvizz: the amount and types of posts, likes, reactions, comments and shares per day. Additionally, more in-depth data was collected, such as the number of likes for each comment and the amount of engagement that was generated overall. Moreover, further consideration was taken regarding the way Facebook enables users to like and react to posts and comments by means of different symbols: using the ‘Like’, ‘Love’, ‘Haha’, ’Wow’, ‘Sad’ and ‘Angry’ emoji (see Image 1). In other words, users are able to react in the form of a symbol both to a post and a comment.

(30)

Furthermore, the Netvizz tool includes these symbols as well as the written reactions to comments in the overall amount of reactions.

Image 1: The different reactions in the form of symbols on Facebook.

Users thus have the ability to engage with each other through a variety of ways. In analysing this, the research is therefore able to make more informed statements on the influence of posts on different kinds of user activity.

Taking these into account is furthermore important because social media buttons allow users to express their emotional feelings individually while also joining in the collective process of participating in a political discussion. The social media managers are important in this respect as well, since they can use the affordances of the platform by sharing content, in order to

stimulate user activity and therefore the generation of a potential collective identity. By means of both the semi-structured interview and the social media content analysis, the role of the social media managers in creating the shape of the cultural space can be explored. This was done by means of collecting specific data on 16th April 2018. Overall, the amount of imported data consisted of all the shared data that spanned a total of 504 days, starting from 14th September 2016 until 30th January 2018. Within these days, there exist 154 posts consisting of links, photos and videos and the derived user activity. As well as this, there were 1505 so-called ‘top

comments’ extracted that attracted more engagement than average comments.

The next chapter will select meaningful samples of the extracted data. In doing this, the results of the semi-structured interview and social media content analysis will be imbedded and contextualized in the previously discussed work on movements and groups while discussing their attempts in creating a collective identity.

(31)

4. Results

4.1. How Undivided started from the very beginning

The ‘About’ section of the Undivided website states: “We are a group of 30 young people from different backgrounds who came together in the wake of the EU Referendum. Between us, we voted Remain, Leave or didn’t vote at all (some of us are under 18!)” (“About” n.pag.). While this sheds some light on who Undivided are, the question of how these individuals came together to create the campaign is still unclear.

Based on the previously discussed work in the literature review, one could argue that it could merely be the result of their pre-existing networks and alliances; as people who share the same interests or goals are often impelled to come together to form a unit stronger than the sum of its parts. This observation became apparent in the previously discussed work on activist networks, such as single-issue movements, social movements, political movements, interest groups, pressure groups and advocacy groups. In several cases, these activist networks were able to form an actual movement or group because of collectives or organisations that established a solid mobilizing foundation for them. Thus, this highlights that platforms themselves do not necessarily mobilize people who connect online to form a movement or group (Bennett & Segerberg 749). In transforming a collective identity into collective action, collectives or

organisations that are willing to unite people and bridge the gap between their different ideas can have a key role in this, explain Bennett and Segerberg (749). The previously discussed literature shows that this has been the case in different examples, both online and offline. Castells wrote about youth driven networked social movements that were initiated by collectives, like the group of Mexican students that decided to upload videos after different channels criticized their

physical performance of protest at their university. In these videos, they stated their names and showed their student cards as an improved act of protest (241). These videos went viral, which mobilized other users, and a movement of support for the students was born (Castells 241). Another example is the activist organization Scholarism, which was founded by Joshua Wong. This organization brought the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong to life. The activist

(32)

of the Government Offices complex in Hong Kong, which triggered the whole subsequent movement both online and offline (Wong n.pag.). Through these examples, it becomes evident that these movements arose because of collectives or organisations that mobilized other people to do so. In other words, people that shared the same pre-existing network felt the need to perform acts of protest, which subsequently mobilized others who related to these acts. For this reason, the interviewee was asked what the pre-existing networks and alliances of the team members of Undivided were, in order to see which offline activities made them gather in the wake of the referendum.

In response to this question, the interviewee first explained that the campaign began as a result of an ‘emergency roundtable’ meeting composed of a number of youth sector

organisations, called as a result of the referendum. The youth sector organisations present were Livity, Generation Change, British Youth Council and Bite the Ballot. Few of those who attended the meeting were themselves young people - most were CEOs in the youth sector. The consensus between these attendees was that the voice of the nation’s younger population was largely neglected when considering the debate around the vote, which might potentially lead to detrimental implications for young people. The result of this discussion was a shared motivation to support young people by collecting and voicing their opinions nationwide. Two organisations in particular, Livity and Generation Change, were committed to actualising this goal. They began this in the form of a so-called hackathon. They assisted and encouraged young people to arrange a three day event where groups would come together to pose their ideal ‘plan of action’ in response to the referendum. Ultimately, these were the people that formed Undivided’s team. The interviewee explained that the backgrounds of the people that were involved were mixed. Some were active campaigners and belonged to substantial activist networks in London. One of the co-leaders, for example; is prominent in party politics as a local councillor in Stoke on Trent. Others were getting involved in activism for the first time, but had other backgrounds such as experience in communications, or experience in political writing. Still, others were entirely new to the whole field, but were inspired by the referendum to get involved.

Over a hundred young peoplesubsequently attended the event. Many of those involved collaboratively setup social media channels, the brand, the name, and idea to crowdsource UK

Creating a Collective Identity through Facebook in Times of Political Crisis and Division