Digital Activism and Collective Identity: A Systematic Literature Review of Social Media’s Role in Contemporary Social Movements

Digital Activism and Collective Identity: A Systematic Literature Review of Social Media’s Role in Contemporary Social Movements

Vania Utamie Subiakto, Syerli Haryati, Maksimus Ramses Lalongkoe

Communication Science Study Program, Indonesian Science University, Communication Science Study Program, Mercu Buana University, Communication Science Study Program, Undira University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.907000272

Received: 28 June 2025; Accepted: 09 July 2025; Published: 12 August 2025

ABSTRACT

The digital transformation has reshaped the landscape of social movements, with social media emerging as a vital arena for the practice of digital activism. This study aims to systematically examine how social media contributes to the formation of collective identity within contemporary social movements. Utilizing the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method, this research analyzes 60 selected scholarly articles published between 2013 and 2024 from various international academic databases. The findings reveal that social media functions as a symbolic space that facilitates identity negotiation, solidarity building, and collective action mobilization. However, the collective identity formed through digital media tends to be fluid, susceptible to fragmentation, and heavily influenced by platform algorithms. Moreover, significant research gaps remain, particularly in the context of the Global South, along with a lack of interdisciplinary theoretical integration. This review underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to understanding the complex interplay between digital technology, social dynamics, and collective identity formation. The results not only contribute to the theoretical advancement of communication studies and social movement research but also offer practical insights for activists and policymakers in designing more effective and inclusive digital communication strategies.

Keywords: digital activism, collective identity, social media, social movements, systematic literature review.

Background of the Problem

In the last two decades, the emergence of social media has revolutionized the way individuals and groups voice their aspirations and form collective solidarity in various social movements (Muhammad Rachimoellah 2024). The digitalization of public space allows activism to no longer rely solely on physical mobilization, but instead utilize online space as a dynamic arena for struggle. This change gave birth to a phenomenon known as digital activism, a form of activism that relies on digital media to convey political, social, and cultural messages (Zur and Hatuka 2023). Digital activism has become a major tool in mobilizing the masses, disseminating information, and building collective consciousness.

Since its inception, digital media has opened up limitless social networks, making it faster for people to convey ideas, creativity, and aspirations openly. This makes politics more deliberative and has resistance to hegemonic mainstream media (Livingstone 2013). However, along with the increasing use of social media in social movements, various crucial issues have also emerged regarding the effectiveness, long-term impacts, and forms of collective identity formed in the digital space (Hasan Obaid 2017). Social movements are now not only taking place on the streets, but also on social media timelines. One of the main issues is how social media facilitates the formation of collective identity among geographically dispersed activists. Collective identity is important because it is the foundation of solidarity, belonging, and common goals in social movements (Khaeriyah and Natsir 2024).

Previous studies have shown that social media can accelerate the spread of information and form a shared narrative (Liu and Fang 2020). However, it is not clear to what extent digital engagement can create long-term commitment or is merely reactive and temporary. On the other hand, social media also presents new challenges, such as slacktivism, polarization of opinion, disinformation, and digital surveillance by the state or interested parties (Kurniawan Et al.2024). This creates a dilemma between the benefits and risks of using social media for activism.

The author sees that there are problems related to the effectiveness of digital itself, even though digital social movements appear massive and viral, as in the case of…Arab Spring, Black Lives Matter, And #MeToothere are still doubts about the real contribution of digital activism to structural social change (Castillo-Esparcia Et al.2023). Many have criticized this phenomenon as a form of “slacktivism,” where participation is limited to minimal actions such as liking, sharing, or commenting on posts, without being followed by real action in the offline world (Zuchowska 2024). This raises questions about the depth of participation and ideological commitment of digital activists. Another issue that is no less important is the role of social media itself as a non-neutral space. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are governed by algorithms that are oriented towards engagement and economic gain (Norström 2020).

