Civic Activism as a Novel Component of Armenian Civil Society

communication tools lies mainly in the support they provide for civil society and the public
sphere.
Some authors approach social networks as a tool for change, especially political change
(Raoof et al. 2013), and for empowering ordinary people worldwide to have a public voice
(Kirkpatrick 2011). The Internet has a positive effect on civic engagement, and social media is
able to facilitate collective action (Yang 2003). Gil de Zuniga, Jung and Valenzuela (2012)
analyse the impact of social media networks on civic participation, demonstrating that the use of
social networks positively affects civic participation, defined as voluntary activities for nonpolitical
organisation, involvement in charitable events and other activities that derive from
social values. Another study identifies a relationship between Facebook usage and social capital,
noting that social media improves connections among people who benefit from academic,
community or professional networks (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007). Valenzuela, Park
and Kee (2009) argue that Facebook usage promotes peoples’ engagement in civic activities and
increases social trust, life satisfaction, self-esteem and even political participation. Some studies
demonstrate that social networking increases the likelihood of citizen engagement in politics
(Lake and Huckfeldt 1998) and impacts organisational membership and protest attendance
(Schwarz 2012). Overall, the importance of the Internet has been framed as helping to build
‘bridging’ capital (Kavanaugh et al. 2005) that, in turn, helps to consolidate cooperative mutual
engagement and promotes collective action (Putnam 2000).
The Arab Spring highlighted the importance of social media and attracted researchers’
attention to Facebook and Twitter (Breuer 2012; Tufekci and Wilson 2012; Eltantawy and Wiest
2011). Many of these authors argue that the social media not only facilitated the organisation of
movements by reducing the costs of organising them but also created a collective national
identity and created opportunities for cross-class cooperation. Some even contend that nearly
half of the protesters participated because of the coverage of the protests on Facebook and
Twitter (Eltantawy and Wiest 2011). The blogosphere is also cited as occupying an important
place within Egyptian media (Hirschkind 2011).
Although Facebook and Twitter have attracted the lion’s share of attention devoted to
social networking sites, the Blackberry Messenger Service is also cited as facilitating successful
mobilisation in London (see Bell 2011 and Halliday 2011).
Other researchers, however, do not consider social media to be a significant contributor
to social movements’ success, arguing that activists owe their achievements mostly to the
traditional means of protests; social media is effective at framing a protest, not in organising one
(Metwalli 2010; Theocharis 2011; Tusa 2013; Valenzuela, Arriagada, and Scherman 2012).
Some authors suggest that while the use of communication channels is on the rise, such use
narrows people’s mobilising potential and makes them lose contact with their social environment
(Nie and Erbring 2000; Van Laer 2010). Revealing some of the negative consequences of
Internet proliferation, several authors highlight that social media tools can be beneficial to
governments and intelligence agencies and be used by authoritarian regimes for propaganda
14