Skip to content
1981
image of Mobilizing in a time of crisis: Extinction Rebellion and COVID-19

Abstract

Extinction Rebellion (XR) is a transnational, decentralized environmental movement formed in the United Kingdom in 2018. It is renowned for its tactics of non-violent direct action, road blockades, performance art, mass arrests and civil disobedience. It also has a significant social media presence and has developed innovative forms of digital activism to further public engagement. This article employs Facebook as its ‘field site’ and analyses 282 posts from XR’s main Facebook page from June to July of 2020. The research was carried out during COVID-19 restrictions and marked a pivotal moment when XR’s strategy moved from direct action to online mobilization. This article draws upon the analytical concepts of ‘social movement framing’ and ‘connective action’ to uncover the meanings, motivations and tactics employed online. XR not only relied upon communicating emotions of anger and despair but aimed to build a strong collective identity around emotional support, relational connection and community. The article concludes by exploring how far digital activism can create unique spaces for the emergence of new environmental languages, framings and tactics.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Economic Social Research Council (Award 2267295)
© 2025 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00165_1
2025-12-20
2026-04-21

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Benford, R. (1997), ‘An insider’s critique of the social movement framing perspective’, Sociological Inquiry, 67:4, pp. 409–30, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1997.tb00445.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Benford, R. and Snow, D. (2000), ‘Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology, 26, pp. 611–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bennett, L. and Segerberg, A. (2012), ‘The logic of connective action’, Information, Communication & Society, 15:5, pp. 739–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennett, L. and Segerberg, A. (2015), ‘Communication in movements’, in D. Della Porta and M. Diani (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 367–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Della Porta, D. and Diani, M. (2006), Social Movements: An Introduction, 2nd ed., Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DeLuca, K. (2021), ‘Extinction Rebellion, image events, social media and the eclipse of the earth’, Social Anthropology, 29:1, pp. 216–18, https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.13002.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Díaz-Pont, J., Sjölander, A., Foxwell-Norton, K., Mishra, M. and Maeseele, P. (2020), ‘Environmental communication in the intertwining of the local and the digital’, in J. Díaz-Pont, P. Maeseele, A. Sjölander, M. Mishra and K. Foxwell Norton (eds), The Local and the Digital in Environmental Communication, n.p.: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Doherty, B., De Moor, J. and Hayes, G. (2018), ‘The “new” climate politics of Extinction Rebellion?’, Open Democracy, 27 November, https://www.opendemocracy.net/joost-de-moor-brian-doherty-graeme-hayes/new-climate-politics-of-extinction-rebellion. Accessed 26 May 2025.
  9. Entman, R. (1993), ‘Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’, Journal of Communication, 43:4, pp. 51–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Extinction Rebellion (2019), This Is Not a Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook, London: Penguin Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Extinction Rebellion US (2020), ‘Demands’, https://extinctionrebellion.us/demands-principles. Accessed 22 May 2025.
  12. Extinction Rebellion (2020a), ‘Next UK Rebellion’, 1 September, https://extinctionrebellion.uk/uk-rebellion-2020. Accessed 26 May 2025.
  13. Extinction Rebellion (2020b), ‘UK Newsletter’, 1 April, https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2020/04/01/uk-newsletter-12-livin-la-vida-lockdown/. Accessed 22 May 2025.
  14. Fraser, N. (2007), ‘Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world’, Theory, Culture and Society, 24:4, pp. 7–30, https://doi.org/10.1177/026327640708009.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fuchs, C. (2017), ‘From digital positivism and administrative big data analytics towards critical digital and social media research!’, European Journal of Communication, 32:1, pp. 37–49, https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116682804.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gardner, P., Carvalho, T. and Valenstain, M. (2022), ‘Spreading rebellion?: The rise of extinction rebellion chapters across the world’, Environmental Sociology, 8:4, pp. 424–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2022.2094995.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gürlesin, Ö. (2024), ‘Social media, environmental activism and implicit religion: A case study of Extinction Rebellion’, Religions, 15:12, p. 1458, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15121458.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Halfmann, D. and Young, M. (2010), ‘War pictures: The grotesque as a mobilizing tactic’, Mobilization, 15:1, pp. 1–24, https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.15.1.y561981851788672.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hansen, A. (2019), Environment, Media and Communication, 2nd ed., London: Taylor and Francis Group.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hendriks, C., Duus, S. and Ercan, S. (2016), ‘Performing politics of social media: The dramaturgy of an environmental controversy on Facebook’, Environmental Politics, 25:6, pp. 1102–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1196967.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hestres, L. (2015), ‘Climate change advocacy online: Theories of change, target audiences, and online strategy’, Environmental Politics, 24:2, pp. 193–211, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.992600.