Article Sidebar

Submitted
May 3, 2021
Accepted
August 9, 2021
Published
October 31, 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1388 Download : 1703

Main Article Content

Abstract

The notion of social media activism has often been linked with both event and heroic acts in the public with the aim to transform the society. The problem with this framework is its reliance upon
performance, while lacking of awareness on the mundane aspects of everyday life, where public issues seep into with its own complexity. To fill this gap, the study uses Social Learning Theory as well as Uses and Gratification Theory to understand to what extent social media supports learning for sustainable living. By way of an ethnographic study on online community, the study found that the women under study have utilized the social media strategically to respond to the health issue and environmental problem, especially after the Covid-19 pandemic, through the discourse practice of sustainable living.

Keywords: online community, social media activism, social learning, sustainable living.

 

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

June Cahyaningtyas, Mahasiswa Doktoral, Inter-Religious Studies, Sekolah Pasca-Sarjana, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Mahasiswa Doktoral, Inter-Religious Studies, Sekolah Pasca-Sarjana, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. E-mail: [email protected]

Wening Udasmoro, Prodi Sastra Prancis, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Prodi Sastra Prancis, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

How to Cite
Cahyaningtyas, J., Udasmoro, W., & Sofjan, D. (2021). Pembelajaran Sosial Termediasi dan Aktivisme Media Sosial untuk Pola Hidup Berkelanjutan di Indonesia. Jurnal Komunikasi, 16(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.20885/komunikasi.vol16.iss1.art1
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
  2. Blewitt, J. (2006). The ecology of learning: Sustainability, lifelong learning, and everyday life. Earthscan.
  3. Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratification research. Sage.
  4. Bluteau, J. M. (2021). Legitimising digital anthropology through immersive cohabitation: Becoming an observing participant in a blended digital landscape. Ethnography, 22(2), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138119881165
  5. Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). #Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12112
  6. Brown, M., Ray, R., Summers, E., & Fraistat, N. (2017). #SayHerName: A case study of intersectional social media activism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(11), 1831–1846. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1334934
  7. Chon, M. G., & Park, H. (2020). Social media activism in the digital age: Testing an integrative model of activism on contentious issues. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019835896
  8. Chwialkowska, A. (2019) ‘How sustainability influencers drive green lifestyle adoption on social media: The process of green lifest. Management of Sustainable Development, 11(1), 33–43.
  9. Deaton, S. (2015). Social learning theory in the age of social media. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 1–6.
  10. Enli, G., & Simonsen, C. A. (2018). ‘Social media logic’ meets professional norms: Twitter hashtags usage by journalists and politicians. Information Communication and Society, 21(8), 1081–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301515
  11. Foster, M. D., Hennessey, E., Blankenship, B. T., & Stewart, A. (2019). Can “slacktivism” work? Perceived power differences moderate the relationship between social media activism and collective action intentions through positive affect. Cyberpsychology, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2019-4-6
  12. Gibson, J. J. (1979). “The theory of affordances”. In: The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, 127–137.
  13. Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: Problems and prospects. Ethnography and Education, 1(1), 3–14.
  14. Hootsuite We Are Social. (2021). Digital 2021. http://www.wearesocial.com/digital-2021
  15. Jones, J. W. (1989). Personality and epistemology: Cognitive social learning theory as a philosophy of science. Zygon®, 24(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb00974.x
  16. Jurnal Komunikasi
  17. Keir, A., Bamat, N., Hennebry, B., King, B., Patel, R., Wright, C., Scrivens, A., ElKhateeb, O., Mitra, S., & Roland, D. (2021). Building a community of practice through social media using the hashtag #neoEBM. PLoS ONE, 16(5 May 2021), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252472
  18. Liberatore, A., Bowkett, E., MacLeod, C. J., Spurr, E., & Longnecker, N. (2018). Social media as a platform for a citizen science community of practice. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 3(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.108
  19. Lim, M. (2012). Clicks, cabs, and coffee houses: Social media and oppositional movements in Egypt, 2004-2011. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01628.x
  20. Lim, M. (2013). Many clicks but little sticks: Social media activism in Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 43(4), 636–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2013.769386
  21. Markham, A. N. (2017). Ethnography in the digital era: From fields to flow, descriptions to interventions. In S. Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln, Yvonna (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th Edition (pp. 650–668). Sage.
  22. McGregor, S. L. T. (2009). Reorienting consumer education using social learning theory: Sustainable development via authentic consumer pedagogy. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(3), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00766.x
  23. Micheletti, M. (2004). Discursive political consumerism and political participation. Ecpr.Eu. https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/faea2793-53be-4573-9b88-778a5eeda26b.pdf
  24. Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091
  25. Pyrko, I., Dörfler, V., & Eden, C. (2017). Thinking together: What makes communities of practice work?. Human Relations, 70(4), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716661040
  26. Pyysiäinen, J. (2021). Sociocultural affordances and enactment of agency: A transactional view. Theory and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354321989431
  27. Rathnayake, C., & Winter, J. S. (2018). Carrying forward the uses and grats 2.0 agenda: An affordance-driven measure of social media uses and gratifications. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 62(3), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2018.1451861
  28. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontiers (2nd Editio). MIT Press.
  29. Ruggiero, T. E. (2018). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Refining Milestone Mass Communications Theories for the 21st Century, November, 36–70. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315679402-4
  30. Volume 16, Nomor 1, Oktober 2021, Hal 1-15 15
  31. Samudra, J. K. (2008). Memory in our body: Thick participation and the translation of kinesthetic experience. American Ethnologist, 35(4), 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2008.00104.x
  32. Sorrell, J. M., & Redmond, G. M. (1995). Interviews in qualitative nursing research: Differing approaches for ethnographic and phenomenological studies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21(6), 1117–1122. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21061117.x
  33. Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In A. J. Metzger, Miriam J. dan Flanagin (Ed.), Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility (pp. 72–100). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324. 073
  34. Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 57(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.845827
  35. vom Lehn, D., Hitzler, R., Honer, A., & Hitzler, R. (2015). Life-world-analytical ethnography: A phenomenology-based research approach. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 44(5), 544–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241615588589
  36. Winter, R., & Lavis, A. (2020). Looking, but not listening? theorizing the practice and ethics of online ethnography. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(1–2), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619857529
  37. Yang, G. (2016). Narrative agency in hashtag activism: The case of #blacklivesmatter. Media and Communication, 4(4), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i4.692