Hashtag Politics at the Conflict Market: Boycotts boycotts boycotts
Over the years I have talked many times in radio, TV and at events about boycotts, where journalists and audiences are interested in if boycotts work, if they have an effect, or if we merely fool ourselves while trying to feel in control (please see my answers in the media links below). No surprise, the increase of boycotts of course comes with the technological possibilities of digital media, which is why we can call them “hashtag politics”. But they are also a result of what I have written about as the “conflict market” (see article at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/14695405211026040 and the RJ research project web page https://conflictmarket.sofiaulver.se/) where affectivity, and unsolvable feuds, flourishes due to brands’ and politicians’ monetization of algorithmic conflict and polarization. Boycotts are perhaps a bit unintuitively part and parcel of the conflict market in that brands in the end always can cash in on engagement, no matter what kind of engagement it is. Ever heard of Nike? Starbucks? They only profit from this kind of publicity. After a while consumers forget and the new cool sneaker or pumpkin latte win over the voting-with-the wallet”-practice. The #-boycott was a fetish!
Most importantly, due to this fetishization process we believe we have done something truly political, but most likely we have just “built idenity,” all while real politics ( engage in political parties, push politicians etc ) is forgotten. Still, there are of course many consumption-related boycotts in the world history that have lead to many great things (the classic examples are Rosa Park, Ghandi, Southafrica etc). Typical for them is that they have been massive and ultimately sanctioned by active politicians or governments (external or internal) . We will see a lot of this in the future if Trump continues with his trade wars, for example when Trudeau went out and called for boycotts against US products and buycotts in favour of Canadian products. These kinds of high-level boycotts and buycotts will quite likely have an effect, because they involve everyone in a nation and are encouraged from highest position.
However, for most other boycotts in hashtag politics, while technology increases the opportunities to protest, resist, and let your voice be heard it also leads to cramped space and boycott inflation. Not only is it close to impossible for consumers, journalists and researchers alike, to find out about the true owner-relations of companies (it is an almost impenetrable jungle!), now it is also a jungle to try to penetrate the vast scape of boycott and petition lists. Every time a journalist contacts me about boycotts they present new lists to me that I haven’t heard about, even if I am reasonably updated.
The next coming weeks there will be a lot of boycotts against Russian brands and commodities due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 (three long years ago!). Yet, to me, the most mysterious part of all consumer boycotts in relation to Russia, is why retailers almost never are attacked by consumers for selling Russian goods. Where are the activists? And where are the regulators? Stay tuned.
https://www.tv4.se/artikel/7MIDCVsTkfbTzTPmFNYGRo/haer-aer-uppstickaren-till-de-heliga-chokladaskarna-aer-lite-kaxigt?fbclid=IwY2xjawIOw7NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVIBToeSgOVgAnQrFIBtkOd5ep_Mdpn8-UnbE48wD-LK_3n3ed3Geuyxsg_aem_ttdS8OFPJ7uHxWOM1o8X3Q
https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/forskare-om-bojkotten-av-marabou-vi-lurar-oss-sjalva
https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/skansk-forskare-om-konsumentbojkott-hopplost-att-fa-en-overblick–2
https://www.di.se/nyheter/forskare-bojkotta-varumarken-racker-inte/
https://www.svtplay.se/video/jGZkV1A/utrikesbyran/blodsport?id=jGZkV1A&tabs=productionPeriod-KDmqvar-2024-5