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hinks, E. and Rödder, S. (2023), ‘The role of scientific knowledge in Extinction Rebellion’s communication of climate futures’, Frontiers in Communication, 8:1, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1007543.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hopke, J. (2015), ‘Hashtagging politics: Transnational anti-fracking movement Twitter practices’, Social Media + Society, July–September, pp. 1–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hopke, J. (forthcoming 2025), ‘Online research methods: Designing studies of digital climate communications’, in A. Anderson and C. Howarth (eds), Handbook of Climate Crisis Communication, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Horsbøl, A. (2020), ‘Localizing environmental conflicts: Facebook groups as intertextual sites for local protest voices’, in J. Díaz-Pont, P. Maeseele, A. Sjölander, M. Mishra and K. Foxwell Norton (eds), The Local and the Digital in Environmental Communication, n.p.: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 91–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Howarth, C. and Anderson, A. (2019), ‘Increasing local salience of climate change: The un-tapped impact of the media-science interface’, Environmental Communication, 13:6, pp. 713–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1611615.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. IPCC (2018), Global Warming of 1.5°C, Geneva: IPCC.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Karpf, D. (2012), The MoveOn Effect: The Unexpected Transformation of American Political Advocacy, New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Moser, S. (2015), ‘Whither the heart (-to-heart)?’, in A. Hansen and R. Cox (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Environment Communication, London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 402–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Moser, S. (2022), ‘Speaking to the heart of the matter’, in A. Hansen and R. Cox (eds), Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication, London: Routledge, pp. 455–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Nisbet, M. and Newman, T. (2015), ‘Framing, the media and environmental communication’, in A. Hansen and R. Cox (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication, London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 325–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Pan, Z. and Kosicki, G. (1993), ‘Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse’, Political Communication, 10:1, pp. 55–75, https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Sandford, A. (2020), ‘Coronavirus: Half of humanity now on lockdown as 90 countries call for confinement’, Euronews, 2 April, https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-in-europe-spain-s-death-toll-hits-10-000-after-record-950-new-deaths-in-24-hou. Accessed 26 May 2025.
  34. Slaven, M. and Heydon, J. (2020), ‘Crisis, deliberation, and Extinction Rebellion’, Critical Studies on Security, 8:1, pp. 59–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2020.1735831.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Smit, R. and van Leeuwen, S. (2024), ‘Digital activism in the future past: How Dutch Extinction Rebellion activists connect past, present and future in their memory work on Instagram’, Memory Studies, 17:5, pp. 1157–76, https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980241264512.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Snow, D. (2013), ‘Framing and social movements’, in D. Snow, D. della Porta, D. McAdam and B. Klandermans (eds), The Wiley Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, London: Wiley, pp. 1201–05.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Snow, D., Rochford, E., Worden, S. and Benford, R. (1986), ‘Frame alignment processes, micro-mobilisation and movement participation’, American Sociological Association, 51:4, pp. 464–81, https://doi.org/10.2307/2095581.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Stammen, L. and Meissner, M. (2024), ‘Social movements’ transformative climate change communication: Extinction rebellion’s artivism’, Social Movement Studies, 23:1, pp. 19–38, https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2022.2122949.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Toepfl, F. (2018), ‘From connective to collective action: Internet elections as a digital tool to centralize and formalize protest in Russia’, Information Communication and Society, 21:4, pp. 531–47, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1290127.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Tufekci, Z. (2013), ‘“Not this one” social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism’, American Behavioral Scientist, 57:7, pp. 848–70, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479369.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Tufekci, Z. (2017), Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Walton, S. (2018), ‘Framing the crisis’, Green Letters, 22:3, pp. 231–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/14688417.2019.1571739.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Westwell, E. and Bunting, J. (2020), ‘The regenerative culture of Extinction Rebellion: Self-care, people care, planet care’, Environmental Politics, 29:3, pp. 546–51, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1747136.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Zappen, J. P. (2005), ‘Digital rhetoric: Toward an integrated theory’, Technical Communication Quarterly, 14:3, pp. 319–25, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1403_10.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00165_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keywords: Facebook ; environmental communication ; XR ; connective action ; framing ; coronavirus ; digital mobilization

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test