Volume 15, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Within the field of political psychology studies, the main goal of the present study is to investigate in depth the role played by two different forms – E-Tactics vs E-Movement – of social media activism on the quality of discourses and their possible level of acquired empowerment. Two Italian cases of e-minorities (Teatro Valle Occupato and Roars) will be analysed in terms of argumentative moves following a pragma-dialectic perspective in order to observe how they can construct a possible process of conscientization. Results, achieved by means of quanti-qualitative methods, highlight how E-Tactics (Teatro Valle Occupato), differently from E-Movement (Roars), can better promote normative but also creative forms of argumentations, as activists can claim for their rights but mainly also promote value change. This type of activism is strongly correlated to political participation, differently from E-Movement, mainly oriented to individual empowerment.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bennett, W. Lance , and Alexandra Segerberg
    2012 “The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics”, Information, Communication & Society15.5: 739–768. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolasco, Sergio
    2013L’analisi automatica dei testi. Fare ricerca con il text mining. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chadwick, Andrew
    2013The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Campbell, Catherine , and Sandra Jovchelovitch
    2000 “Health, community and development: Towards a social psychology of participation.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology10.4: 255–270. doi: 10.1002/1099‑1298(200007/08)10:4<255::AID‑CASP582>3.0.CO;2‑M
    https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1298(200007/08)10:4<255::AID-CASP582>3.0.CO;2-M [Google Scholar]
  5. Carpini, Michael Delli , Fay Lomax Cook and Lawrence R. Jacobs
    2004 “Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature.”, Annual Review Political Science. 7:315–344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dahlberg, Lincoln
    2001 “Computer‐mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication7.1. AccessedOctober 2001 doi: 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2001.tb00137.x.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00137.x [Google Scholar]
  7. D’Errico Francesca
    2016 “With different words. the arguments that can empower an e-minority”, Computers in human behaviour, 61: 205–212. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  8. D’Errico Francesca , Isabella Poggi
    2014 “Acidity. The hidden face of conflictual and stressful situations.”, Cognitive Computation. 6.4: 661–676. doi: 10.1007/s12559‑014‑9280‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-014-9280-1 [Google Scholar]
  9. D’Errico, Francesca , Isabella Poggi and Rocco Corriero
    2014 Aggressive language and insults in digital political participation. InProceedings of Multiconference on computer science and Information systems: Web Based Communities and Social Media 2014. MCCSIS, pp.105–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. D’Errico Francesca , Isabella Poggi and Rocco Corriero
    2015 “When minorities’ group discussions in social media become a resilient strategy.” In: Proceeding. Emotion and Sentiment in Social and Expressive Mediaedited by Ceur Essem : 116–126
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Earl, Jennifer , and Katrina Kimport
    2011Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the Internet age. Mit Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262015103.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262015103.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ekman, Joakim , and Erik Amnå
    2012 “Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology.”, Human affairs22.3: 283–300. doi: 10.2478/s13374‑012‑0024‑1
    https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-012-0024-1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Freire, Paulo
    1970Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Graham, Todd , and Tamara Witschge
    2003 “In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions.” Communications28.2: 173–204. doi: 10.1515/comm.2003.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012 [Google Scholar]
  15. Habermas, Jurge
    1984The theory of communicative Action, vol. One. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Heidar, Knut
    2006 Party membership and participation. In: Richard Kats & William Crotty (eds) Handbook of party politics, 301–315. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781848608047.n26
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608047.n26 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kuhn, Deanna
    1991The skills of argument. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511571350
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571350 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lášticová, Barbara
    2014 “New media, social capital and transnational migration: Slovaks in the UK.”, Human Affairs24.4: 406–422. doi: 10.2478/s13374‑014‑0237‑6
    https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-014-0237-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lebart, Ludovic and André Salem
    1994Statistique textuelle. Paris: Dunod.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Mucchi Faina, Angelica and Giancarla Cicoletti
    2006 “Divergence vs. ambivalence: Effects of personal relevance on minority influence. European.”, Journal of Social Psychology36.1: 91–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Moscovici, Serge
    1981Psicologia delle minoranze attive. Torino: Boringhieri.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Nelson, Nici , and Susan Wright
    1995 “Power and participatory development: theory and practice.” Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd (ITP). doi: 10.3362/9781780445649
    https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780445649 [Google Scholar]
  23. Poggi Isabella , Francesca D’Errico and Laura Vincze
    2011 “Agreement and its multimodal communication in debates. A qualitative analysis.”, Cognitive Computation. 3.3: 466–479 doi: 10.1007/s12559‑010‑9068‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-010-9068-x [Google Scholar]
  24. Putnam, Robert
    1994 “Social capital and public affairs.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 47.8: 5–19. doi: 10.2307/3824796
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3824796 [Google Scholar]
  25. Siddiquee, Asiya , and Carolyn Kagan
    2006 “The internet, empowerment, and identity: an exploration of participation by refugee women in a Community Internet Project (CIP) in the United Kingdom (UK).” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology16.3: 189–206. doi: 10.1002/casp.855
    https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.855 [Google Scholar]
  26. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1989 “Race, riots and the press An analysis of editorials in the British press about the 1985 disorders.”, International Communication Gazette43.3: 229–253. doi: 10.1177/001654928904300305
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001654928904300305 [Google Scholar]
  27. Verba, Sidney , Norman H. Nie , and Jae-On Kim
    1978Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Walton, Douglas , Christopher Reed , and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  29. Zimmerman, Marc and Julian Rappaport
    1988 “Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment.” American Journal of community psychology16.5: 725–750. doi: 10.1007/BF00930023
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00930023 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gil de Zúñiga, Homero , Nakwon Jung , and Sebastián Valenzuela
    2012 “Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation.”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17.3: 319–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2012.01574.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error