As a result, more sensational or provocative content is more likely to go viral than content that educates or encourages collective reflection. This causes polarization, echo chambers, and even the diversion of social movement narratives. In addition, the phenomenon of disinformation and digital manipulation (for example, by bots or buzzers) also reduces the meaning and purpose of digital activism (Krismiyatiet al.2023). On the other hand, inequality in access to technology is also a challenge in itself. Digital activism is often pioneered by groups that have privileged access to the internet and digital literacy (Philips 2024). This can ignore the voices of marginalized groups who are actually the main subjects in many social movements. In other words, there is the potential for class, regional, and generational bias in digital activism (Judijanto and Nurwanto 2024).

Not only that, the author sees other problems related to various contemporary social movements, dissatisfaction with political, economic, or social systems that are considered unfair. Digital activism is an alternative way for marginalized or marginalized groups to voice their aspirations, because mainstream media often does not provide enough space. This shows the existence of social problems in the form of unequal representation and exclusion of public voices, especially for minorities, women, indigenous communities, and the working class (Rospitasari 2021).

Digital activism is defined as “click activism,” or “slacktivism,” a kind of liberal catharsis that provides space for the impression that they have done something political about their problems in the online arena (Mary Joyce 2010). Digital activism refers to the Internet; social media for social change using software. Digital activism has flexible and fluid characteristics in its operational process (Özkula 2021). This can be seen from the process of spreading issue content and forming wider networks using digital channels, the internet, blogs, social media, etc. (Muhammad Rachimoellah 2024). The infrastructure of digital activism is based on a digital network of interconnected groups of devices that use digital codes to send or exchange information. The beauty of the network provides connectivity for the political distribution process (Mary Joyce 2010). Networks not only connect users to the center of information or issue production, they connect people to each other as well.

This can be seen in social media which has an important role for rapid mobilization, but also facilitates the formation of collective identities that are sometimes exclusive and antagonistic (Aaron Smith and Monica Anderson 2015; Khaeriyah and Natsir 2024). Digital identities formed in a movement can create new social boundaries, strengthen polarization, and even exacerbate intergroup conflict. This has an impact on social fragmentation and a decrease in the capacity for dialogue between parties with different views. In the digital space, social activism is vulnerable to being infiltrated by false information or misleading propaganda (Leong Et al.2019). Many social movements are weakened by black campaigns (black campaign), bots, or systematic disinformation strategies that spread on social media. This social problem is closely related to the credibility of information, manipulation of public opinion, and the weakening of social solidarity in digital struggles (Giusti and Piras 2020). Not all groups in society have the same access and capacity to engage in digital activism. Inequality in terms of technological devices, digital literacy, and internet infrastructure creates digital exclusion. This is a new form of social inequality, where the right to participate in public discourse and collective struggles is heavily influenced by economic, educational, and geographic factors (Zuchowska 2024).

Social movements based on social media are often spontaneous and temporary, with participation being reactive and emotional. This raises social problems related to minimal long-term involvement, weak organizational structures, and the difficulty of building sustainable solidarity (Ade Onny Siagian, Agus Susilo, 2021). Collective identities are quickly formed, but also quickly disappear, so that social movements tend to lose direction or resilience. Several countries respond to digital activism with repression, such as arresting activists, restricting internet access, or monitoring online activities (Ahmad and Setyawati 2024). This is a social problem related to restrictions on civil liberties, violations of privacy, and the criminalization of online political participation.

However, although many studies have explored the links between social media and contemporary social movements, studies that systematically examine how digital activism contributes to the formation and strengthening of collective identity are still limited (Pardo Et al.2024). Collective identity is a key element in the sustainability of social movements because it functions as a foundation for shared consciousness that unites various actors in the same struggle. When this identity is constructed through digital media, critical questions arise regarding its authenticity, stability, and mobilization capacity (Subiakto 2021). Therefore, a comprehensive literature review is needed to map how the role of social media in the formation of collective identity is understood in various previous studies.

In line with the research conducted by Yazied, which states that the existence of digital activism activities fosters collective identity through inclusive and interactive participation. The “No Viral No Action” campaign has succeeded in gathering broad support with an attractive communication strategy tailored to the younger generation (Ahmad and Setyawati 2024). Participation in this campaign not only strengthens solidarity but also raises awareness of the importance of collective action against air pollution. The effectiveness of this campaign is associated with self-organized networks and actions facilitated by various entities, including ordinary citizens, communities, and the media (Ahmad and Setyawati 2024).

