The Power and Politics of #RaceFail Digital Democracy, Hashtags and the 2009 “Writing the Other” Debate in the Science Fiction Blogosphere Nathan Rambukkana, Assistant Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University A Paper Given at the Canadian Communica@on Associa@on (CCA) Annual Conference University of Victoria Victoria, BC, Canada 5 June 2013 Much has been wri.en about the public sphere poten3al of blogs and microblogs (e.g. Siles 2011; Papacharrissi and Oliveira 2012; Bastos et al. 2013), as well as the poli3cal poten3al of online space in general (e.g., Bohman 2004; DeLuca & Peeples 2002; Downey & Fenton 2003). In fact, since the dawn of the Internet age, discussion of the democra3c poten3al of Internet‐mediated space has been one of the major top level conversa3ons. And yet, a lot of that discussion gets mired in an orthodox Habermassian take on what we can—or should—consider a democra3c public sphere, i.e., one where ra3onal cri3cal discourse on ma.ers of societal importance (such as, most cri3cally, the ac3ons of the State) can take place by ci3zens stepping out of their private roles as interested individuals and into a public space where disinterested discussion and debate could occur. While one can argue the merits of Habermas’s public sphere, I’m more interested in talking, today, about the other kinds of discussion and debate that are facilitated by networked technology. Taking my cue from cri3cal public sphere theorists such as Nancy Fraser and Michael Warner, I’m interested in those Other publics. More‐or‐less subaltern, more‐or‐less ra3onal, more‐or‐less cri3cal, and almost certainly par3al, affec3ve, interested and loud. I’m interested in angry publics. I’m interested in fringe publics. I’m interested in the kinds of publics that do poli3cs in a way that is rough and emergent, flawed and messy, and ones in which new forms of collec3ve power are being forged on the fly, and in the shadow of lo[ier mainstream spheres. Specifically, I want to talk about the publics of the hashtag, that piece of twice‐ repurposed typographical meaning, that rebel punctua3on moving to establish itself in new regimes of discourse and communica3on—beyond its birth as a “pound” or “number” sign; beyond its digital neonacy as a symbol marking out IRC channels in the hay‐day of early 90s chatroom enthusiasm (Zappavinga 791); beyond it’s re‐ 1