Digital Transnational Dissidence and State Control: A Conceptual Reflection on the Practice and Limits of Digital Transnationalism

Abstract

The historical practice of citizen participation in politics was confined to elections, yet in the digital era, increasing digitalisation in everyday life has opened windows of opportunities for alternative civilian participation in the political processes, oppositionary activities being foremost among them. Individual or collective opposition parties thus today also confidently carry out political activities against governmental politics through cyber and digital spaces, and thanks to digital advances, oppositionary political participation can no longer be confined to national borders. Hence, in forms of digital transnationalism and transnational dissidence, irrespective of the connection of the articulator to the target country, people around the world criticise governmental politics and shape public perceptions in one country from abroad. Nevertheless, governments, as well, make use of digital space in taking part in transnational practices in both shaping domestic and international public opinion and challenging overseas or domestic dissident digital transnationalism with an aim to increase its control over the narrative of its politics. This paper elaborates on this paradoxical relationship – the nexus of digital transnationalism, transnational opposition and state control. The paper examines how and why cyberspace turns into a domain for transnational political opposition and, in a related way, examines state endeavours to regulate and govern digital areas as a means of overseeing the digital transnationalism of (trans)local and transnational dissidence groups. Particularly with reference to the latter, the paper deliberates on the limits of digital transnationalism against state control.

Keywords

• digital transnationalism
• transnational dissidence
• state control

References

1. Al-Rawi, A., & S. Fahmy (2018). Social media use in the diaspora: the case of Syrians in Italy. Diaspora and media in europe migration, identity, and integration. K. H. Karim, & A. Al-Rawi (Eds.), (pp. 71-96). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
2. Alinejad D., & S. Ponzanesi (2020). Migrancy and digital mediations of emotion. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 23(5):621 - 638. Retrieved from doi:10.1177/1367877920933649. google scholar
3. Andersson, K. B. (2019). Digital diasporas: an overview of the research areas of migration and new media through a narrative literatüre review. Human Technology. 15(2): 142 - 180. google scholar
4. Archibugi, D., & D. Held (1995). Cosmopolitan democracy, an agenda for a new world order. Oxford: Polity Press. google scholar
5. Baer, H (2016). Redoing feminism: digital activism, body politics, and neoliberalism. Feminist Media Studies. 16(1): 17-34. google scholar
6. Barrow, C. W. (2005). The return of the state: globalization, state theory, and the new imperialism. New Political Science. 27(2): 123-145. google scholar
7. Basch et al., (1994). Nations unbound- transnational projects, postcolonial predicaments, and deterritorialized nation-states. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Publishers. google scholar
8. Bauman, Z (2007). Liquid times: living in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. google scholar

9. Bayne, S. & J. Ross (2011). ‘Digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’ discourses: a critique. Digital difference. R. Land, &S. Bayne (Eds.) Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense, pp. 159-169. google scholar
10. Bayne, S., &J. Ross (2007). The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: a dangerous opposition. Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE). 20. google scholar
11. Beck, U., & E. Grande (2010). Varieties of second modernity: the cosmopolitan turn in social and political theory and research. The British Journal of Sociology. 61(3): 409-443. google scholar
12. Beck, U., & N. Sznaider (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: a research agenda. The British Journal of Sociology. 57(1): 1-23. google scholar
13. Beck, U. (2008). Mobility and the cosmopolitan perspective. In Tracing Mobilities: towards a Cosmopolitan Perspective. Canzler et al. (Eds.), (pp. 25-36). Hampshire, USA: Ashgate Press. google scholar
14. Beck, U. (2000). The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity. The British Journal of Sociology. 51(1): 79-105. google scholar
15. Bennett, L. (2004). Global media and politics: transnational communication regimes and civic cultures. Annual Review of Political Science. 7: 125-148. google scholar
16. Broughton, L. (2011). Crossing borders virtual and real: a transnational internet-based community of spaghetti western fans finally meet each other face to face on the wild plains of Almeria, Spain. Language and Intercultural Communication. 11(4): 304-318. google scholar
17. Chen, J. (2016). The Chinese political dissidents in exile: struggle for a sustainable and relevant movement. Open Journal of Political Science. 6(1): 53-66. google scholar
18. Cheong, N. (2020) Disinformation as a response to the “opposition playground” in Malaysia. From grassroots activism to disinformation. A. Sinpeng & R. Tapsell (Eds.), (pp. 63-85). ISEAS Publishing. google scholar
19. Chin, K. S., & D. Smith (2015). A reconceptualization of state transnationalism: South Korea as an illustrative case. Global Networks. 15(1): 78-98. google scholar
20. Christensen, M. (2013). TransNational media flows: some key questions and debates. International Journal of Communication. 7: 2400-2418. google scholar
21. Ciszek, E. L. (2016). Digital activism: how social media and dissensus inform theory and practice. Public Relations Review. 42(2): 314-321. google scholar
22. Coddington, M. et al. (2014). Fact checking the campaign: how political reporters use twitter to set the record straight (or not). The International Journal of Press/Politics. 19(4): 391-409. google scholar
23. Dekker, R., & G. Engbersen (2013). How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate migration. Global Networks. 14(4): 401-418. google scholar
24. Delanty, G. (2009). The cosmopolitan imagination: the renewal of critical social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
25. Delwaide, J. (2011) The return of the state?. European Review. 19(1): 69-91. google scholar
26. Digital 2020 Global Overview Report. (2020). Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/digital-2020. google scholar
27. Gainous, J., K. M. Wagner, & C. E. Ziegler (2018). Digital media and political opposition in authoritarian systems: Russia’s 2011 and 2016 Duma elections. Democratization. 25(2): 209-226. google scholar
28. Gao, X. (2020). State-society relations in China’s state-led digitalisation: progress and prospects. The China Review. 20(3): 2-3. google scholar
29. Giglou, R. I. et al. (2018). Social media responses of the Turkish diaspora to protests in Turkey: the impact of Gezi on attitude and behavioural change. In Diaspora and media in europe migration, identity, and integration, K. H. Karim, & A. Al-Rawi (Eds.), (pp. 97-125). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
30. Gomes, C. (2018). Siloed diversity - transnational migration, digital media and social networks. London, UK: Palgrave. google scholar
31. Graves, L., & F. Cherubini (2016). The rise of fact-checking sites in Europe. Reuters institute digital news report (Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism), Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox. ac.uk/our-research/rise-fact-checking-sites-europe. google scholar
32. Howard, P. N. et al. (2011). Opening closed regimes: what was the role of social media during the Arab Spring?. SSRN, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2595096. google scholar
33. Jauhiainen, J. S., S. Özçürümez, & Ö. Tursun (2021). Internet and social media uses, digital divides, and digitally mediated transnationalism in forced migration: Syrians in Turkey. Global Networks Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1111/glob.12339. google scholar
34. Kaun, A., & J. Uldam (2018). Digital activism: after the hype. New Media & Society. 20(6): 2099-2106. google scholar
35. Keating, A.,& G. Melis (2017). Social media and youth political engagement: preaching to the converted or providing a new voice for youth?. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 19(4): 877-894. google scholar
36. Kendzior, S. (2011). Digital distrust: Uzbek cynicism and solidarity in the internet age. American Ethnologist American Ethnologist. 38(3): 559-575. google scholar
37. Kraetzschmar, H. (2011). Mapping opposition cooperation in the Arab world: from single-issue coalitions to transnational networks. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 38(3): 287-302. google scholar
38. Lewandowsky, S. et al. (2017). Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 6(4): 353-369. google scholar
39. Lu, S. J., & X. Liu (2018). The nation-state in the digital age: a contextual analysis in 33 countries. International Journal of Communication. 12: 110-130. google scholar
40. Mainwaring, S. (2020) Always in control? Sovereign states in cyberspace. European Journal of International Security. 5(2): 215-232. google scholar
41. Major, A. (2013). Transnational state formation and the global politics of austerity. Sociological Theory. 31(1): 24-48. google scholar
42. Malcomson, S. L. (1998). The varieties of cosmopolitan experience. Cosmopolitics: thinking and feeling beyond the nation, P. Cheah, & B. Robbins (Eds.), (pp. 233-245). Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press. google scholar
43. Margheritis, A. (2007). State-led transnationalism and migration: reaching out to the Argentine community in Spain. Global Networks. 7(1): 87-106 google scholar