By conducting a systematic review of relevant literature, this article aims to identify patterns, theoretical approaches, and key findings in studies on digital activism and collective identity. This study is not only important to enrich the academic discourse on digital communication and social movements, but also provides practical contributions in formulating more effective communication strategies for community groups who want to build solidarity and social change through digital spaces.

RESEARCH METHODS

Research methods in the study entitled“Digital Activism and Collective Identity: A Systematic Literature Review of Social Media’s Role in Contemporary Social Movements” using the approachSystematic Literature Review (SLR), which discusses the concepts, theories, and case studies related to the phenomenon of digital activism, which are reviewed in various sources and are multidisciplinary (Creswell John and Creswell David 2023). This method was chosen to examine in depth and structure various previous studies that discuss the relationship between digital activism, collective identity, and the role of social media in contemporary social movements. This research is a constructivist-interpretive paradigm, which emphasizes the understanding of social meaning constructed through digital interactions, and how collective identities are formed and communicated in online spaces (Denzin N.K., & Lincoln, 2011). Researchers rely on data collection techniques through systematic searches of relevant scientific articles, journals, proceedings, and other academic publications, using databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and others. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are set to filter relevant articles, such as publication within a certain time frame, use of a certain language (eg, English), and the suitability of the topic with a focus on social media, social movements, and identity construction. Furthermore, the synthesis process is carried out with a thematic approach, which allows researchers to identify patterns, differences, and theoretical contributions from each study. Thus, this study not only describes the existing knowledge landscape but also provides a new direction for the development of studies on digital activism and collective identity in the context of the digital era.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results of discussion of the study“Digital Activism and Collective Identity: A Systematic Literature Review of Social Media’s Role in Contemporary Social Movements”shows that social media plays a strategic role in shaping, strengthening, and disseminating collective identities amidst contemporary social movements (Muhammad Rachimoellah 2024). Collective identities are no longer formed solely in physical spaces or through formal organizations, but also through fluid, participatory, and decentralized digital interactions (Wannewitz and Garschagen 2024). Social media facilitates the creation of digital symbols such as hashtags, memes, and viral narratives that build feelings of togetherness and emotional engagement across geographic boundaries. However, collective identities formed in digital spaces are more fluid, change quickly, and often lack a strong ideological foundation compared to conventional social movements (Dawson 2020).

The studies analyzed in this review highlight how social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, become symbolic spaces where narratives of struggle, shared values, and solidarity are constructed through hashtags, visuals, and viral messages (Lachlan Birdsey, Claudia Szabo, 2015). Digital activism allows previously isolated individuals to feel part of a larger movement, creating a sense of belonging that is essential in the formation of a collective identity (Castillo-Esparcia et al.2023). In addition, this study indicates that digital activism tends to produce superficial forms of participation (such as likes, shares, retweets), but in certain cases, especially when combined with offline strategies, digital activism can be a catalyst for significant social change.

If studies related to digital activism focus too much on anecdotes and case studies that are “popular” in the media, it is feared that the understanding of digital activism will be too narrow and limited because the use and relevance of various digital tools, strategies and tactics will continue to change (Ratnasari Et al.2021). Various literatures have called for a shift from anecdotes and case studies that only show what happens and is widely visible on the surface (for example from the depiction packaged in the media) to the “mechanical basis”, “contextual factors”, “values”, and “social structures” that enable digital activism to occur (Lim 2018). Understanding these things will fundamentally reveal how digital technology, in this case, for example, is considered to be able to create new public spaces for communication processes, and interactions that occur democratically and organically, to solve various public problems, and to voice and amplify real public interests in society (Friedland, L. A., Hove, T. B., & Rojas 2006; Lim 2022)

The terminology and phrase “digital activism” are also still debated academically. However, “digital” in this case is agreed to be the potential for speed, reliability, scale, and low cost offered by digital technology, and this allows for the expansion of the reach and scope of contemporary activism (Muzizah et al.2022). The term digital activism can then refer to a series of activities or campaigns that use digital technology and networks comprehensively and exclusively. Comprehensive in this case, includes all social and political campaign practices that use digital network infrastructure; exclusive means excluding other forms of activism practices that use technology, but are not connected in a digital network infrastructure (Mary Joyce 2010).

In-depth analysis shows the existence of structural contradictions in the digital space: on the one hand, social media opens up opportunities for the decentralization of movements, the democratization of narratives, and wider access to resistance discourse; but on the other hand, digital platforms are governed by algorithms that strengthen polarization, accelerate emotional cycles, and often dwarf substantive content for sensationalism. Another weakness found is the dominance of studies from the Global North context, which makes the dynamics of digital activism in Global South countries with different political, cultural, and digital access characters underrepresented in academic discourse (Phillips 2024). Therefore, this study emphasizes the importance of reorienting theoretical approaches and strengthening cross-contextual methodologies to study digital activism more holistically.

The phenomenon of digital campaigns such as #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #SaveRohingya shows how hashtags become a symbolic medium for forming collective identity (Goswami 2018). Hashtags not only function as a tool for classifying content but also as a meeting point for a collective digital identity that unites individuals from different backgrounds in one discourse of struggle. In several studies, hashtags are analyzed as a form of emergent identity node that strengthens emotional bonds, even if they are temporary. Hashtags have the power to unite scattered voices. Before social media, individual voices were often drowned out by the overwhelming flow of information. Now, with hashtags, anyone can connect with thousands to millions of people who share similar goals. For example, the #MeToo Movement gave women around the world a space to share experiences of sexual harassment that might not have previously received public attention.

The power of hashtags does not stop at collecting stories, but movements like #BlackLivesMatter show how social media can be a real advocacy tool. Through social media like Twitter and Instagram, activists have succeeded in rallying protests, strategizing and even pressuring public policies. The speed of information on social media allows critical issues to spread quickly or in seconds. Unfortunately, not all hashtags have the same impact. Many even call it the phenomenon of clicktivism or slacktivism, where support is limited to clicking “like” or “share” without real action.

Studies on digital activism that only focus on the technological aspect tend to be limited to an optimistic bias, namely, seeing social media platforms as technologies that open up democratic public spaces. Social media is vulnerable to being manipulated, especially by various parties who have an interest in spreading hatred, negative emotional prejudice. One real example in the context of Indonesia is that social media algorithms support the formation of groups that then attack each other rather than having discussions in a healthy environment (Lim, 2017). Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of digital activism with various multidisciplinary perspectives is needed in order to escape the trap of techno-determinism bias (Lim, 2018).

Next, several studies related to digital activism in Indonesia will be described. The description of digital activism in Indonesia can be observed through the phenomenon of “The Internet ultimately helped strengthen the anti-Suharto student movement in 1998. The students combined online and offline activism, using various means of communication that were not openly controlled by the government telephone, fax, mobile phones, and especially e-mail students and various other parties mobilized many people to come to the streets and occupy parks, plazas, and the front of government buildings to force President Soeharto to step down” (Lim, 2019, p. 484).

In Indonesia, the penetration of digital technology has always received a positive response, especially from business actors who consider that digital technology has the potential to be a catalyst for the digital economy (Rajan Anandan, Sipahimalani, Saini, Aryasomayajula, & Smittinet, 2018). This is also supported by the fact that several global social media companies identify Indonesia as one of the important countries for marketing their products. The concept of digital activism emerged when technology could be used to encourage various civil society activities, especially in the context of a democratic country. Over the past few years, various parties around the world have become increasingly aware of and interested in the potential use of digital technology, ranging from hardware such as mobile phones and supporting software, such as the Internet, and social media, for example, in the context of campaigns for social and political change. These practices were then defined and popularized as “digital activism.”

These findings emphasize that the effectiveness of digital activism cannot be measured solely by its popularity or virality, but must be assessed through the extent to which it builds durable collective solidarity, generates concrete socio-political pressure, and creates safe spaces for the participation of marginalized groups. Thus, this study opens up space for further research that highlights the interaction between technological infrastructure, social movement strategies, and identity formation in the context of evolving social media.

