Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T08:36:45.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Intentionality and Motivation in Digital Spaces

A Response to Flinders and Wood

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Max Halupka
Max Halupka*
Affiliation:
Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra
*
E-mail: Max.Halupka@canberra.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wood and Flinders posit that intentionality and motivation are critical sites of analysis when determining whether an act is, or should be made out to be, political or apolitical. I agree with this assertion—both the intention behind an actor’s act, for example, what motivates the action, must be taken into consideration before such classifications are made. Yet, intentionality and motivation are more complicated and problematic than the authors make them out to be—especially online.

Keywords

agencydigital politicsintentionalitymotivationpolitics

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , December 2018 , pp. 82 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Berghahn Books 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barthes, Roland. 1994. “The Death of the Author.” In Media Texts, Authors and Readers: A Reader, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. 1950. A Rhetoric of Motives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. 1969. A Grammar of Motives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1525/9780520341715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halupka, Max. 2018. “The legitimisation of clicktivism.” Australian Journal of Political Science 53 (1):130–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2017.1416586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Marc, Bengü Hosch-Dayican and Jan W. van Deth. 2014. “Conceptualizing political participation.” Acta Política 49 (3):337–348. https://doi.org/10.1057/ ap.2014.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, David. 2018. “Factbox: Who is Cambridge Analytica and What Did it Do?” Reuters, 19 March. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-analytica-factbox/factbox-who-is-cambridge-analytica-and-whatdid-it-do-idUSKBN1GW07F (accessed 24 April 2018).Google Scholar
Jungherr, Andreas. 2016. “Twitter use in election campaigns: A systematic literature review.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 13 (1):72–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2015.1132401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persily, Nathaniel. 2017. “Can democracy survive the Internet?” Journal of Democracy 28 (2):63–76.10.1353/jod.2017.0025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier: Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Savat, David. 2012. Uncoding the Digital: Technology, Subjectivity and Action in the Control Society: London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
van Deth, Jan W. 2014. “A conceptual map of political participation.” Acta Política 49 (3):349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2010. Philosophical Investigations: Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar