Skip to content

Digital ethnography and the global information crisis: theories, methods, publics

January 25, 2014

John Postill
Digital Ethnography Research Centre
RMIT Melbourne, Australia

Presentation notes, incl. Q&A
Oxford Digital Ethnography group (OxDEG)
Oxford Internet Institute (OII)
University of Oxford
22 Jan 2014

Many thanks to Shireen Walton and the rest of the Oxford Digital Ethnography group for the invitation. It’s great to be here for your first meeting of the term.

After I corresponded with Shireen over email about the focus of this talk, I couldn’t quite decide whether to focus on my experience with digital ethnography theories, methods or publics. So I’ve decided to do all three, and connect them to an idea that’s been on my mind for a while, namely that over the past few years we have entered a global information crisis.

A global crisis and us

Thomas H. Eriksen: The three crises of globalisation: An anthropological history of the early 21st century. The period examined by the project, the present era, begins

with the discontinuities of 1989–91 – the coming of the Internet and mobile phones, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the end of the Cold War and the end of apartheid; and the project amounts to a globally comparative investigation of the converging crises of the 21st century – finance/economy, climate/environment, culture/identity – as perceived from local vantage points.

I would add a fourth converging crisis: a global information crisis tied precisely to ‘the coming of the Internet and mobile phones’. A protracted struggle over future governance of internet pitting ‘information activists’ against powerful govs and corps (Brooke 2011).

I became acutely aware of this crisis in November 2010. A month earlier, in Barcelona, I had met the Icelandic information activist Smari McCarthy at the Free Culture Forum, an international gathering of people interested in digital freedom issues, where we talked briefly about how all systems – including political systems – can be hacked, i.e. changed. We also talked  about the anthropological aversion to notions such as structure or system and our post-structuralist preference for the notion of practices – which I find problematic (Postill 2010).

What I didn’t know at the time was McCarthy’s involvement in Icelandic techno-politics along with fellow Icelanders from the Modern Media Initiative (MMI) as well as the leaders of Wikileaks, led to changes in the country’s media legislation.

Then in Nov 2010 US State Dept cables released by Wikileaks with mainstream media partners (Guardian, NYT, El Pais, Le Monde) had impact around the world, including Tunisia and Egypt. When Paypal, Mastercard, etc. stopped donations to Wikileaks under US gov pressure, Anonymous launched DDOS attacks against them. Anonymous also got involved in nascent Arab uprisings.

In Spain, where I was doing fieldwork at the time, State Dept leaks confirmed information activists’ suspicions that the US embassy in Madrid had practically drafted the new proposed anti-digital piracy bill, Ley Sinde. When the Spanish gov went ahead and passed the bill despite a massive online mobilisation, in early 2011 leading Spanish netizens created NoLesVotes – don’t vote for them – which joined forces with other platforms to organise 15 May 2011 marches across the country, followed by  month-long square occupations. This was the birth of the indignados (15M) movement.

In turn, 15M had a direct input on the creation of Occupy Wall Street movement Sep that year, which then became the global Occupy movement Oct 2011.

Boomerang effect: US gov reaction to the leaks in 2010 eventually came back home to America the following year through a wave of protests against the political class and the 1%.

More recently Snowden and Guardian NSA revelations.

But global information crisis reaches far wider and deeper than the work of famous hackers and whistleblowers. It is also inside highered, in academia. Take the case of the late Aaron Swartz (MIT), who committed suicide when faced with the very real possibility of a jail term for downloading millions of academic documents. As the Leaksource website put it:

“…Aaron sought to liberate millions of JSTOR documents from their vaults into the archives of the internet as a product of Open Access. […] Aaron was seeking a new age of enlightenment through Open Access. Simply put, Aaron wanted as we all do, Freedom of Information.”

Or think about the so-called ‘Academic Spring’ around boycotting the publishing house Elsevier, or more recently the successful pressure from Elsevier on to take down copyrighted articles.

Open/free culture movement no longer of geeks and other computer nerds. The mainstreaming of nerd politics reaches the whole of academia, not just those fields more closely concerned with issues of internet freedom, open access, and so on.

Whether we like it or not, we digital ethnographers are in the thick of it – the thick of the global information crisis. What can we digital ethnographers contribute towards resolving this complex, multi-faceted crisis? Three things, in my view: theories, methods and publics.

I will discuss them briefly on the basis of my own experience, but I look forward to hearing about your own experiences and reflections, both individual and collective, as an emergent digital ethnography group.


My digital ethnography strategy since around 2002 has been the classic Manchester School of Anthropology strategy of ‘following the action’ (or the conflict), starting in suburban Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) in 2003-2009 and more recently in Barcelona (Catalonia/Spain) since 2010 – and now I’m about to resume this line of work in urban Indonesia.

Ground-up theorising post-fieldwork rather than arriving with a theoretical framework (Postill 2012), to the incomprehension of colleagues in other fields, e.g. Nordic PhD political science candidate I met in Malaysia shocked about my loose handling of the concept and theory of ‘governance’.

-       What d’you mean you haven’t got a definition of governance? How can you study something you haven’t theorised beforehand?

-       Erm, I don’t know, it’s just a term that some people use here, especially government technocrats. I’m trying to get the local perspective, ideas and issues that matter to my research participants.

Of course, when you enter a field site you simultaneously enter a specialist literature, in my case Internet Studies as it was back in 2003. Every field has its paradigmatic theories and metaphors. Internet Studies is no exception: community (esp. online or virtual community) and network (esp. network society, social networks) were then – and still are – some of its preferred metaphors (Postill 2012).

Although I went to Subang Jaya – a middle-class suburb of KL, in Malaysia – to study e-government, by ‘following the conflict’ I ended up focussing on local forms of internet activism.

Back in the UK, on my first attempt at theorising suburban internet politics I fell right into the community/network trap. I managed to get out of the hole through conceptual work on notions such as field of residential affairs, internet drama, field arena, field station, etc. This led to theory of internet localisation – in some ways the internet becoming ‘more local’ (Postill 2011).

Have developed this further in Spanish work on indignados/15M, now adding other working concepts such as techno-politics of citizenship, mainstreaming of nerd politics, viral reality, media epidemiography, working the algorithm, and other notions, as well as from other authors such as Chadwick’s (2013) ‘hybrid media system’.

Through very different routes (US sociology in America vs. UK social anthropology in M’sia and Spain) Fligstein/McAdam (2012) and I have ended up with similar theories of the field of action, see their Theory of Fields, FSA (fields of strategic action): challengers vs. incumbents, internal governance units, external shocks, inter-field dynamics…

At the moment I’m trying to scale up my internet politics theory to national and global level. What would happened if we regarded  the global information crisis as an FSA with information field incumbents (US-UK intelligence, China gov, giant corps like Google, FB) fending off individual and collective challengers like Assange, Snowden, the Guardian, the P2P Foundation, Spain’s 15M movement, with the rest of us not quite knowing what to make of it – or do about it.


Elsewhere I have written about various methodological aspects of my research, it’s all on my blog and Academia page, free of charge, e.g. article with Sarah Pink on social media ethnography, or article in press on what I call media epidemiography, i.e. the ethnographic study of digital virality (incl. viral epidemics), or forthcoming book chapter on the multilinear temporality of protest (events, trends, routines, see Sewell 2005).

Here I’d like to explore the question of ‘being there’. Being there is a sine qua non of ethnographic research since Malinowski’s fieldwork revolution (Geertz 1988). But what does it mean today, in 2014, with the huge range of digital media options available to ethnographers – especially for those working among the urban Technorati in places like Barcelona?

In digital/media anthropology we are fond of telling ourselves a tale of methodological progress. Once upon a time we lived in the bad old days of cyberspace (as a realm apart from ‘real life’). Luckily with  the new millennium it dawned on us that the internet is not apart from but rather a part of everyday life – a moment captured by Miller and Slater’s 2000 book The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. This appeared to put paid to the idea, once and for all, that it makes any sense to separate the online from the offline. We now knew, or so we thought, the two are inextricably entwined.

Alas a few years later, Tom Boellstorff came along to unsettle this consensus by doing an ethnographic study entirely online, Coming of Age in Second Life (2008). Boellstorff demonstrated that it is in fact possible to ‘be there’ ethnographically, among residents of a virtual place, aka avatars. Of course, not all of us must or wish to conduct all our fieldwork online, but this anthropologist demonstrated that it is possible to do so.

This is all very well, but we are still left with the problem of how to move on from our perpetual fixation with the online vs. offline binary. Here I’d like to suggest that we do so but looking more closely at what we mean today, in 2014, by ‘being there’, in the field.

But of course, partly thanks to digital technologies, we now know there are many ways of being there, in the field, including:

  1. Co-presently, physically
  2. Remotely, e.g. via streaming, Skype, Twitter, TV (live or archived) – we need to reinstate the old 20th century notion of tele-communication, tele-presence, telematics, etc.
  3. Virtually, i.e. via a ‘third place’ e.g. via listserv, web forum, Second Life, Facebook thread (live or archived)
  4. Imaginately, e.g. via recollections on blog, social media (live or archived)

All these different modes of presence/absence entail a trade-off, and I suspect most of us switch and mix among these modalities in the course of our ethnographic research – often without even reflecting on it, for we’re getting on with the business of doing the research. In other words, this mixing and switching in our ways of being there has become almost fully naturalised.

We need to leave behind the assumption that unmediated physical co-presence is inherently superior to other forms of being there. In fact, sometimes we learn more from the comfort of your home thousands of miles away than if you had been there, e.g. redada meeting in Spain I followed via streaming and Twitter from the UK.

During my Malaysian fieldwork I sometimes had to ‘commute’ to the UK and I found that I could participate more actively in local life from there – via the local web forum – than when I was physically in Subang Jaya, where I was often too busy chasing my ‘key informants’ to be able to spend long hours online!

Last week during fieldwork in Barcelona, I was amazed once again at how much information I could find online about people I was about to interview or hang out with.

In my ethnographic work I seek to triangulate from a wide range of sources – both digital and analogue  – as I follow and reconstruct a techno-political process, e.g. the gestation and birth of the indignados movement in Spain, or the unfolding of a local protest in Malaysia.

There is a catch, however.  Digital ethnography is so rich an experience, and so enriching that like other knowledge workers we find it very difficult to switch off, esp. to go offline. Always temptation to catch up, look things up, ‘share’ stuff, self-promote… (Postill and Pink 2012)

To paraphrase Tony Blair, we must be tough on time, tough on the causes of time (wasting). In other words, we must reclaim our offline time.

I try to do so, with uneven success, through the little square method: blocking off whole chunks of time, wherever possible four hours in the morning, by drawing a little square on my non-digital diary (well OK now I do it on Google Calendar).

That’s me-time, offline time. To write. If I need to look something up, I look it up on my very own MWW (Mind Wide Web). Using a keyboard is OK, as long as you’re offline, but pen and paper is better (see Tim Ingold on writing by hand). Occasionally, though all too rarely, I even go off to a cabin in the middle of nowhere – a man-cave with no wifi – in order to write. If you can’t remember something you leave a blank, look it up later. We don’t need to have ready access to Google all the time.


Just as many of our research participants are now leaving an ever greater digital trail in their wake, so do we ethnographers. In our case, a research/public scholarship trail – the two activities becoming increasingly hard to tell apart.

My own public presence: mailing list, blog, Twitter, Facebook (see Postill forthcoming), nowadays (more on this platform shortly). Each with its own limits and possibilities for public scholarship.

Lately I have found that Twitter has got a lot more interesting in this regard, e.g. conversations about what to call people who love to mix their technology with their politics, about sociological theory (which led to the discovery for me of Fligstein and McAdam), about the meaning of digital activism, etc.

Many of us digital ethnographers are, I suspect, content hoarders. And we’re always convinced that there’s a technical fix just round the corner for all our hoarding needs. Some people swear by Mendeley, others love Delicious, still others are Evernoters. For me first it was the bibliographic software ProCite, back in the 1990s, then it was Mendeley (for a short while), then my blog, then Delicious, now

At the moment I’m struggling with archival tension between Scoop.It (public, self-promotion) and archiving PDFs in old-fashioned directory (private). Incredibly useful to carry a laptop full of PDFs to read and highlight as a new writing deadline approaches. No wifi required. On the other hand, is good as a public resource as well as putting your name out there as an expert in that topic. If introduced an automatic way of turning your bookmarked/Scooped pages onto PDFs, I would be sign up to it straight away.

The truth is there will never be a one-stop solution to our all too human scholarly urge to hoard stuff, in this day and age to hoard digital contents. People change, and so do technologies. Perhaps we should try to hoard less, be more selective? And worry less about losing that vital piece of information on which our entire career depends?


To recap: I have discussed the global information crisis and digital ethnography through examples from my own work on digital media and activism over the past 12 years or so.

Whether we like it or not, we digital ethnographers are in the thick of this crisis. For me there were two moments of realisation:

(a)  seeing the information activists in that TV documentary discussing Iceland’s ‘information famine’ and how Wikileaks got involved in national crisis, leading to new information freedom legislation.

(b)  joining a mass of highly diverse occupiers of Placa de Catalunya (Barcelona) having following the build-up to 15M marches through ethnographic research – with key role played by internet freedom fighters.

We digital ethnographers can contribute theories, methods and publics to the ongoing struggle over greater informational and democratic freedoms.

Theoretically, as digital ethnographers we can help to broaden the existing conceptual vocabulary, especially at the intersection of the social and the technological, so that we can move beyond the current reliance on a handful of favourite metaphors such as community, network or public sphere. For example, through plural socialities idea: the quality of social intercourse on a Twitter hashtag advocating digital freedom is different from that in a private offline meeting – the community/network pairing can be of little help here.

Methodologically, we can ‘follow the information conflict’ and its wider ramifications, incl. how they became entangled in broader struggles over democracy, accountability, corruption, etc, by ‘being there’ remotely or in person, live or after the fact, and then weave thick ethnographic accounts that pay attention to the multiple ways in which both us and our research participants made it there – to that particular field site.

Publicly, we can continue to co-create with colleagues, students, online journalists, information activists and other research participants new forms of public engagement across sites. The challenge, in my experience, is how to fight the tendency to hoard contents onto a single platform that we hope will solve all our problems with information dispersal.

But perhaps the biggest challenge, and we’re not alone here, is how to resist the urge to be constantly online. My conclusion is that that we should spend more time in our very own MindWideWeb (MWW), with the sole aid of pen and paper. Easier said than done, no doubt.

Thank you.


(Disclaimer – these notes may not be accurate, apologies for any errors)

1. How are  you defining ‘global information crisis’? Why not ‘information war’ (another term you used)?

Erm, I’m still working on this notion, early days. Partly to blame, as it were, is Thomas H. Eriksen’s model of the 3 global crises (economic, environmental, cultural) that I started with, adding that there is a fourth global crisis to consider, an information crisis that took global centre stage (for a while) in November 2010 with the release by Wikileaks and its partner media organisations (Guardian, NYT, El Pais, Le Monde, etc) of thousands of US State Dept diplomatic cables.

Besides, the notion of Information War (Brooke 2011), has too much of a hyperbolic, ‘cyberwar’ ring to it when in fact the phenomenon I’m referring to is more heterogeneous, ranging from Anonymous DDOS, to Wikileaks releases of cables, to the ‘academic spring’ over open access, etc. But I definitely need to think more about it.

[Post-seminar update: Perhaps it's worth asking who the parties are to the current international struggle over the future of digital information are by taking self-ascribed 'information activists' as our guides into this struggle. In my research so far I have found five fields to be particularly embroiled in these struggles: computing (hacking), law, journalism, intelligence and academia. Again, this is a work in progress].

2. How do we avoid in our ethnographic accounts conflating two different forms of access to field situations, namely archival (retrospective) and in real time (lived experience)?

As ethnographers we often weave into our accounts both forms, I don’t see this as being a big problem. That said, perhaps we should be more explicit in our methodological sections/chapters about these differences.

3.  I find screenshots to be a very useful way of stringing together a rapidly unfolding event (comment).

4.  You said we should move on from the offline vs. online binary but I still find it useful. For instance, my research participants in [country X] are very different online (on Facebook) and offline.

I may have been unclear when I talked about this question earlier. What I meant to say is that we need a richer set of concepts around this area, go beyond our excessive attention to the online vs. offline quandary. That’s why I introduced distinctions in the way ethnographers are ‘being there’ in the field: physically, remotely, virtually, imaginatively… (and in all cases either in real time or retrospectively, through recorded or archived digital materials).

5. The video clip you showed [about Wikileaks' intervention in Iceland's banking crisis, 2009] didn’t quite fit in with the idea of a global information crisis. The information was available. There was no ‘information famine’ [as claimed by an Icelandic activist]. Something else must have been going on, perhaps to do with trust/mental models…

Yes, that’s a very good point. A few months ago I started thinking about what information is already available online about ‘the 1%’ and there’s much more out there than one would think. It’s a matter of having the motivation and time to dig it up. The rich and powerful also use social and public media, they too leave a trail of information – and there is no shortage of leaks, either (Postill 2013).

[End of notes. NB there were more questions/comments, but it's late and I've run out of steam. Sorry. Many thanks to the seminar organisers and participants].













Two forthcoming talks in the UK

January 15, 2014

Next week I’ll be giving a couple of invited talks in England, namely:

21 Jan 2014. Hacker, lawyer, journalist, spy: the field dynamics of techno-political expertise in Spain’s new protest movement, 2010-2014. Launch of media anthropology group, Goldsmiths College, London. 5 pm. More information here.

23 Jan 2014. Digital ethnography and the global information crisis: theories, methods and publics. Oxford Digital Ethnography Group (OxDEG), University of Oxford, 4.30 pm. More information here.

Fligstein and McAdam on Strategic Action Fields

January 1, 2014

Originally posted on

The most recent issue of Sociological Theory features an article by Fligstein and McAdam entitled “Towards a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields.”  In this paper F & M, attempt a “grand” conceptual synthesis (and also attempt to draw a systematic outline of the empirical implications of) a series of recent trends towards the integration of organizational, institutional and social movement theories.  This is a place where the literature has been kind of awkwardly moving for a while now (e.g. Scheneiberg and Clemens 2006; Armstrong and Bernstein 2008; Rao 2008; Evans and Kay 2008; King and Pearce 2010), but which is finally given a measure of overall conceptual coherence in this piece.

The theoretical motor of the entire paper is very parsimonious version of field theory.  This is also a place where the literature had been awkwardly moving, with various people inventing and re-inventing a field…

View original 208 more words

Free media anthropology e-seminar on ‘Theorising media and change’

December 2, 2013

From this Thursday 5 Dec 2013 at 10 am (CET) the EASA* Media Anthropology Network will be holding an e-seminar on the theme of ‘Theorising media and change’ for a period of two weeks (until Thursday 19 Dec). This follows from a seminar and workshop we have just held at IN3/UOC in Barcelona on this same topic. As usual this session will take place via the Network’s mailing list.

This is how it will work. On Thursday morning I will open the session with a brief report on the Barcelona event – just a few paragraphs. I will then invite brief comments and questions from the listserv that draw from subscribers’ own research and/or interests so that we can get a conversation under way.

This event is open to anyone with a genuine interest in the anthropology of media. To participate, please join the Network’s mailing list with your real name.

John Postill
Network convener

* EASA = European Association of Social Anthropologists


Islam’s Got Talent: TV, performativity and the Muslim social imaginary

November 4, 2013

Bart Barendregt and Chris Hudson, “Islam’s Got Talent: Television, Performativity and the Muslim Social Imaginary”. Paper to the Consumption, Lifestyle and Asian Modernities Symposium, RMIT Melbourne, 4 – 6 November 2013.

Respondents: John Postill and Crystal Abidin

Response notes (J. Postill):

1. Mediating the local and the global

p.2 Aims of paper:

[A] To examine how Islamic performance in Malaysian TV idol formats ‘might constitute a space for understanding competing imaginaries’…

[B] … and ‘might create the capacity to imagine the engagement of the local with the global’

Empirical materials: p. 5 ‘Two cases where modern Islamic identities are performed in a mediated space’, i.e. (a) 2005, young man of humble origins who became likely but ‘unlikely’ Akademia Fantasia star, (b) 10 young men competing to become imams.

Theoretical inspiration:

  • Butler’s performativity theory (1993, 1999). Identity = a ‘performative accomplishment’ through the ‘stylised repetition of acts’ –> embodied Islamic practices e.g. praying, fasting, reciting. Identities are always fluid, flexible, blurred, changing. Performance = ‘an individual moment of theatricality’.
  • Taylor’s social imaginary –> Muslim social imaginary in Malaysia and rest of SE Asia. A shared imaginary ‘makes possible common practices’.
  • Appadurai’s imagination and constitution of selves.

2. Malay modernity and the social imaginary

Media plays an important role in creating modern Muslim social imaginary in Malaysia and elsewhere. Emergence of Malay middle classes not the same as secularisation; instead, Islamisation.

Ong: Malaysian peculiarity: combination of Islamic nationalism and modernity.

3. The real Idol?

Question is: How do these TV formats create modern Islamic selves and social imaginaries? How does the Butler concept of performance help us understand this process?

At first the idol format rejected by Islamists for its idolatry (long history in Islam [see Goody 1997]) and Western origin. But over time some enterprising, media savvy Muslims found ways of adapting it. Had own TV programmes, motivational books and other media materials – own ‘empires’.

4. From Felda to the world

2005, young man of humble origins who became likely but unlikely Akademia Fantasia star.

… whilst retaining pious rural boy image; but at centre of moral anxieties about genre, almost as if charged with upholding Muslim values; personal life intensely scrutinised, e.g. break-up with also pious girlfriend.

5. Becoming a young imam

10 young men competing to become imams.

One problem is that even though no ordained clergy in Islam, generally seen as too young to be religious leaders. This example shows possibilities and constraints of new format. Adapting Butler’s performance theory, these men are performing:

a. modernity (e.g. must be media savvy, cannot afford to ignore wishes of Muslim audiences).

b. normativity (as understood by UMNO-led government, e.g. don’t be a competitive competitor, OK to lose no need to be sad)

c. global (Malaysia positioned at the centre [and forefront?] of Muslim world).

6. Conclusion – competing imaginaries?

Let us not forget long history of Muslim entertainment going back in M’sia to 1961, international Quran recital competitions.

Things are changing, e.g. new TV stations closer to Islamists than to ruling UMNO party; or see PAS (Islamist party) sympathies of some contestants.

And what about non-Muslims in all of this?

Discussant’s questions and comments (J. Postill)

1. The paper’s main strengths:

- Very interesting, well chosen case studies of a global format and its appropriation/re-elaboration within a particular national context (Malaysia); they show how contestants have to navigate emergent cultural space riddled with contradictions, not least an idol format within a religion with strong iconoclastic past; genre that tries to appeal to audiences whilst not offending the various Malay Muslim constituencies across the gov/nongov divide.

- Especially interesting the emergence of new mediators or media savvy religious entrepreneurs; I was reminded of earlier work on new media in Muslim world (Eickelman and Anderson, see my book review), and more recently in a UK Christianity context paper on ‘Religious Digital Creatives’ (RDCs), i.e. ‘technology innovators and entrepreneurs whose development of online resources or social media for religious users grants them unique status within their religious communities’, see paper by Heidi A Campbell ‘Digital Creatives as New Cultural Authorities’ to AoIR conference, Salford (UK) in 2013.

2. How well accomplished aims, namely:

[A] To examine how Islamic performance in Malaysian TV idol formats ‘might constitute a space for understanding competing imaginaries’…

I’m not too clear about this. It seems to me that the materials presented suggest more hybridisation of imaginaries (esp. modern and Muslim) than competing imaginaries.

[B] … and ‘might create the capacity to imagine the engagement of the local with the global’

Not too clear here either, perhaps I don’t understand the formulation. Who’s doing the engaging? How? When? Why? Is ‘the local’ an agent that ‘engages’ with ‘the global’? The similar idea that performance is ‘the point where the local may imagine its relationship with the global’ is also hard to grasp.

3. What could be improved:

- Needs to have a main argument (thesis) spelled out as well as an explicit claim to originality – what twist does this paper add to existing theories of mediated identity, performance, modern religiosity?

- Relationship between social imaginaries and practices remains unclear, we get sense of practices as deriving from an abstract social imaginary; where does the imaginary reside? What is it, in fact?do they constitute one another? in what ways? how does that happen ‘in practice’ in the TV programmes studied?

- I am no expert, but hasn’t performance theory made any advances since Butler’s 1990s work? Any other theorists worth bringing in? What about authors’ own take on performance theory?

- We don’t learn much about the audiences, what they make of these formats? This could, of course, be a separate study, but some reference to audiences would strengthen the paper, at least to explain why not included in this particular paper.

4. Further questions and comments:

- Is identity really always fluid, changing, blurred? For instance, a Malay Muslim cannot choose to abandon the faith – he/she would be in a lot of trouble with the authorities. What’s the relation between the repetition of acts that leads to stabilised identities and this idea about their fluidity?

- Research upon this paper is based? Mostly online or on-the-ground as well, e.g. interviews, participant observation, etc?

- More context on recent history of Malaysia would help reader and analysis – struggle between UMNO and PAS, for instance, or how UMNO (Muslim component of ruling coalition since independence in 1957) learned to Islamise whilst struggling to keep more radical Muslim tendencies in check over the decades.

A critical history of internet activism and social protest in Malaysia, 1998-2011

November 2, 2013

Update 11 Feb 2014. Now published as:

Postill, J. 2014. A critical history of internet activism and social protest in Malaysia, 1998-2011. Asiascape: Digital Asia Journal 1-2: 78-103. Available at:


This article asks two related questions. First, to what extent has internet activism shaped social protest in Malaysia from the late 1990s to the present? Second, what can the history of internet activism and social protest in Malaysia tell us, if anything, about the 2011 global wave of protests? To address these questions I first compare Malaysia’s techno-political path with that of two very different ‘emerging economies’, South Korea and Brazil, in order to contextualise the subsequent discussion. I then distinguish three key moments in Malaysia’s eventful history of internet activism and social protest, namely the 1998-1999 reformasi movement, the electoral ‘tsunami’ of 2008 (in which the ruling coalition lost its two-thirds majority) and the Bersih 2.0 rallies of 2011. I argue that Bersih 2.0 is best explained as both the latest episode in a series of uniquely Malaysian techno-political events and as a local variant of the global wave of protests of 2011 – a wave in which techno-libertarians such as hackers, online journalists and technology lawyers, as well as ordinary citizens using social media, played an important part. The article ends with a summary and with suggestions for further research. [PDF]


new social movements, protest, internet activism, new media, social media, Malaysia, reformasi, Bersih 2.0, democratisation, Arab Spring, Occupy, indignados


Southeast Asia boasts a pioneering history of digital activism and mobilisation, including the use of mailing lists in 1989 to protest against the Tiananmen Square massacre, the reformist movements that ushered in democratic regimes to the Philippines and Indonesia in 1998, the intensive use of mobile phones to launch mass protests against President Estrada in 2001 (Rafael 2003), and the July 2011 Bersih 2.0 rallies in Malaysia in which social media and smartphones were widely employed to campaign for democratic freedoms (Teck-Peng and Yong 2011). Despite this impressive track record, Southeast Asia has been marginalised from ‘global’ accounts of the role of networked technologies in social protest since the Zapatista uprising of 1994 (Castells 2001), a history that has so far centred on North America, Europe and the Middle East.

In recent years a new academic literature has mushroomed around the study of digital media in relation to the global wave of protest of 2011, particularly around the so-called Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Some of the numerous research topics to date include the virality of protest, protesters’ social capital, the aesthetics of protest, or the figure of the martyr in a Middle Eastern context (Postill 2013a). Besides a large number of nation-specific studies, there exists a growing corpus of works that seek to provide general theories of the technological dimensions of protest. These theories variously explain the new protests with reference to the rise of a global ‘network society’ (Castells 2012), the impact of digital media as political ‘game-changers’ (Tufekci 2011), the articulation of online and offline practices through the occupation of squares (Gerbaudo 2012), or the protracted crisis of global capitalism (Tejerina et al 2013).