CONCLUSION

Based on a systematic review of various scientific literature, it can be concluded that social media plays a very important role in changing the way contemporary social movements are formed, developed, and managed. Social media is not only a communication channel, but also a symbolic space for negotiating meaning, values, and collective identity. Digital activism has expanded the scope of citizens’ political participation by lowering access barriers, increasing the visibility of marginal issues, and accelerating the mobilization process. However, the success of a digital movement is not only measured by the number of online engagements, but also by its ability to build and maintain a strong and sustainable collective identity. Collective identities formed through social media tend to be fluid, dynamic, and open to renegotiation. This opens up opportunities for greater inclusivity, but also presents challenges in terms of ideological consistency and movement direction. The absence of a single leader often creates fragmentation in the movement’s narrative and goals.

The literature study shows that although social media supports initial cohesion in movements, this cohesion can quickly weaken if there is no deep deliberative space. Shallow or reactive communication can hinder the formation of a solid collective identity, especially in cross-cultural or multinational movements. In addition, there is a significant influence of the algorithmic design of social media platforms in shaping social interactions. Algorithms can amplify polarization, create echo chambers, and inhibit cross-group dialogue, which ultimately negatively affect the dynamics of collective identity. The study also identified a research gap, especially related to differences in political, cultural, and geographical contexts that influence the form and success of digital activism. Most research is still focused on the Global North, while in-depth studies in the Global South, including Indonesia, are still limited.