44. Michaelsen, M. (2020). Special report 2020: the digital transnational repression toolkit, and its silencing effects. google scholar
45. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/digital-transnational-repression-toolkit-and-its-silencing-effects. google scholar
46. Michaelsen, M. (2018). Exit and voice in a digital age: Iran’s exiled activists and the authoritarian state. Globalizations. 15(2): 248-264. google scholar
47. Moyakine, E., & A. T. (2021). Struggling to strike the right balance between interests at stake: the ‘yarovaya’, ‘fake news’ and ‘disrespect’ laws as examples of ill-conceived legislation in the age of modern technology. Computer Law & Security Review. 40(April): 1-13. google scholar
48. Mutsvairo, B. (2016). Dovetailing desires for democracy with new icts’ potentiality as platform for activism. In Digital activism in the social media era critical reflections on emerging trends in Sub-saharan Africa. B. Mutsvairo (Eds.), (pp. 3-23). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
49. Nitsche, L. (2020). Digital authoritarianism on the rise?. Deutsche welle akademie, Retrieved from https://www. dw.com/en/digital-authoritarianism-on-the-rise/a-53445949. google scholar
50. 0degârd, G., & F. Berglund (2008). Opposition and integration in Norwegian youth networks: the significance of social and political resources, 1992—2002. Acta Sociologica. 51(4): 275-291. google scholar
51. Pearce, K. (2014). Two can play at the game: social media opportunities in Azerbaijan for government and opposition. Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization. 22(1): 39-66. google scholar
52. Plaza, D., & A. Below (2014). Social media as a tool for transnational caregiving within the Caribbean diaspora. Social and Economic Studies. 63(1): 25-56. google scholar
53. Ponzanesi, S. (2020). Digital diasporas: postcoloniality, media and affect. Interventions. 22(8): 977-993. google scholar
54. Qiang, X. (2019). The road to digital unfreedom: President Xi’s surveillance state. Journal of Democracy. 30(1): 53-67. google scholar
55. Rabinow, P. (1986). Representations are social facts: modernity and post-modernity in anthropology. In Writing culture: the poetics andpolitics of ethnography. J. Clifford, & G. Marcus (Eds.), (pp. 194 - 232). Berkeley, USA: University of California Press. google scholar
56. Radsch, C. (2013). Digital dissidence & political change: cyberactivism and citizen journalism in Egypt. Doctoral Dissertation, American University, School ofInternational Service. google scholar
57. Segerberg, A., & L. Bennett (2011). Social media and the organization of collective action: using twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review. 14(3): 197-215. google scholar
58. Seo, H. et al. (2009). Global activism and new media: a study of transnational ngos’ online public relations. Public Relations Review. 35(2): 123-126. google scholar
59. Shaw, M. (1997). The state of globalization: towards a theory of state transformation. Review of International Political Economy Review ofInternational Political Economy. 4(3): 497-513. google scholar
60. Shields, P. (2014). Borders as information flows and transnational networks. Global Media and Communication. 10(1): 3-33. google scholar
61. Song H. et al. (2020). Social media news use and political cynicism: differential pathways through “news finds me” perception. Mass Communication and Society. 23(1): 47-70. google scholar
62. Sreberny, A. (2015). Women’s digital activism in a changing middle east. International Journal of Middle East Studies. 47(2): 357-361. google scholar
63. Starikov, V. S. et al. (2018). Transnationalism online: exploring migration processes with large data sets. Monitoring ofPublic Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 26(5): 213-232. google scholar
64. Sumiala, J., & L. Korpiola (2017). Mediated Muslim martyrdom: rethinking digital solidarity in the “Arab Spring”. New Media & Society. 19(1): 52-66. google scholar
65. Tabak, H. (2016). Metodolojik ulusçuluk ve Türkiye’de dış politika çalışmaları. Uluslararası İlişkiler/International Relations. 13(51): 21-39. google scholar
66. Tabak, H. (2020a). Transnational kemalism—power, hegemony, and dissidence. Bustan: The Middle East Book Review. 11(2): 145-155. google scholar
67. Tabak, H. (2020b). Transnationality, foreign policy research and the cosmopolitan alternative: on the practice of domestic global politics. A Transnational Account of Turkish Foreign Policy. H. Pabuççular and D. Kuru (Eds.), (pp. 41-68), London, UK: Palgrave. google scholar
68. Tabak H., Erdoğan S., & Doğan M. (2022). Fragmented local normative orders, unresolved localisations, and the making of contestant gender equality norms in Turkey. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies. 28(1). google scholar
69. Tabak, H., & Doğan, M. (2022). Global gender equality norm and trade unions in Turkey: local contestations, rival validations, and discrepant receptions. SIYASAL: Journal of Political Sciences, 31(1): 53-72. Retrieved from doi:10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.947376 google scholar
70. Tedeschi, M. et al. (2020). Transnationalism: current debates and new perspectives. GeoJournal. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10271-8. google scholar
71. The international fact-checking network (2015). Florida, USA: Poynter Institute Retrieved from https://www. poynter.org/ifcn/. google scholar
72. Ustun, Z. (2021). Cartographies of digital dissidence: networked movements, internet laws, and internet ungovernance forums in Turkey and Brazil. First Monday. 26(7). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5210/fm. v26i7.11060 google scholar
73. Varea, R. R. et al. (2018). Digital diaspora, reinvigorating indigenous identity and online activism: social media and the reorientation of rotuman identity. Media International Australia. 169(1): 32-42. google scholar
74. Waisbord, S. (2018). The elective affinity between post-truth communication and populist politics. Communication Research and Practice. 4(1): 17-34. google scholar
75. Wimmer, A., & N. G. Schiller (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks. 2(4): 301-334. google scholar
76. World internet development report 2017 (2019). P. Ping (Tr.), Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies (Eds.). Berlin, Germany: Springer. google scholar