This is also a field of inquiry and public scholarship prone to controversy. The main polemics to date have centred on two questions, namely the extent to which social media such as Facebook or Twitter are contributing to new forms of democratic emancipation, and the issue of how new, if at all, these ‘new social movements’ really are (see Gladwell 2010, Morozov 2013). As these debates are marred by a tendency towards polarisation, my aim in this article is to steer clear of the polemics and to broaden the discussion in two new directions. On the one hand, I seek to broaden it geographically by focussing on a country that had its fair share of unrest and digital media activism in 2011 but has received far less scholarly attention than countries such as Tunisia, Egypt or the United States, namely Malaysia. On the other, I will deepen the inquiry historically by tracing the collective career of internet activism back to an earlier convergence of internet activism and social protest, namely the 1998-1999 reformasi years that followed the regional financial crisis of 1997. The rationale for this second move is to counter our obstinate fixation with the present and near future (Postill 2012) and begin to take seriously the recent past, which to many technology scholars remains very much ‘a foreign country’.

With these considerations in mind, below I ask two entwined questions. First, to what extent has internet activism shaped social protest in Malaysia from the late 1990s to the present? Second, what can the history of internet activism and social protest in Malaysia tell us, if anything, about the 2011 global wave of protests? To address these questions I first compare Malaysia’s techno-political path with that of two very different ‘emerging economies’, South Korea and Brazil, in order to contextualise the subsequent discussion. I then distinguish three key moments in Malaysia’s eventful history of internet activism and social protest, namely the 1998-1999 reformasi movement, the electoral ‘tsunami’ of 2008 (in which the ruling coalition lost its two-thirds majority) and the Bersih 2.0 rallies of 2011. I argue that Bersih 2.0 is best explained as both the latest episode in a series of uniquely Malaysian techno-political events and as a local variant of the global wave of protests of 2011 – a wave in which techno-libertarians such as hackers, online journalists and technology lawyers, as well ordinary citizens using social and mobile media, played an important part. The article ends with a summary and with suggestions for further research.

Nation-states as new media labs

Before we can broach the question of internet activism and social protest, we must first chase away a ghostly notion that has haunted the humanities and social sciences since the 1980s, that is, the idea that nation-states are ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson 1983). As I have argued elsewhere, modern countries are far more than imagined communities: they are in fact the thickest culture areas of our age, lived-in worlds whose permanent residents are caught in dense tangles of technical, political and economic relations that short-term visitors can find perplexing (Postill 2006, 2011). In addition, nation-states are vast media laboratories where variously positioned social agents deploy a range of old and new media to pursue (or resist) change – often with unanticipated results. Located at the unstable nexus of global and local forces, nation-states make ideal homes for ‘middle-range theories’ (Hedström and Udehn 2009) that regard the unique constellations of intersecting media policies, practices, and technologies found in each country as ‘natural experiments’ (Diamond and Robinson 2010) in media and/for socio-political change.

New media technologies have been a priority in many countries around the globe, including emerging economies, since the 1990s. This interest has often been couched in the language of competitiveness, national security, social changing (how things are changing at present) and imminentism. A commonly held belief in economic planning circles has been that the ‘Information Society’ is both inevitable and imminent, and that developing nations have no choice but to embrace the new era or they will perish. South Korea provides a striking example of a country pursuing advanced digital policies since the 1980s couched in a nation-building idiom. The prevailing ‘techno-nationalistic’ discourse became intensified following the regional economic crisis of 1997. A combination of favourable policies towards the online gaming industry, business interests and technological innovation created a highly conducive environment for the explosive growth of Korea’s gaming subculture. This strategy was later emulated by other countries in the region, such as Singapore and China. As a result, the ITU has consistently ranked South Korea first in its Digital Opportunity Index (Ok 2011).

As we would expect, Brazil has followed its own distinctive digital trajectory, one radically different from that of South Korea. Under the stewardship of its leftist President Lula and the Culture Minister Gilberto Gil, Brazil adopted the world’s most advanced public policies in support of free software, creative commons and digital inclusion. In part, the free culture and anti-corporate globalisation rhetoric was a way of making virtue out of necessity, as this stance translated into huge public savings in imported proprietary software. The policy framework set out by the government has influenced in both direct and subtle ways how young Brazilians consume digital media. But just as in other national contexts, not always along foreseen paths (Horst 2011).

Malaysia followed the South Korean example from the mid-1990s, when the federal government called for a move towards a knowledge-based economy as the country faced greater competition from China, Vietnam and other low-cost production countries (Postill 2011). In 1996 a ‘cyber-region’ known as the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) was carved out to the south of Kuala Lumpur. Designed as a global centre for multimedia technologies and contents, its aim was to ‘leapfrog’ Malaysia from the Industrial Era to the Information Era. The MSC was in line with Prime Minister Mahathir’s Vision 2020, the dream of a fully developed, knowledge-driven Malaysia by 2020 (Yong 2003, Nain 2004). The vision was ‘for government, businesses and citizens to work together for the benefit of the country and all its citizens’ (Yong 2003: 190).

In practice, however, the ‘social life’ of these policies can lead to unpredictable outcomes. Thus in my study of SJ2005, an initiative aimed at transforming the Kuala Lumpur suburb of Subang Jaya into an ICT-driven ‘smart community’ by 2005, I found that SJ2005 was an ephemeral site of inter-sectoral contest rather than tri-sectoral integration and citizen participation, as originally envisaged by the digital policy makers. Ironically, this top-down project helped to transform Subang Jaya into a hub of internet activism and (cautious) democratic reform (Postill 2011) .

Having sketched Malaysia’s techno-political pathway in broad outline, we can now consider the question of internet activism and social protest in more detail.

The first reformasi wave, 1998-1999

The collapse of Southeast Asia’s financial markets in 1997 put an end to Malaysia’s spectacular economic growth, with profound consequences for the viability of its status quo. This had been in place since the country’s independence from Britain in 1957. The crisis revealed very high levels of borrowing and over-capacity, throwing into disarray a national project built on perpetual growth, development and stable ethnic relations between the country’s Malay-Muslim majority and its Chinese, Indian and other non-Muslim minorities (Clarke 1998, Nair 2007: 339).

On 20 September 1998, the deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, was taken into custody by masked men under Malaysia’s draconian Internal Security Act (ISA), an unloved legacy of the British colonial era. Anwar stood accused of corruption and sodomy, charges widely regarded as politically motivated (Abbott 2001: 101, Clarke 2008). Until that moment the heir apparent to PM Dr Mahathir Mohamed, Anwar was now a political prisoner.

This extraordinary turn of events triggered an online explosion of support for Anwar that led to Malaysia’s ‘first organised large-scale protest movement’, which came to be known as reformasi (reform) (Nair 2007: 339). A few months later, over 50 pro-Anwar websites had been created and at its 1999 peak the Laman Reformasi site received more than 5 million visits (Abbott 2001: 14, Tan 2004). According to Netto (2001: 15), protesters went online ‘like ducks taking to water’ (quoted in Tan 2004), their news sites, forums, and listservs functioning as ersatz meeting places in a country where the right of assembly in physical space is severely curtailed (Tan 2004).

Some observers, however, were sceptical at the time about the emancipatory potential of such initiatives. For example, Abbott (2001) suggested that in countries such as China or Malaysia suffering from an acute ‘digital divide’, the internet can only have a limited impact on a political system. In addition, the internet was becoming increasingly commercialised and used for pursuits other than activism or politics. This view is problematic, as it is based on too rigid a conception of the digital divide. In fact, as Miller and Slater (2000) showed in their early ethnographic study of internet practices in Trinidad, internet contents can reach even remote rural areas through a variety of means, including face-to-face communication, landline telephones, and letters. These researchers were surprised to find not a sharp digital divide in Trinidad but rather highly differentiated, and often ingenious, ways of accessing this network directly or indirectly. Similarly, Abbott himself explains that by the late 1990s, the internet had already become the principal means of communication for Malaysia’s opposition and civil society, as well as an important source of news for all sectors of the population, including rural Malays. Malaysians proved to be highly resourceful and inventive since the early months of reformasi, reaching to people without internet access by means of faxes, CDs, print-outs, photocopies, letters and word of mouth (2001: 105). Their nation’s curious combination of illiberal democracy and internet freedom (a result of PM Mahathir’s pledge to foreign investors that the government would not censor the internet) created conditions highly conducive to online activism, conditions that were not to be found in more repressive states like Singapore or China.

Another common misconception about this period is the idea that reformasi was merely a fleeting episode. Whilst it is tempting to see protests as ‘boom-and-bust’ cycles of collective action (Comparative Media Studies 2013), this is only part of the story. Every complex societal process, including the struggle for political reform in Malaysia, consists not of a single timeline but of a diverse unfolding of concurrent events, trends and routines (see Sewell 2005). In other words, protest movements are multilinear rather than unilinear processes (Postill 2013b). This means that in any given period of time we are likely to find not a sole trend but a mixed set of contradictory trends.

The year 2004 presents us with a paradigmatic example of this phenomenon. This was the year in which the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN), won a decisive victory under the leadership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, a soft-spoken man with a clean image on whom a great deal of hope had been invested as a positive force for change in a post-Mahathir era. This was also the year when the few remaining reformasi websites became inactive or disappeared. Thus Tan (2004) found that while in 2003 the number of comprehensive sites that had vanished was 71, by 2004 there were 109 such sites. Following the March 2004 general election, 181 out of 191 reformasi sites had either disappeared or become dormant.

For Tan (2004) the decline and eventual demise of oppositional sites in 2004 is proof of ‘the ephemeral nature of [the] virtual world’. These are sites, he adds, at the mercy of the vagaries of political contention – here today, gone tomorrow. The existing evidence, however, contradicts this assessment. It is important, first of all, not to reduce a country’s politics to its electoral cycle. Although it is true that 2004 was a disastrous electoral year for proponents of political reform, we also see signs that same year of a growing consolidation of oppositional forces, both offline and online. It was in 2004 that Anwar Ibrahim was finally released from prison and was able to fully resume his political career. The year 2004 was also when socio-political blogging came into its own in Malaysia. We could define this new internet trend as the pursuit of reformasi through new technological means. Tang (2006) describes this moment vividly:

Updated frequently, robust in their criticism, showing extraordinary resourcefulness and relying on their readers as sources, blogs are starting to compete with traditional media in playing a significant role in disseminating information to the public (Tang 2006: 6).