In terms of methodology, there is a dominance of qualitative approaches and case studies, but there are not many studies that use a comparative approach across movements or a quantitative approach to measure the strength and stability of digital collective identities. The findings of this literature review also show the importance of integrating communication theory, sociology, and digital media studies to understand the complexity of contemporary social movements. The need for a multidisciplinary approach is crucial in developing a more complete and holistic understanding. In practice, the results of this study contribute to activists and policymakers in designing digital communication strategies that are able to consolidate collective identities, strengthen online community cohesion, and increase the sustainability of social movements in the digital era. Thus, this systematic study makes it clear that social media is not just a communication tool, but an active socio-political field in shaping collective structures, values, and solidarity. Therefore, a critical understanding of the relationship between digital activism and collective identity needs to be continuously developed as a foundation for building inclusive and transformative social change.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Aaron Smith and Monica Anderson. 2015. Social Media Use in 2018. Emerg Technol Healthc. March:94 99. doi:10.1201/b18431-8.
2. Leadership in the Digital Era-Agile Leadership 4.0.
3. Ahmad YT, Setyawati L. 2024. Digital Activism and Collective Identity: “No Viral No Action ” as Connective Action among Youth on Jakarta’s Air Pollution Issue. JPIS (J Social Science Educator). 33(1):15–34.
4. Castillo-Esparcia A, Caro-Castaño L, Almansa-Martínez A. 2023. Evolution of digital activism on social media: opportunities and challenges.Prof the Inf. 32(3):1–16. doi:10.3145/epi.2023.may.03.
5. Creswell John and Creswell David. 2023. Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Volume Sixth Edit. https://medium.com/@arifwicaksanaa/pengertian-use-case-a7e576e1b6bf.
6. Dawson P. 2020. Hashtag narrative: Emergent storytelling and effective publics in the digital age. Int J Cult Stud. 23(6):968–983. doi:10.1177/1367877920921417.
7. Denzim N.K., & Lincoln Y. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research 1. 3rd ed. Student Library.
8. Friedland, L. A., Hove, T. B., & Rojas, H. 2006. The networked public sphere. Public. 13(4):5–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13183222.2006.11008922.
9. Giusti S, Piras E. 2020.Democracy and fake news: Information manipulation and post-truth politics.
10. Goswami M. 2018. Social Media and Hashtag Activism. Lib Dign Chang Journal. July:252–262. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/326655352.
11. Hasan Obaid. 2017. The Impact of Social Media on Social Movements. Shock Polit. April 2020:224-252. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2495-3.ch009.
12. Judijanto L, Nurwanto N. 2024. The Impact of Technology Access Inequality and Digital Skill Disparities on Social Integration and Life Satisfaction in Indonesia. Eastasouth J Soc Sci Humanity. 2(01):89–101. doi:10.58812/esssh.v1i03.
13. Khaeriyah K, Natsir N. 2024. Social Dynamics: The Role of Social Media in Shaping Collective Identity. Int J Commun Tour Soc Econ Trends. 1(4).
14. Krismiyati, Nugraha IA, Imanita M, Sasono S, Amin F. 2023. Digital Activism in Social Movements and Its Influence on the Implementation of State Administration in Indonesia. Minister J Government Bureaucracy Drh. 5(1):123–132.
15. Kurniawan W, Arham M, Muluk H. 2024. Social Media’s Influence on Political Participation: Insights from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Indonesian Psychology. 51(3):336–355. doi:10.22146/jpsi.101469.
16. Lachlan Birdsey Claudia Szabo YMT. 2015. Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference L. Ytlmaz,. Winter Simul Conf (WSC) IEEE, 2015. (2012):779–790.
17. Leong C, Pan SL, Bahri S, Fauzi A. 2019. Social media empowerment in social movements: power activation and power accrual in digital activism. Eur J Inf Syst. 28(2):173–204. doi:10.1080/0960085X.2018.1512944.
18. Lim JKR. 2022. Why People Adopt Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction Behaviors Integrated Model of Risk Communication and Results from Hurricanes, Floods, and Wildfires [Cited By (since 2022): 6]. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 103(10). doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0087.1.
19. Lim M. 2018. in Southeast Asia Taylor and Francis Taylor and Francis. June:478–494.
20. Liu L, Fang C-C. 2020. Accelerating the Social Media Process: The Impact of Internet Celebrity Word-of-Mouth Communication and Relationship Quality on Consumer Information Sharing. Int J Hum Resour Stud. 10(1):201. doi:10.5296/ijhrs.v10i1.16043.
21. Livingstone S. 2013. Media consumption and public connection Book section. Di dalam: The london school of Economics and political science. London, UK: Media consumption and public engagement beyond the presumption of attention.
22. Mary Joyce. 2010. Digital Activism Decoded. Joyce M, editor. New York, NY: International Debate Education Association.
23. Muhammad Rachimoellah. 2024. Digital activism and political participation: The impact of social media on political engagement. J Digit Soc Media Stud. 12(1):55–72. doi:10.7454/meis.v11i2.177.
24. Muzizah S, Putro RW, Saptono E. 2022. Digital Innovation At Badiklat Kemhan Through Accessibility, Visibility, Popularity and Activism Ecosystem.IjassjournalCom. 5(7):204–215. https://www.ijassjournal.com/2022/V5I7/414665851.pdf.
25. Norström L. 2020. Algorithmic Work: The Impact of Algorithms on Work with Social Media. Proc 28th Eur Conf Inf Syst., ready to publish.
26. Özkula SM. 2021. What is digital activism anyway? Social constructions of the “digital” in contemporary activism. J Digit Soc Res. 3(3):60–84. doi:10.33621/jdsr.v3i3.44.
27. Pardosi P, Muttaqim H, Sugeng IS. 2024. Social Media Activism: The Rise of Digital Movements in the Global South. 1 December:411–421.
28. Phillips C. 2024. Digital Communication and the Rise of Online Activism. J Common. 5(3):31–44. doi:10.47941/jcomm.1983.
29. Ratnasari E, Sumartias S, Romli R. 2021. Social Media, Digital Activism, and Online Gender-Based Violence in Indonesia. Listen to J Commun. 5(1):97. doi:10.31000/nyimak.v5i1.3218.
30. Rospitasari M. 2021. Youtube as alternative media for digital activism in documentary film creative industry. J Common Stud (Indonesian J Common Stud. 5(3):665–692. doi:10.25139/jsk.v5i3.3779.
31. Subiakto VU. 2021. The Media Relations Strategy by the division of community Participation the national commission on violence against women in handling the case of Violence against Women. (1):149–162. doi:10.22161/ijels.
32. Wannewitz M, Garschagen M. 2024. The role of social identities for collective adaptation capacities– general considerations and lessons from Jakarta, Indonesia. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 100 March 2023:104194. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104194.
33. Zuchowska D. 2024. Encyclopedia of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Spirituality. Encycl Divers Equity, Incl Spiritual. January:0–4. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32257-0.
34. Zur H, Hatuka T. 2023. Local–Digital Activism: Place, Social Media, Body, and Violence in Changing Urban Politics. Soc Media Soc. 9(2). doi:10.1177/20563051231166443.