Task: Access this journal, Social Media and Society, and read one article from the current issue that appeals to your interests. In a blog post, provide a brief description and an analysis of the article of your choice. Do you agree with the authors? If not – why not? (350-400 words)
Mulvey and Keller’s (2023) article Brooms and Ballots: #WitchTheVote, the Nostalgic Internet, and Intersectional Feminist Politics on Instagram, explores how intersectional feminists have navigated the “social media attention economy”, which is governed by algorithms that conform to traditional social norms, ideologies, and trends. This article specifically focuses on the hashtag #WitchTheVote, which was established by a set of witches from Salem in preparation for the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Mulvey and Keller (2023, p. 1-2) undertook a visual and discursive coding of posts using this hashtag which observed that this hashtag used “reflective nostalgic activism” to link witchiness with progressive and social-justice oriented intersectional feminism. This approach sought to disrupt not only traditional social norms, but also the norms of traditional, popular feminism that ignores the importance of intersectionality and marginalised voices, and instead adheres to neoliberal ideologies to create content that achieves social media virality (Banet-Weiser, et al., 2020).
As a consumer of feminist content on various social media platforms, I have observed similar content from witch and wicca communities, such as the subreddit “Witches Vs Patriarchy”. As noted by Mulvey and Keller (2023, p. 3), #WitchTheVote represents a group attempting to engage on a platform in a way that does not conform to the platform’s conventions. This ultimately results in low user engagement as the Instagram algorithm lowers the visibility of these posts. This experience is echoed by the Reddit post by u/Peggy_Hill_Foot_job “The instagram algorithm is trying to kill me”, wherein this user laments the restriction of content shown on their Instagram as their interests do not conform to traditional, high visibility content.
The ideological foundation of social media platforms is intrinsically at odds with the local focus of authentic intersectional feminist content, and thus will continue to suppress these already marginalised voices (Kanai, 2020, pp. 34-37). However, I agree with Mulvey and Keller (2023, p. 11) that to deem #WitchTheVote and similar intersectional feminist campaigns unsuccessful due to their low visibility is inaccurate, as their mere presence challenges “visibility, attention, celebrity, large audiences, and consumption”. Therefore, while this conflict degrades the ability of intersectional feminists to engage widely on social media, their ongoing use of these platforms is subversive in of itself and an act of radical, intersectional feminism that rejects popular feminism’s highly visible, consumable glamour.
(381 words)
References
Banet-Weiser, S., Gill, R., & Rottenberg, C. (2020). Postfeminism, popular feminism and neoliberal feminism? Sarah Benet-Weiser, Rosalind Gill and Catherine Rottenberg in conversation. Feminist Theory, 21(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700119842555
Kanai, A. (2020). Between the perfect and the problematic: Everyday femininities, popular feminism, and the negotiation of intersectionality. Cultural Studies, 34(1), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2018.1559869
Mulvey, A. P., & Keller, J. M. (2023). Brooms and ballots: #WitchTheVote, the nostalgic internet, and intersectional feminist politics on Instagram. Social Media + Society, 9(4), 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231205
Niria Alica [@niriaalicia]. (2020, December 4). I refuse to give any more of my energy to the outcomes of these #elections2020 [Photograph]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/CHJakX6gJT3/?img_index=1
u/Peggy_Hill_Foot_job. (2023, March 6). The Instagram algorithm is trying to kill me [Online forum post]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy/comments/ 11jmuoo/the_instagram_algorithm_is_trying_to_kill_me/
It is a very interesting article, and thank you for your in-depth explanation. I agree with you that some social media platforms are governed by algorithms restricting what content can be shown on their platform, which is a biased opinion. However, it is not easy for viewers to notice the selected post unless the posts are very one-sided opinions. I wonder if technology can distinguish whether it is a biased platform.
I agree that it’s hard to determine biases as a social media user as we’re slowly exposed to ideas and trends over time. I think that’s why it can be so harmful, especially to young users, as it’s difficult for them to combat what the algorithm is deciding to expose them to. I think this is why information literacy is so critical for youth education.
Catchy hashtag, and I love the idea of embracing negative slurs (I have a tattoo of a witch on my leg beside the quote “Not now, Not ever”).
When the article says that the hashtag was unsuccessful, what are they comparing it to? Is in-group (in-bubble?) success measured differently to trends that transcend the bubble?