top of page

Leaderlessness:

Subversion in the Age of the Internet 

In world politics, subversive groups increasingly utilize information and communication technologies (ICTs) for a range of coordinative, persuasive and ancillary activities. In attempting to fly under the radar, ICTs provide actors abilities to hide, obfuscate and clandestinely organize in preparation for a subversive campaign. Once in the public limelight, ICTs continue to provide subversive groups new and enhanced abilities to coordinate, activate and mobilize in their attempt to affect sociopolitical transformation.

In line with the move that successful subversive actors make from counterculture to mainstream voice, group usage of ICTs invariably transitions from emphasis on strategies of subterfuge to those of digital activism. This tendency is evident in a range of modern cases of attempted subversion and makes a great deal of sense. Activist strategies are logical outgrowths of a situation in which a group suddenly finds itself relevant to mainstream popular discourse. At this point, renouncement of techniques and strategies that might have once aided the clandestine operation of a group also makes substantial sense, as such activities often invite government scrutiny and threaten to link a subversive cause with a shady past in the public eye.

My dissertation research and current book manuscript explored the determinants of subversive actors’ decisions to emphasize competing ICT usage strategies. Such an effort promises to produce better knowledge of the ways in which global ICT development and adoption have impacted upon the practices of subversive groups in world politics. Specifically, I am investigating and building theory regarding the conditions that produce divergent outcomes in the use of ICT for clandestine purposes during the activist phases of subversive campaigns. That some subversive actors abandon such tactics while others do not presents a compelling puzzle for scholars of international relations. Exploring and explaining the dynamics of group decision-making in this regard stands to shed light on the motivations of radical non-state actors in the digital age, to illuminate further processes of ideational introduction in the digital era, and to build a narrative on the relationship between government auspices and outliers in civil society.

What’s not clear about subversives’ use of the Internet and other ICTs is what motivates some groups to enduringly “keep one foot in the shadows” – i.e. to continue clandestine, sometimes illicit technologically-supported activities alongside the digital activism that characterizes the later stages of a subversive campaign. Many subversive groups gear shift towards digital activism in later phases of their campaign and abandon alternative uses of ICTs, but some do not. Why? What conditions influence or pre-determine the decision to maintain emphasis on “shady” digital practices? 

bottom of page