The case of the then blogger, now MP (see next section), Jeff Ooi is instructive about a broader trend in Malaysia’s political scene, and more generally of the country’s techno-political maturation. In January 2003 Ooi, a businessman with a flair for digital technology launched the current affairs blog Screenshots. When I first met Ooi in May 2003 in the Kuala Lumpur suburb of Subang Jaya, where he was a leading local activist, he was already a rising star in the national blogosphere and an enthusiast of the new genre (Postill 2006: 31). Known for his fearless denunciation of corruption and other forms of foul play in the corridors of economic and political power, Ooi came to embody Wellman’s (2001) ‘networked individual’, an extremely well connected, technology savvy David taking on the Goliaths of this world. One of the keys to his success was his far-flung flock of ‘little birds’, namely readers, bloggers, journalists and others who fed him scoops about the rich and powerful. Over time he developed relations of trust with mainstream reporters and editors who would often share with him information that their employers barred them from publishing (Postill 2006: 82).

Of course, in our contemporary ‘hybrid media systems’ in which old and new media interact incessantly (Chadwick 2013) no blogger is an island, and on a number of occasions Ooi came close to being arrested under Malaysia’s infamous ISA over contents published on his blog. Partly as a form of insurance, in June 2003 Ooi co-founded Project Petaling Street, a Malaysian blog aggregator that became ‘an instant success’. By December 2003 this portal had clocked over a million ‘hits’ and tripled the number of bloggers to nearly 400, contributing to the country’s ‘culture of democratisation’, a supportive environment aimed at giving individuals the freedom to blog regardless of their creed, ethnicity or gender (Tang 2006).

In December 2004 Ooi was invited to Harvard Law School to speak about his experiences along with other leading bloggers and internet activists from South Korea, Iran, Canada, the US and elsewhere. This invitation confirmed Ooi’s standing as one of Malaysia’s leading bloggers. It also indexed that his struggle, and that of fellow reformists in Malaysia, was a small part of a much larger global movement for greater freedoms. This movement would go on to take the world by storm in late 2010 and throughout 2011 with the ‘mainstreaming of nerd politics’ epitomised by the intervention of techno-libertarian networks such as Global Voices, Wikileaks and Anonymous in the Arab, indignados and Occupy protests (Postill 2013a). Indeed, it was soon after this conference that Global Voices, today an influential worldwide network of activist bloggers, was founded at Harvard, with Ooi’s Screenshots given a prominent spot on their homepage. As Rebecca McKinnon put it in her workshop report:

[M]ost in the room agreed that we are indeed a movement: a movement not only of bloggers, but also of wiki-builders and users of other kinds of social or peer-produced media who want to build a better global conversation (quoted in Tang 2006).

Meanwhile, a range of alternative media continued to flourish during this period. Thus Malaysia’s first commercial online newspaper, Malaysiakini, which also featured a link to Ooi’s blog on its homepage, was going from strength to strength. Founded in November 1999, this innovative media organisation took advantage of the government’s commitment to an uncensored internet to become a role-model for similar outlets around the globe. Being exclusively online, Malaysiakini managed to avoid the strict regulations that restrict press freedom within Malaysia (Tan 2004). Other ‘democracy bulwarks’ included the human rights portal, based on a long-established magazine with a broadly leftist agenda for social justice, workers’ rights, indigenous people, etc., and the Mandarin-language The Free Media, a website launched in April 2001 to oppose the takeover of two Chinese newspapers by MCA (the Chinese component of the ruling coalition). This site is an early example of citizen-driven journalism and news crowdsourcing in which a community of ‘produsers’ are made responsible for sustaining the organisation. Like Malaysiakini or bloggers such as Jeff Ooi, it is also an example of an outlet publishing scoops provided by mainstream journalists unable to make use of them (Tan 2004).

An electoral ‘tsunami’, 2008

The build-up to the 8 March 2008 general election saw the creation of another ‘formidable alliance’ of strange bedfellows: the People’s Alliance (Pakatan Rakyat), a coalition of Malay reformists, Malay Islamists and mostly Chinese secularists (Liow 2012). The new platform enjoyed a strong input from activists ‘strategizing opposition collaboration, standing as candidates, informing elections, and expanding media options’ (Weiss 2009: 741). Given Badawi’s remarkable success in the 2004 election, BN’s results in the 2008 election were hugely disappointing to its leaders. Although BN managed to remain in power, it failed to attain its customary two-thirds parliamentary majority (Liow 2012). Its share of seats in the Dewan Rakyat plummeted to 63%, whilst ‘its overall popular vote dipped to 51%, and four more state governments toppled’ (Weiss 2009: 741-2).

Three separate episodes of protest in Kuala Lumpur in late 2007 set the scene for this electoral upset. Together, they helped to reinvigorate civil society forces opposed to the ruling coalition and contribute towards the qualified success of the 2008 election. In September some 2,000 lawyers and activists, led by the Malaysian Bar Council, carried out a protest in Kuala Lumpur to call for an investigation into judicial corruption. Two months later, on 10 November, a Bersih Rally took place to protest corruption and demand electoral reform. Bersih extended the ‘transethnic solidarities’ created in 1998 that helped to build trust among Malaysians of different racial and religious backgrounds (G.C. Khoo 2013: 4). This was followed on 25 November by a 20,000 to 30,000-strong rally by the Hindu Rights Action Front (Hindraf), a coalition of thirty Hindu NGOs protesting against discrimination. Bypassing the mainstream media blackout, information about the protest was shared widely via email, texting and social media such as Facebook. When footage of Indian mothers with children being sprayed with water cannon ‘went viral’ online and through offline media such as CDs, the MCA president conceded that the electoral fate of Barisan Nasional (BN) was now ‘sealed’ (Liow 2012: 303-304). If in the preceding section we discussed an instance of an early form of crowdsourced journalism in The Free Media, here we see instead a forerunner of a phenomenon I have termed ‘viral reality’, that is, the growing presence in the information landscape of digital contents ‘shared’ by citizens via digital networks. This is an environment in which news media professionals and amateurs, as well as ordinary citizens, compete and cooperate to share potentially ‘viral’ contents (Postill 2014).

Although alternative media were already used in 1998-1999, it was not until 2008 that they became ‘vehicle[s] for mass political mobilisation’, with Facebook, YouTube, alternative news sites, and blogs among the more visible media (Liow 2012: 301). For instance, prior to the elections the communal blog People’s Parliament carried out a campaign to boycott the mainstream press. This campaign was supported by Jeff Ooi and other leading bloggers (Ang 2008). Gong (2011) argues that blogs played a key part in the success of opposition candidates in the 2008 elections. This author found that bloggers were seven times more likely to win an election than non-bloggers, ‘controlling for incumbency, party membership, and race’ (2011: 307). Some candidates were in fact bloggers turned politicians, not least Ooi himself who went on to become an opposition MP in the northern state of Penang having funded his campaign through tens of thousands of dollars raised via his blog (Liow 2012: 303). This stands in stark contrast to the ruling coalition’s media strategy, still largely reliant on its tight control of the mainstream media and limiting itself to ineffectual tactics such as using ‘cybertroopers’ to counter oppositional views (Weiss 2009: 754).

The online newspaper Malaysiakini, for its part, continued to be a ‘focal point’ for opposition-related news, having trained ‘a growing clutch of critically minded young journalists’ for more than a decade (Weiss 2009: 753). For Khoo (2010: 8) Malaysiakini was one of two key nodes laying ‘the basis of a resurgence of the cyber-networks’. The other node was Malaysia Today, an online news site created in 2004 by Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK), a renowned blogger often praised for his ‘relentless outpouring of exposes of alleged corruption and wrongdoings in high places’ (2010: 10). As the March 2008 election neared, a ‘full array’ of digital tools were mobilised by pro-democracy activists and other concerned citizens:

Between them, these networks and coalitions deployed text-messages, email lists, Internet postings, video-clips to overcome the controlled media’s reflexive shut-out of the Opposition. People who had not previously imagined themselves ‘dissidents’ sent appeals for funding, relayed notices of Opposition events, forwarded campaign materials, and transmitted calls for volunteer workers and polling observers. Old-school networks were reactivated and diasporic contacts established through cyber-space. The cyber-networks and the physical coalitions converged (Khoo 2010: 15).

Since the 2008 election, a range of observers have highlighted the part played by new media in the opposition’s best result since independence in 1957. For example, Salleh (2013: 1) stresses the strong influence of blogs throughout the decade, culminating in the 2008 elections. For this author, blogs have ‘strongly empowered individuals to politically express themselves’ (Salleh 2013: 1). Tang (2009: 135) notes that the internet was a ‘major contributory factor’ to the ‘political tsunami’ of 2008 (Tang 2009: 135), whilst for Willnat et al (in press) the use of online media was ‘positively associated with [a] higher level of political participation among Malaysian voters’. Social media, according to Sani and Zengeni (2010) were ‘definitely an important instrument in promoting democracy’ in the run-up to the 2008 election. More specifically, conclude Smeltzer and Keddy (2010: 421), Facebook allowed citizens to ‘express dissent, connect with like-minded individuals and organise’.

Other scholars are more sceptical of the influence of new media, and have urged colleagues to curb their enthusiasm. Thus Khoo (2010) argues that there is no simple causal link between internet use and opposition gains. For instance, in 2004 BN scored its largest victory ever, despite having had to face a more mature online activism scene and a higher level of internet penetration than in 1999. Moreover, in the 1999 general election, hi-tech urban voters did not support the reformasi candidates as much as low-tech rural Malays who turned against UMNO (the Malay component party of the ruling coalition). Similarly, Leong (2009) compares Malaysia with Singapore and suggests that we should not exaggerate the importance of the internet; many other historical and political factors need to be taken into account and placed in their culture-specific contexts. Liow (2012) makes three interrelated points. First, he notes that the ‘new media factor’ is not exclusive to the opposition. Second, although citizens may have access to information that was not available in the pre-internet age, we cannot assume that they will act upon it and vote for the opposition (2012: 300). Third, new media alone cannot overcome vexed problems that transcend technology such as Malaysia’s deeply entrenched communalism or the customary in-fighting of its various opposition formations down the years (2012: 309). Still other scholars have questioned meteorological metaphors such as ‘political tsunami’ or ‘perfect storm’ commonly used to refer to the results of Malaysia’s general election in 2008. Tongue-in-cheek, Khoo (2010: 1) points out that a real tsunami would have ‘swept BN from power altogether’, and that ‘a perfect storm would not have completely bypassed Sabah and Sarawak’. For her part, Weiss (2009) adds quotation marks to the phrase ‘historic victory’ to indicate that BN did retain their majority after all.

These are valid criticisms, but while it is true that protest technology scholars should avoid overly enthusiastic celebrations of such episodes, the evidence presented so far strongly suggests that internet media did indeed contribute to the significant weakening of BN in 2008. As Khoo (2010) himself concedes, partly thanks to the skilful use of these technologies, Malaysians from all ethnic backgrounds began to imagine themselves as ‘a community unified by dissent’ (2010: 4), no mean feat in a country deeply divided along racial and religious lines with a tightly controlled mainstream media. This second wave of reformasi activity undoubtedly brought people together once again, paving the way for further socio-political gains in subsequent years.

The Bersih 2.0 protests, 2011

On 9 July 2011, a rally calling for free and fair elections was held in Kuala Lumpur. Known as Bersih 2.0, this was the second in a series that started in 2007 (see Bersih protests, above) and resumed in 2012 as Bersih 3.0. Marchers made eight demands to the government, including a reform of the postal ballot, a clean electoral roll, a minimum of 21 days for campaign periods, the use of indelible ink when voting and an end to ‘money politics’ (G.C. Khoo 2013: 9). Some 50,000 people attended the rally, which was poorly handled by the authorities who resorted to using excessive physical force to disperse the crowds (Welsh 2011).

This event served to reinvigorate the reformasi movement, returning the national conversation to the now desperate need for political reform. There were also novel elements to Bersih 2.0 with regard to previous mobilisations. For Welsh (2011) Bersih 2.0 was part of the ‘global rise of the “freedom generation”’, a generation learning to overcome their fear, one that attaches great value to civil liberties and human rights. This rally ushered in a ‘new form’ of grassroots politics consisting of four entwined elements: social media embedding, people power, broad civil society participation and multi-ethnicity (Welsh 2011).

This was a historical moment in which viral reality, as defined earlier, was now fully installed in the cultural practices of millions of Malaysians. If in previous decades opinion leadership was literally anchored to TV stations and the press, the situation was now more complex, with traditional media and social media sharing this leadership – an altered media landscape teeming with ‘thousands of Facebook and Twitter opinion leaders’ (Radue 2012: 64, but see Chadwick 2013 for a nuanced discussion in a Western context). Whilst during the original Bersih rally of 2007 blogging and YouTube were arguably the two dominant social media, in 2011 two other mega-sites were hugely popular, namely Facebook and Twitter. As in Spain and other territories (see Postill and Pink 2012), Twitter was now a central public arena for all manner of actors across the political spectrum, from politicians, lawyers, celebrities or the police to activists and ordinary citizens. Thus Yeoh (2011) found that from 9 June to 14 Aug 2011, Twitter had nearly 34,000 users engaged with the Bersih 2.0 campaign, with over 263,000 tweets using the hashtag (Twitter keyword) #bersih. This researcher also found Bersih 2.0-related PicBadges being used across Facebook and Twitter to create ‘common spaces for common faces’; Twitter-mediated advocacy to reach politicians and foreign media; the use of wit, sarcasm and other forms of humour channelled through a range of hashtags; Bersih 2.0 storytelling via the hashtag #bersihstories; documentary evidence shared on YouTube and other social media contradicting official versions of events, especially surrounding police violence, and so on.

Taking advantage of the interactive, public nature of Twitter, the police responded to these denunciations by releasing selective videos through the relevant hashtags and by encouraging citizens to report on protesters, so as to be able to charge individuals who made ‘false reports against the force’ (Jaraparilla 2011). As this example shows, social media have not only enabled reform-minded Malaysians to find one another through devices such as Twitter hashtags, Facebook ‘likes’ or Google searches, they have also made the country’s profound divides more visible by creating new sites of conflict and contestation. From a field-theoretical perspective (at least in the more dynamic version of this theory that I advocate, see Postill 2011), this is only to be expected, for political fields consist not only of activists and protesters but also of ‘mediating agencies’ such as the police and the press (Crossley 2002), and indeed of more shadowy figures operating ‘behind the scenes’ (Postill 2013b).

As in other 2010 and 2011 protests – e.g., in Tunisia, Egypt, Spain or the United States (Juris 2012, Postill in press) – the excessive use of force by the Malaysian state had the unintended consequence of garnering broad sympathy and support for the protesters, both home and abroad. G.C. Khoo (2013) argues that the Bersih series (2007, 2011, 2012) helped to deepen cross-ethnic and inter-generational solidarities among protesters ‘confronted by water cannon, tear gas and police brutality’. As a result of this shared experience, new discourses of identity and belonging emerged through #bersihstories and other popular channels, beyond earlier discourses built around ethnicity or religion. Rejecting racial narratives, the opposition speeches in the subsequent electoral campaign stressed national unity and identity, with phrases such as ‘Kita Anak Malaysia’ (We are Children of Malaysia) (G.C Khoo 2013: 4).

For many Bersih 2.0 participants, this was a liminal phase of rebirth as Malaysians, after enduring the lifelong sentiment of not fully belonging to their own nation. In other words, these were digitally mediated rites of democratisation and nation-building (see Postill 2006). Many protesters expressed the idea that ‘It was the first time I felt Malaysian’ (Yeoh 2011). A 39-year old Indian Malaysian doctor related his transition ‘from ethnic Other and second class citizen to legitimate citizen’ in religious terms: ‘We joined them and there I was – a born-again Malaysian. For the first time, I was proud to be Malaysian’. Another protester, CL Shue, aged 58, recalls his detention with thousands of others:

Teachers, students, older people, women, traders, security guards, workers, politicians, religious teachers, wise men. … There were many more, and I have no idea what they did for a living. [...] The thing that was of importance was we were all there for one reason. We were one people. There were no barriers. It was a wonderful experience. It set me free. Free from fear. Free to feel the brotherhood, and the nationhood of brothers. Merdeka!’ (Shue 2011: 106, quoted in Khoo, G.C. 2013a).

Another new feature of these demonstrations was their geographical reach well beyond the borders of Malaysia. If on previous occasions emigrated Malaysians had been able to follow events at home through blogs or independent news sites like Malaysiakini, this time they could actively participate by organising ‘their own Bersih events in more than 30 cities around the world’ (Yeoh 2011). This participation, in turn, had reverberations right across their personal networks in Malaysia, adding another layer of engagement and connectedness to the events. In effect, what we are witnessing here is the emergence of a new form of ‘media event’ (Dayan and Katz 1992), namely a shared slice of national history mediated not through radio or television, but largely through social network sites – a social media event.

In Malaysia’s 14th general election of 2013, the opposition ‘won the popular vote’ following a campaign promoting a non-racial, citizen-driven and transparent system of government. BN obtained the worst result in its history, winning by a simple majority (133 to 89 parliamentary seats) (Khoo, G.C. 2013: 3-4). That Bersih ‘helped trigger people’s engagement in politics’ (Khoo, Y.H. 2013) is indisputable; to what extent, and exactly in what ways new media technologies allowed it to do so, is the challenging question that shall have to await a separate study.


The preceding historical account invites a number of reflections on internet activism – broadly defined – and social protest in Malaysia, and indeed elsewhere. In this section I present these reflections with reference to the recent scholarship on digital media and new protest movements in the wake of the Arab uprisings of 2011. In the interest of space, I will limit myself to three themes: temporality, comparison and generalisation.

On the issue of temporality, the first striking feature of Malaysia’s techno-political trajectory is that ‘it all kicked off’ (Mason 2012) not in 2011 but rather in 1998. In any national polity, current affairs are often recurrent affairs that go to the heart of the polis and its changing relation to the people. Malaysia is no exception. Whilst in America one perpetual tension is that between competing liberal vs. conservative visions of the national future (Goldfarb 2011), and in Spain the unresolved legacy of the civil war still informs the national conversation, in Malaysia, as we have just seen, the question of full citizenship for all nationals has shaped the country’s public discourse since independence (Postill 2006). It follows that in order to understand the events that took place in 2011, we must relate them not only to the Arab protests that predated them, or to the ubiquitous trope of reform, but also to the unfinished business of national belonging for the country’s ethnic minorities.

But there is another important aspect to temporality introduced earlier in the discussion, namely its multilinearity. Convoluted historical processes such as the struggle for political reform and equal rights in Malaysia will exhibit not a single timeline – as perhaps suggested by my standard chronology of the main protest events – but rather a multiplicity of timelines. Elsewhere I have suggested, following Sewell (2005), that in addition to events, it is worth tracing the parallel timelines of other forms of temporality such as trend and routines so as to construct more robust models of protest movements as they unfold over time (Postill 2013b). Transposing this idea to the Malaysian case, what emerges is more interesting than the mere ebbing and flowing of protest. For example, one observable trend is the growing sophistication of the media practices and actions performed by Malaysian activists from 1998 to the present, even if this does not necessarily translate into success at the ballot box. From a routine timeline viewpoint, we observe the routinisation of digital sophistication at key hubs such as Malaysiakini, YouTube, Twitter or the blogosphere. Another, related trend, is the viralisation of Malaysia’s media ecology with the unchecked rise of digital content ‘sharing’ as an everyday activity. During periods of peak protest activity, this culture of digital sharing takes on a more urgent character, but it still draws from the ongoing normalisation of retweeting, ‘liking’, email resending and other potentially viral forms of interpersonal communication. Technologically, one significant difference between 1998 and 2011 is that the power to share political information has been greatly democratised, which again is emphatically not the same as the power to change a political regime.

Second, a brief comparison of Malaysia’s history of social protest with that of neighbouring countries as well as countries further afield reveals intriguing contrasts as well as commonalities. Thus Weiss (2007) has compared the reformist trajectories of Indonesia and Malaysia. Although both countries were severely affected by the financial crisis of 1997, reformism in Malaysia’s ‘competitive electoral authoritarian’ system took a ‘largely electoral route’, whereas Indonesia’s ‘hegemonic electoral authoritarian’ regime collapsed under pressure from social protest, ‘encouraged by elite factionalism’. Singapore presents an altogether different picture, with its dormant civil society in sharp contrast with Malaysia’s exuberant civil society, the latter being both tech savvy and firmly established in brick-and-mortar organisations. As George (2005) has argued,

Singapore has no contentious website remotely as successful as Harakah Daily because it does not have an opposition party like PAS – formidably organized, well endowed and strongly ideological.

Comparisons with countries outside Southeast Asia are also revealing. Take the case of Spain, a country that experienced a strong wave of popular protest against its political and financial class in 2011. Among the similarities with Malaysia’s Bersih 2.0 protests of 2011, we can mention the common inspiration of Tahrir Square; Spain’s indignados’ commitment to nonviolence, even in the face of police brutality (Postill in press); the strategic use of humour for both internal (citizen solidarity) and external (political critique) purposes (Romanos 2013); the emphasis on inter-generational solidarity (symbolised in Spain by a network of elderly activists known as yayoflautas, and in Malaysia by the iconic figure of a courageous senior citizen, Auntie Bersih); the extensive use of social media and smartphones to share protest-related information; and the remote participation of diasporic citizens not through broadcast media events but through social media events. Some of the more striking contrasts between Spain and Malaysia include the conspicuous absence of nation-building rhetoric in the former (the very thought of a Spanish nation is abhorrent to many citizens) and the indignados’ rejection of Spain’s political class as a whole (Malaysian’s struggle for a two-coalition system being the logical opposite of the ongoing struggle to overcome Spain’s two-party system).

Finally, there remains the problem of how to theorise these findings in a global context. What can the Malaysian case tell us about the elusive relationship between internet activism and social protest worldwide? In a previous paper I have proposed a new theory of social protest post-Tahrir based on my Spanish research (Postill 2013a). Here my aim is to refine this theory by taking into consideration Malaysia’s distinctive trajectory. Very briefly, I wish to propose the following outline of a global theory. The wave of social protest that broke out in Tunisia in December 2010 and spread to other Arab countries and beyond in 2011, was largely the result of three unevenly convergent trends: the global financial crisis of 2008, the 2010 mainstreaming of ‘nerd activism’ epitomised by formations such as Wikileaks and Anonymous, and the spectacular instantiation of people power by Tunisian and Egyptian protesters in late 2010 and early 2011.

To sum up this potent formula I will introduce the acronym 3MPR. The numeral ‘3’ stands for three leading types of techno-libertarian (or nerd) activist that are spearheading the global movement towards greater informational and democratic freedom, namely hackers, lawyers and journalists. In virtually all national struggles, I suggest, we find today these three specialists leading the charge against corrupt governments and financiers. The letter ‘M’ represents a motley (or mixture) of tech and non-tech specialists collaborating with the techno-libertarian vanguard and acting as cultural brokers between them and the general population. This fluid sector of the movement-field will vary greatly in its size and composition from one country to the next, but we can nonetheless expect to find among them a long tail of students, teachers, intellectuals, celebrities, designers, artists, and even anthropologists. The letter ‘P’ stands for the general population or people of a nation-state going through a phase of social unrest and protest. Finally, the ‘R’ can refer to reform, revolution or regime change depending again on the spatio-temporal coordinates of the protest at hand. For example, whilst in Egypt the 3MPR level was fully reached with the removal of Mubarak, in Malaysia we can only speak of a 3MP configuration in 2011, and even this is questionable given how divided ‘the people’ are along pro- and anti-reformist camps.

The Malaysian evidence suggests the following caveat. Where in Tunisia, Egypt, Spain or the US ‘hacktivist’ outlets such as Wikileaks and Anonymous were regarded by most protesters as allies in their struggle for freedom and social justice, in Malaysia the latter formation was received with far more ambivalence. Thus when a large number of Malaysian government websites were attacked by Anonymous prior to the Bersih 2.0 rally, some of the rally organisers sought to defuse criticism from the authorities by distancing themselves from the attacks. Moreover, while the leading role played by Malaysian lawyers and journalists is unquestionable, that of computer hackers and geeks remains obscure.


Just as there is no single timeline that can accommodate the full range of events, routines and trends that have shaped the struggle for freedom and justice in Malaysia, so there is no simple account of technological progress from the email messages and listservs of the 1990s through blogging and web forums in the early 2000s to today’s social media and smartphones. As we have seen, Malaysia’s activists operate within a highly differentiated media ecology in which old and new media, actors and issues interact in complex ways. In other words, a replacement model of media – the idea that newer media replace older media – would not be of much use in trying to explain such an environment.

That said, no two media technologies are the same, and like activists around the world, Malaysia’s freedom fighters must adjust their individual activities and collective actions to the specific technical and political affordances of each platform (or set of platforms). For example, we saw how Malaysia’s police took advantage of Twitter’s central location as the country’s preeminent public arena to counter accusations of brutality and to call for the public’s assistance in tracking down allegedly violent Bersih 2.0 protesters. Meanwhile, Facebook and YouTube provided Malaysians living abroad with new digital avenues through which to participate and ‘share’ in the protests remotely.

A hard to quantify factor, yet one that is in evidence throughout this 15-year history, is the sheer ingenuity and resourcefulness of protesters’ media engagements, as well as their courage when confronting the riot police, to the great admiration of liberal-minded Singaporeans following their progress through social media – sympathetic outsiders whose own civil society is far less vibrant than Malaysia’s. Through a long process of trial and error, Malaysia’s online activists have found creative ways of bypassing the authorities and of reaching out to constituencies lying beyond the digital divide.

Future studies should regard the techno-political past not as a foreign country, but as a research area full of comparative potential. More research is needed on many aspects of the history summarily covered here. Thus there is much to be investigated about the class and gender dimensions of this realm of political action, and about reformist campaigns and trends in Malaysian locales other than Kuala Lumpur (where most of the research has concentrated to date), especially in the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak which, as usual, have been largely sidelined. We also know very little about the internet practices and actions of Malaysia’s labour movement, a literature that remains divorced from the mainstream activism research considered here (see Grieco and Bhopal 2005). Finally, much more research is needed into the part played by computer geeks and hackers in recent Malaysian protests at a time when we witness a worldwide profusion of collaborative endeavours linking these experts to less tech savvy participants.


Abbott, J. P. (2001). Democracy@ internet. asia? The challenges to the emancipatory potential of the net: Lessons from China and Malaysia. Third World Quarterly, 22(1), 99-114.

Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso.

Ang, H. 2008. Cyber activism, the new frontier. Aliran, 2 March 2008.

Castells, M. 2001. The Internet Galaxy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Castells, M. (2012), Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age, Maiden, MA: Polity.

Chadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford University Press.

Clarke, E. 1998. Reformasi hits Malaysia, Socialism Today 33, Nov 1998.

Comparative Media Studies 2013. Zeynep Tufekci: “The Boom-Bust Cycle of Social Media-Fueled Protests”.

Crossley, N. 2002. `Global Anti-Corporate Struggle: A Preliminary Analysis’, British Journal of Sociology 53(4): 667—91.

Dayan, D. and Katz, E. (1992) Media Events: The Live Broadcasting of History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Diamond, J. and J.A. Robinson (eds.). 2010. Natural Experiments of History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

George, C. (2005). The internet’s political impact and the penetration/participation paradox in Malaysia and Singapore. Media, Culture & Society, 27(6), 903-920.

Gerbaudo, P. (2012), Tweets and the Streets. London: Pluto.

Gladwell, M. (2010). Small Change – Why the revolution will not be tweeted, The New Yorker, 4 October 2010.

Goldfarb, Jeffrey C. (2012) Reinventing Political Culture. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Gong, R. (2011). Internet politics and state media control: Candidate weblogs in Malaysia. Sociological Perspectives, 54(3), 307-328.

Grieco, M., & Bhopal, M. (2005). Globalisation, collective action and counter-coordination: the use of the new information communication technology by the Malaysian labour movement. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 1(2/3), 109-122.

Hedström, P. and L. Udehn. 2009. Analytical sociology and theories of the middle range. Pp. 25- 47 in P. Hedström and P. Bearman (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Horst, H.A. 2011. New Media Practices in Brazil: Free, Social and Inclusive, International Journal of Communication, Vol 5 (2011),

Jaraparilla 2011. How WikiLeaks Is Helping Change Malaysia, WL Central, 4 August 2011.

Juris, J.S. (2012), ‘Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: Social Media, Public Space, and Emerging Logics of Aggregation’, American Ethnologist 39, 2: 259-279.

Khoo, B. T. (2010). Cyber-networks, physical coalitions and missing links: imagining and realizing dissent in Malaysia 1998-2008. IDE Discussion Paper. No. 244. 2010. 08.

Khoo, G. C. (2013). Bersih dan Ubah: citizenship rights, intergenerational togetherness and multicultural unity in Malaysia. SSK Civic Solidarity Research Group Working Paper Series 2013-04.

Khoo, Y.H. (2013). Bersih’s impact on GE13. The Malaysian Insider, 16 May 2013.

Liow, J. C. (2012). Malaysia’s March 2008 general election: understanding the new media factor. The Pacific Review, 25(3), 293-315.

Mason, P. 2012. Why It’s Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolutions. London: Verso.

Miller, D. and D. Slater 2000. The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford: Berg.

Morozov, E. 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. London: Allen Lane.

Nain, Z. 2004. ‘New Technologies and the Future of the Media in Malaysia’ in Communicating the Future: Proceedings from the National Conference on the Future of Media in a Knowledge Society. Kuala Lumpur: UNDP and Strategic Analysis Malaysia (SAM).

Nair, S. (2007) ‘The Limits of Protest and Prospects for Political Reform in Malaysia’, Critical Asian Studies, 39 (3): 339–68.

Ok, H. 2011. New Media Practices in Korea. International Journal of Communication 5:0.

Oosterbaan, M. (2011), Virtually global: online evangelical cartography. Social Anthropology, 19: 56–73.

Postill, J. 2006. Media and Nation Building: How the Iban Became Malaysian. Oxford and New York: Berghahn.

Postill, J. 2011. Localizing the Internet: An Anthropological Account. Oxford and New York: Berghahn.

Postill, J. 2012. Media and social changing since 1979: Towards a diachronic ethnography of media and actual social changes. Paper to the EASA 2012 biennial conference, Nanterre, Paris, July 2012.

Postill, J. 2013a. The uneven convergence of digital freedom activism and popular protest: a global theory of the new protest movements. Melbourne: RMIT University. Available at:

Postill, J. 2013b. The multilinearity of protest: understanding new social movements through their events, trends and routines. Melbourne: RMIT University. Available at:

Postill, J. 2014. Democracy in the age of viral reality: a media epidemiography of Spain’s indignados movement, Ethnography 15 (1).

Postill, J. in press. Spain’s indignados and the mediated aesthetics of nonviolence. In P. Werbner, K. Spellman-Poots and M. Webb (eds) The Political Aesthetics of Global Protest: Beyond the Arab Spring. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Postill, J. and S. Pink (2012), Social media ethnography: the digital researcher in a messy web, Media International Australia 145, 123-134.

Radue, M. (2012). The Internet’s role in the Bersih movement in Malaysia – A Case Study. International Review of Information Ethics, 18, (12).

Rafael, V. 2003 “The Cell Phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the Contemporary Philippines”, Public Culture 15(3) 399–425

Romanos, E. (2013). Evictions, Petitions and Escraches: Contentious Housing in Austerity Spain. Social Movement Studies, (ahead-of-print), 1-7.

Salleh, S. M. 2013 From Reformasi to Political Tsunami: A Political Narrative of Blog Activism in Malaysia from 1998-2008. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research (IPEDR) 64 (1)

Sani, M. A. M., & Zengeni, K. T. (2010). Democratisation in Malaysia: The impact of social media in the 2008 general election. Paper presented to the 18th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in Adelaide.

Sewell W.H., Jr (2005) Logics of History: Social theory and social transformation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Shue, C.L. 2011. Bersih 2.0: Arrested and sent to Pulapol, Malaysiakini, 14 July 2011.

Tan, L. O. (2004). The Emerging Virtual Civil Society in Malaysia: A First Glance. In Conference 4th International Malaysian Studies Conference; 3-5 August 2004, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.

Tang, H. W. (2006). Let a hundred flowers bloom: Digital speech in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 1(1).

Tang, H. W. (2009). The networked electorate: The Internet and the quiet democratic revolution in Malaysia and Singapore. Journal of Information, Law & Technology, 13(2), 135-151.

Teck-Peng, C., & Yong, H. (2011). Social Media Uprising in the Chinese-speaking World. Hong Kong: In-Media.

Tejerina, B., Perugorría, I., Benski, T., & Langman, L. (2013). From indignation to occupation: A new wave of global mobilization. Current Sociology, 61(4), 377-392.

Tufekci, Z. 2011. ‘New Media and the People-Powered Uprisings.’ MIT Technology Review. August 30, 2011. people- powered-uprisings/

Weiss, M. L. (2007). What a little democracy can do: Comparing trajectories of reform in Malaysia and Indonesia. Democratisation, 14(1), 26-43.

Weiss, M. L. (2009). Edging Toward a New Politics in Malaysia: Civil Society at the Gate?. Asian Survey, 49(5), 741-758.

Wellman, B. 2001. ‘Physical Place and Cyber Place: The Rise of Networked Indi- vidualism’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25, 2 (June 2001): 227–52.

Welsh, B. (2011). People power in Malaysia: Bersih rally and its aftermath. Asia Pacific Bulletin 128, 10 August 2011.

Willnat, L., Wong, W. J., Tamam, E., & Aw, A. (in press). Online Media and Political Participation: The Case of Malaysia. Mass Communication and Society.

Yeoh, T. 2011. Bersih and media coverage. The Micah Mandate, 26 August 2011.

Yong, J.S.L. 2003. ‘Malaysia: Advancing Public Administration into the Information Age’ in J.S.L. Yong (ed.) E-Government in Asia: Enabling Public Service Innovation in the 21st Century. Singapore: Times.


Why do we need the concept of social field?

October 22, 2013

An additional note by John Postill on the concept of social field. To appear in forthcoming volume by V. Amit (ed.) Concepts of Sociality: An Anthropological Interrogation. Oxford: Berghahn.

See also Postill, J. forthcoming. Fields as dynamic configurations of practices, games, and socialities. In V. Amit (ed.) Concepts of Sociality: An Anthropological Interrogation. Oxford: Berghahn.

NB – This is work in progress. For the final version, please refer to the published volume in due course. Last updated 23 October 2013.


A social field is an organised, internally differentiated domain of practice or action in which unequally positioned social agents compete and cooperate over the same rewards. Commonly associated with the work of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, the concept of field is, in fact, of diverse ancestry.  Any comprehensive account of its history must consider at least three other lineages, including inter-organisational theory (DiMaggio and Powell), social psychology (Lewin), and the Manchester School of anthropology (Gluckman, Turner) (Postill forthcoming).

This concept deserves inclusion in a volume devoted to sociality for the following four reasons. First, because it broaches a central problem in social theory since Durkheim and Weber, namely the growing complexity and differentiation of modern societies into specialist domains such as politics, law, journalism, or sport (Benson and Neveu 2005). Moreover, in contrast to differentiation theory concepts such as Luhmann’s societal ‘subsystems’, the notion of field (a) does not make the deterministic assumption that modern fields will always tend towards greater differentiation; in some cases, the opposite is true, for instance, when a field like academia becomes less autonomous from the field of government (Hallin 2005), and (b) human agency and sociality are integral to the concept of field, they are not erased as occurs in Luhmann’s highly abstract systems theory (Gershon 2005).

Second, while notions such as community or network skirt around the question of power, the concept of field is based on a relational account of power. In other words, different agents bring to the field uneven amounts of economic, social and cultural capital, and this makes them relatively dominant or dominated in relation to other field agents.

Third, the concept of field invites us to explore the distinction between social action and social practice, two notions that are often conflated in the literature. In its well-known Bourdieuan variant, a field is an enduring domain of habitual practice. By contrast, in the Manchester school of anthropology tradition, fields are often volatile, rapidly changing domains of action, for example, following a leadership crisis in a 1950s rural African setting (Turner 1957).  In other words, the concept of field suggests a potentially fruitful ideal-type distinction between sustainable spheres of practice (e.g. art, sociology, charity) and unsustainable spheres of action (e.g. protest, war, disaster relief) as two poles in a practice/action continuum.

Finally, unlike community, network or public sphere, the notion of field is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Field is an inherently neutral term with in-built resistance to the kind of normativity that has rendered emotive notions such as community or nation practically unusable as theoretical concepts (Postill 2008). That is to say, it is a concept that sheds light on the way things are, not the way things ought to be within a specific domain of human life. This allows us to investigate the empirical actualities of a given social process or phenomenon with an open mind, without imposing on it our communitarianism, networked horizontalism or critical rationalism.  In short, there are no signs of ‘fieldism’ on the horizon.


Benson, R. and E. Neveu (eds.) 2005. Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Cambridge: Polity.

Gershon, I. 2005. Seeing like a system: Luhmann for anthropologists. Anthropological Theory, 5(2), 99-116.

Hallin, D.C. 2005. Two Approaches to Comparative Media Research: Field Theory and Differentiation Theory, in R. Benson and E. Neveu (eds) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Cambridge: Polity.

Postill, J. 2008. Localising the internet beyond communities and networks, New Media and Society 10 (3), 413-431.

Postill, J. forthcoming. Fields as dynamic configurations of practices, games, and socialities. In V. Amit (ed.) Concepts of Sociality: An Anthropological Interrogation. Oxford: Berghahn.

Turner, Victor W. 1957. Schism and Continuity in an African Society: A Study of Ndembu Village Life. Manchester: Manchester University Press.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 394 other followers