“How can you assess the significance of social movements in the digital era? Explain.” (2025)
M. S. A. Rao defined a social movement as sustained collective mobilisation, through formal or informal organisation, aimed at changing the existing system. Digital media have made mobilisation cheap and instant. Crowd size or hashtag counts therefore no longer show significance. It has to be judged against clearer yardsticks.
Yardsticks of assessment
| Yardstick | Question to ask | Digital-era illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Voice | Who can now make claims? | #MeToo India (2018): women named powerful men; Minister of State M. J. Akbar resigned in October 2018 |
| Capacity | Can it shape narratives, disrupt, or move votes? | Zeynep Tufekci, Twitter and Tear Gas (2017): narrative, disruptive and electoral capacities |
| Durability | Does it outlast the viral moment? | Samyukt Kisan Morcha (2020–21): WhatsApp networks plus year-long border camps; farm laws repealed in November 2021 |
| Structural outcome | Are institutions changed? | Nepal’s Gen Z protests (September 2025): a ban on 26 platforms sparked Discord-coordinated protests; Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli resigned; Rastriya Swatantra Party won a landslide in March 2026 |
| Cultural change | Are meanings and identities changed? | Alberto Melucci: movements “challenge codes”; #MeToo redefined workplace harassment as a public issue |
Theories behind the yardsticks
- Manuel Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope (2012): mass self-communication creates spaces of autonomy beyond state and corporate media. Movements become consequential only in hybrid space, where online networks meet occupied public squares such as Tahrir in 2011.
- W. Lance Bennett and Alexandra Segerberg (2012): connective action through personalised frames lets large numbers join without formal organisations. Scale is therefore no longer evidence of organisational strength.
- Tufekci’s caution: digital tools let movements skip slow organising, so they lack decision-making capacity and suffer a “tactical freeze”. Egypt’s 2011 uprising toppled Hosni Mubarak, but the army took power again in 2013.
- John D. McCarthy and Mayer N. Zald (resource mobilisation, 1977): platforms are a resource, not a substitute for organisation.
Factors that reduce significance
- State counter-power: India imposed 65 internet shutdowns in 2025, among the highest in the world (Access Now; 313 globally).
- Algorithmic amplification of misinformation and counter-movements, plus the digital divide.
- Weak ties: Malcolm Gladwell (2010) argued that online links rarely sustain high-risk activism.
Conclusion
In the digital era, a movement’s significance lies in turning attention into organisation and institutional change. Movements that combine networks with ground-level structures, like the farmers’ movement and Nepal’s youth uprising, reshape power. Hashtag bursts without that base mostly register sentiment. The sociological test is still Rao’s: sustained mobilisation that changes the system.