Advertisement

Social Media Effects on the Gezi Park Movement in Turkey: Politics Under Hashtags

  • Kamil DemirhanEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 13)

Abstract

This study aims at understanding the role of social media in the Gezi Park movement in Turkey. The movement started as a protest of an environmentalist group then it turned into a social-political movement. The protestors were opposed to the project of re-building Gezi Park and Taksim Square that is the public area at the center of Istanbul. Politicians, demonstrators, the public and media have agreed on the fact that social media had a significant role in this movement. Social media, especially Twitter, was regarded as the main reason of this movement. The effect of social media on politics on the development of social movements and political participation is often evaluated as an important topic in current academic studies. This study contributes to this literature by focusing on the role of social media in the Gezi Park movement. The analysis consists of Twitter functions, Twitter actors as users, and the forms of communication on Twitter.

Keywords

Social media Twitter Political participation Social movements 

References

  1. Bennett, W. L., & Entman, M. (2001). Mediated politics: An introduction. In W. L. Bennett & M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, W. (2003). Communicating global activism. Information, Communication & Society, 6(2), 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). Digital media and the personalization of collective action – social technology and the organization of protests against the global economic crisis. In B. D. Loader & D. Mercea (Eds.), Social media and democracy. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Blog.milliyet (2013). Prime Minister’s explanations about the demonstrators. http://blog.milliyet.com.tr/capulcu-modasi/Blog/?BlogNo=418570 Accessed 15 June 2013.
  5. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1).Google Scholar
  6. Çakır, D., & Demirhan, K. (2011). Political character of the social actions in the process of globalization: A case study. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 3(2), 159–168.Google Scholar
  7. Castells, M. (2011). A network theory of power. International Journal of Communication, 5, 773–787.Google Scholar
  8. Chadwick, A., & May, C. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: “e-Government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 16(2), 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen, C. (2011). Twitter revolutions? Addressing social media and dissent. The Communication Review, 14(3), 155–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cihan. (2013a). Prime Minister’s explanations about the rebuilding of Taksim http://www.cihan.com.tr/news/Basbakan-Erdogan-Taksim-e-yapilacak-caminin-yerini-acikladi-CHMTA0NDU4My8x Accessed 06 June 2013.
  11. Comscore. (2012). The Netherlands Ranks #1 Worldwide in Penetration for Twitter and Linkedin.http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/4/The_Netherlands_Ranks_number_one_Worldwide_in_Penetration_for_Twitter_and_LinkedIn Accessed 13 Feb 2012.
  12. Dahlberg, L. (2001). The internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlberg, L. (2007). The internet and discursive exclusion: From deliberative to agonistic public sphere theory. In L. Dahlberg & E. Siapera (Eds.), Radical democracy and the internet. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahlberg, L., & Siapera, E. (2007). Introduction: Tracing radical democracy and the internet. In L. Dahlberg & E. Siapera (Eds.), Radical democracy and the internet. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Della Porta, D. (2012). Communication in movement - social movements as agents of participatory democracy. In B. D. Loader & D. Mercea (Eds.), Social media and democracy. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Demirhan, K. (2013). Relationship between social media and political parties: The case of Turkey. In A. M. G. Solo (Ed.), Political campaigning in the information age. Hershey, PV: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  17. ecktr (2013). The number of tweets in the hashtags. http://ecktr.com/ Accessed 20 June 2013.
  18. Eriksen, E. O. (2005). An emerging European public sphere. European Journal of Social Theory, 8(3), 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fenton, N., & Downey, J. (2003). Counter public spheres and global modernity. The Public, 10(1), 15–32.Google Scholar
  20. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2).Google Scholar
  21. Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the Internet. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 27(4), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. gundem.milliyet (2013). The results of events. http://gundem.milliyet.com.tr/3-u-agir-toplam-3-bin-500-yarali/gundem/detay/1718297/default.htm Accessed 04 June 2013.
  23. Harlow, S., & Harp, D. (2012). Collective action on the web. Information, Communication & Society, 15(2), 196–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauben, M., & Hauben, R. (1997). Netizens. London: Wiley/IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hürriyet. (2013a). About the people were arrested by police in İzmir. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/23438875.asp. Accessed 06 June 2013.
  26. Hürriyet. (2013b). The explanations of the Prime Minister. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/23429709.asp. Accessed 06 June 2013.
  27. Insanhaber. (2013). The results of events. http://www.insanhaber.com/guncel/21-gunun-bilancosu-4-olu-7822-yarali-h16629.html. Accessed 18 June 2013.
  28. Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 971–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Information Communication & Society, 14(6), 757–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing E-participation in policy-making. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
  31. Maireder, A., & Schwarzenegger, C. (2012). A movement of connected individuals. Information, Communication & Society, 15(2), 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Memurlar.net (2013). The results of events. http://www.memurlar.net/haber/378927/. Accessed 04 June 2013.
  33. Park, C. S. (2013). Does Twitter motivate involvement in politics? Tweeting, opinion leadership, and political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1641–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media Society, 9(5), 849–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Small, T. A. (2012). What the Hashtag? A content analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter. In B. D. Loader & D. Mercea (Eds.), Social media and democracy. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Socialdigger. (2013). The number of tweets in the hashtags. http://www.socialdigger.org/geziparki/ Accessed 23 June 2013
  37. Stalker, G. J., & Wood, L. J. (2012). Reaching beyond the net: Political circuits and participation in Toronto’s G20 protests. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 12(2), 178–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quinn, S., & Lamble, S. (2008). Online newsgathering research and reporting for journalism. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  39. Tsagarousianou, R. (1999). Electronic democracy: Rhetoric and reality. Communications, 24(2), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Twitter. (2013). About Twitter. https://twitter.com/about Accessed 04 June
  41. twitturk (2013). The standing man. http://twitturk.com/tweet/search?q=duranadam Accessed 23 June 2013.
  42. Vesnic-Alujevic, L. (2012). Political participation and web 2.0 in Europe: A case study of Facebook. Public Relations Review, 38, 466–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wieviorka, M. (2005). After new social movements. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 4(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Woo-Young, C. (2005). Online civic participation, and political empowerment: online media and public opinion formation in Korea. Media Culture Society, 27, 925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zheng, Y., & Wu, G. (2005). Information technology, public space, and collective action in China. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yurtgazetesi. (2013). About the broadcasting animal documentary on the prestigious news channel “CNNTurk” http://www.yurtgazetesi.com.tr/gundem/cnnturke-sevgiler-h36551.html Accessed 15 June 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and Public AdministrationHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations