Connective Action and Anti-Gender Activism in Peru

According to the research of Castro-Pérez and colleagues, the conservative mobilisation in Peru against a school curriculum with a gender-based approach can be understood through connective action—a networked form of collective action built through personalized communication on digital platforms.

This article explains how digital activism on Facebook helped trigger two mass mobilisations in Lima in 2017, and why message simplification, audiovisual content, and affective polarisation are central to understanding the movement’s growth and radicalisation.

The main findings indicate a strong relationship between simplified messaging, heavy audiovisual use, and discourse radicalization—alongside a significant increase in followers—within a decentralised mobilisation that did not rely on formal hierarchies.

What is it?

Connective action is a form of political mobilisation where individuals participate through personalized sharing and networked communication rather than through stable membership, party structures, or rigid hierarchies.

Connective action vs. traditional collective action

According to the study’s theoretical framing, connective action shifts the “engine” of mobilisation from formal organizations to platform-driven networks, where content formats, symbols, and repeated narratives help create coordination and identity over time.

Why is it important?

According to the research, the Peruvian case shows how communication doesn’t just reflect organization—it can constitute it, creating symbolic nodes, shared repertoires, and affective economies that sustain mobilisation even without centralized leadership.

This article explains why the findings matter for education policy, democratic governance, and social cohesion: the study concludes that simplified, polarizing anti-gender discourse can shape exclusionary political identities and influence both public and institutional debate.

How is it applied?

Case and data (Peru, 2016–2017)

According to the methodology, the analysis covers November 2016 to May 2017, focusing on Lima and two major protest moments: 9–11 January 2017 and 4 March 2017.

The main findings are based on two complementary datasets:

• 6,221 Facebook posts tied to the mobilisation (later cleaned to 6,021 valid posts after removing duplicates).

• 1,038 shared URLs from Facebook (Meta/Social Science One) used to validate patterns in link ecosystems.

Pages analyzed (key mobilisation nodes)

According to the sample description, the study focuses on 10 prominent pages, including Bethel Radio Lima, Con Mis Hijos No Te Metas, and Marcha Por La Familia – Perú, among others, selected for visibility and activity.

Machine learning workflow (how content was classified)

According to the methods appendix, the researchers used:

• BERTopic topic modeling (18 thematic categories) with multilingual embeddings (ntfloat/multilingual-e5-base).

• Sentiment analysis with a pretrained model from pysentimiento.

• Random Forest models for (1) binary classification of whether content was shared and (2) regression predicting magnitude of support, optimized via randomized search and time-based folds.

Key sections summary from the original study

Introduction (the problem)

According to the paper, the mobilisation emerged after the state promoted a curriculum with a gender approach, and conservative actors framed opposition as a defense of “natural family” and parental rights—within a broader transnational resurgence of similar movements.

Results (what changed during mobilisation peaks)

The main findings indicate that mobilisation intensity rose around protest events, with message standardization and simplification accelerating at the start of the first march—supported by shareable slogans and symbols (e.g., “gender ideology” crossed out).

According to the descriptive statistics, the study divides activity into five periods and shows shifting engagement levels, including very high average interactions during the second march period (e.g., reactions, comments, and shares).

Discussion (how organisation forms without hierarchies)

According to the discussion, mobilisation was coordinated decentrally, with meaning-making chains built through posts, memes, images, and videos—creating a shared narrative around defending the “natural family” and rejecting “gender ideology.”

Conclusions (why it matters politically)

According to the conclusions, the movement evolves toward a politically influential actor, driven by simplified moral narratives that reject expanded rights related to gender and sexuality—raising challenges for cohesion and democratic governance.

Evidence-based insights for researchers and policymakers

1) Mobilisation peaks reshape discourse

According to the study, during the first mobilisation peak, messages were standardized into brief, radical slogans and distributed widely across the country, with key activity concentrated in pages like Bethel TV and ConMisHijosNoTeMetas.

2) Format drives virality more than argument depth

The main findings indicate that, on average, for every 10 reactions pages generated about 5 shares and 1 comment, highlighting how sharing behavior can function as a strong proxy for commitment and mobilisation.

According to the results, posts were mostly text + links with images (45%), user-uploaded images (38%), or videos (16%), reinforcing the centrality of visual communication in online conservative activism.

3) Affective polarisation is measurable in content patterns

According to the period breakdown, negative sentiment remains substantial across phases, and the authors interpret the most-shared content as reinforcing affective polarisation through an “ideological enemy” frame.

4) Link ecosystems reveal ideological alignment

According to the URL analysis, 33% of user-shared links pointed to conservative proselytism and religious/right-leaning media; additionally, 25.4% linked to mainstream outlets and 24% to YouTube—showing a hybrid information ecosystem mixing alternative, traditional, and platform-native sources.

5) Coordinated sharing behaviors are a relevant lens (CLSB)

This article explains that the study situates its approach within scholarship on astroturfing and Coordinated Link Sharing Behavior (CLSB)—rapid, coordinated link posting used as a signal of manipulation or organized campaigning.

According to the authors’ interpretation, the Peruvian case can be read as consistent with coordinated link-sharing dynamics described in the literature, operating alongside offline street mobilisation (their claim, based on observed patterns).

Practical takeaways

According to the research, three design-level signals are especially useful for monitoring high-mobilisation moments:

• Slogan compression (messages becoming short, standardized, and symbol-heavy).

• Audiovisual dominance (images/video, especially with embedded text and recognizable faces).

• Link alignment (movement ecosystems leaning toward pro-family/pro-life and religious or ideological sources).

Limitations (for accurate scientific interpretation)

According to the paper, about 41% of images could not be downloaded due to access/technical constraints, limiting systematic analysis of memes and visual rhetoric.

According to the authors, the focus on Lima constrains national generalization, and the dataset’s age limits fine-grained longitudinal inferences—though they argue it remains valuable for understanding the movement’s origins and later political impact.

FAQ (Q&A)

What does “connective action” mean in this case?

According to the study, it refers to mobilisation built through personalized, platform-mediated sharing—where networked communication becomes the organizing mechanism, even without formal leadership structures.

What content spreads fastest in this mobilisation?

The main findings indicate that format is decisive: visually salient posts (images/video, often with text or people) are the strongest predictors of sharing, with a stable ratio of shares to reactions during peak moments.

How did the movement frame the conflict?

According to the discussion, the narrative centers on defending the “natural family” and opposing “gender ideology,” enabling broad adhesion through simplified, emotionally resonant identity cues.

Why should education policymakers care?

According to the conclusions, the movement’s digital strategy can shape exclusionary political identities and influence institutional debates, creating governance and cohesion challenges around national education policy.

Does the study claim manipulation or coordination?

This article explains that the paper discusses coordination concepts like CLSB and astroturfing as relevant frameworks and argues the Peruvian case aligns with them; that point should be read as the authors’ interpretation of observed patterns, not as a legal finding.