The depoliticized politics of crowdfunding: A critical examination of the Darren Wilson crowdfunding campaign
First Monday

The depoliticized politics of crowdfunding: A critical examination of the Darren Wilson crowdfunding campaign by David Gehring

On 9 August 2014, Darren Wilson, a white police officer, shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, in Ferguson, Missouri. Soon after the shooting, two crowdfunding campaigns were organized through the GoFundMe platform, one for Darren Wilson and one for the family of Michael Brown. Using the work of Bauman, Dean, and Fuchs, I argue that these crowdfunding campaigns function as neoliberal mechanisms. Through the depoliticization and displacement of political energies, and the redirection of those energies towards the private sphere, these campaigns provide for affective political expression while simultaneously neutralizing its disruptive political potential.


The neoliberalization of digital culture
Crowdfunding campaigns, media coverage, and neoliberalism
Crowdfunding and the neoliberal public sphere
Concluding thoughts




Following the fatal shooting of 18-year old Michael Brown by Ferguson, Mo. police officer Darren Wilson in the summer of 2014, waves of protest broke out in reaction to what many felt was an unjustified and racially motivated abuse of police authority. On 17 August 2014, one week after the shooting of Brown, a woman named Allison Wilson (whose relationship to Darren Wilson is unknown) established a crowdfunding campaign in support of Darren Wilson through, a crowdfunding platform that often hosts charitable fundraising campaigns (a point of distinction from the more popular crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter or Indiegogo). Within three days, the campaign had raised US$180,000 (Johnson and Sullivan, 2014) and within a week it had raised over US$225,000 (Dubois, 2014).

Despite the controversy surrounding the event (i.e., questions of racism, the abuse of force by police, and the social unrest following the shooting), the claimed reasoning behind the campaign was not directly expressed ideologically or politically, rather, it was personal in nature. It read simply: “We stand behind Darren Wilson and his family in this trying time. All proceeds will be sent directly to Darren Wilson and his family for any financial needs they may have including legal fees” (Johnson and Sullivan, 2014). Media outlets began to cover the Wilson campaign and, in particular, the racialized comments posted by donors to the campaign Web site. Interestingly, another crowdfunding campaign was set up in support of the family of Michael Brown. These two campaigns entered into the public discussion as representations of the narrative binary already in play despite the relatively neutral rhetoric of the campaign pages. In as much as the impetus for the campaigns in question are ideologically neutral in rhetoric, the events that led to the establishment of these campaigns do indeed evoke deeply ingrained ideological frameworks that involve questions of race, social relations, state institutions, and public trust.

With constant reference to the GoFundMe campaign in support of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, this paper aims to contextualize the space in which these crowdfunding campaigns achieve a particular ideological function, looking behind their veil of personal concern and ideological neutrality. Using the work of Fuchs (2014), Bauman (2000), and Dean (2009), I argue that these campaigns function within a framework of neoliberalism (Harvey, 2005; Dean, 2009), are mobilized through communicative digital technologies, and enter into the public sphere through media coverage without having to disavow the guise of mere private concern or interest. Through this process, engagement in these campaigns can offer affective benefits for the individual and are celebrated as new channels of political expression via communicative technologies, ultimately reinforcing the emphasis on individual effort and free expression at the expense of collective organization. In the political sense, contributions remain purely symbolic, while at the same time generating funds and profits that funnel to an individual (anonymous or visible) and owners of the platform.

As crowdfunding campaigns become increasingly ubiquitous, varied in their causes, and potentially problematic in the areas they are utilized, how are we to conceptualize and locate their function and modality in the current digital landscape? In what follows I will first trace the cultural and technological shifts that led to the environment in which these crowdfunding campaigns play out. I will then show how these shifts are reflected in crowdfunding campaigns and associated media coverage. Further, I will show how crowdfunding and media coverage facilitate the displacement of political energies, thereby neutralizing the disruptive potential these campaigns may possess, while simultaneously offering affective satisfaction for the individual who donates to the campaigns.



The neoliberalization of digital culture

Bauman’s Liquid modernity diagnoses a cultural shift in which he recognizes “the disintegration of the social network, the falling apart of effective agencies of collective action” [1]. This shift represents the substantial disruption and reconfiguring of the parameters and operative definitions of freedom. Tangled in anxieties centered upon the fear of the public — i.e., the fear of encroaching government institutions — Bauman [2] recognizes just the opposite. When “all power was suspect ... dangers were expected to arrive from the ‘public’ side, always eager to invade and colonize the ‘private,’ the ‘subject’, the ‘individual’.” Now, as a result of a continuously eroding public space, the anxiety is reversed and we can see “the colonization of the public sphere by the private” [3].

Playing out within the midst of this shift, both as a symptom and a result, is a change in how we engage politically. Bauman [4] claims that in the era of liquid modernity, “favourite strategic principles of the powers-that-be are nowadays escape, avoidance, and disengagement.” Thus, two salient aspects of this shift that should be emphasized are the disintegration of social networks and an expanding private sphere encroaching on the public sphere. Indeed, these two aspects are not parallel. They exist within a dynamic in which the expanding private sphere reorients modes of public engagement. Speaking directly to crowdfunding, Jen Harvie recognizes that “though crowdfunding enables individuals to act with self-determining agency in deciding what ... to fund, it destabilizes mutual social responsibility” [5].

As such, the theorizations of Bauman and the claims made by Harvie can be exemplified in crowdfunding campaigns that are launched in the wake of socio-political events. Digital space, characterized by regionally indiscriminate inclusion, replaces the urgency of physical presence in the public square, and individual expenditure is substituted for mutual and procedural engagement that political representation so often requires. Further, those expenditures, or donations, made by dispersed individuals are not subject to scrutiny and can be used privately without legal consequence. The platform itself (in this case, GoFundMe) also operates as a private entity. To be sure, this paper will not suppose that these types of campaigns will come to represent a new standard of political engagement, rather, that crowdfunding platforms enable a mode of engagement that is as affective as it is politically impotent.

While Bauman sees this shift from public to private as problematic, it is important to acknowledge the opportunities for new modes of social and political engagement that emerge as a result. Gerbaudo, in his analysis of the Indignados movement in Spain, echoes Bauman’s claims recounting the movement’s ”techno-libertarian emphasis,“ and the attempts to “avoid being pigeon-holed as ‘political,’ constantly emphasizing its ‘civic’ character” [6]. Elsewhere, Bennett and Sergerberg (2012) theorize a shift from ”collective“ to ”connective action,“ claiming that the interrelatedness of political issues leads to the increasing desire to display “personalized action publically,” and in recognizing that “protest organizers may choose to offer various points of entry that speak to different publics.” In his analysis of the Occupy Movement, Gerbaudo discusses the failure of the Adbusters “radical countercultural imaginary” against the successful and more “crucial role” played by the “We are the 99%” Tumblr blog which was constituted by “all those who perceived themselves to be victims ... irrespective of their political or cultural affiliations” [7].

Interestingly, both Gerbaudo and Bennett and Sergerberg posit this shift from collective to connective action affirmatively, noting how it is, in large part, enabled by digital communicative technologies which foster and reflect “networked individualism.” Networked individualism is used to conceptualize an environment in which “everyone is embedded in structures of relationships that provide opportunities, constraints, coalitions ... it is made out of a tangle of networked individuals who operate in specialized, fragmented, and sparsely inter-connected and permeable networks” [8]. The genesis of this cultural change was indexed in Lyotard’s (1979) La condition postmoderne (translated as The postmodern condition, 1984). More crucial for this analysis, though, is the political and economic mobilization of this sea change into the era of neoliberalism, which Harvey succinctly summarizes as a “process” which has “entailed much ‘creative destruction’ ... of social relations, technological mixes, and ways of thought. It seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market” [9].

Here it is important to note that neoliberalism is not essentially distinct from free market capitalism, but rather is a modification of it.

Whereas the Keynesian welfare state interpellated subjects into specific symbolic identities (such as the worker, the housewife, the student, or the citizen), neoliberalism relies on imaginary identities. Not only do the multiplicity and variability of such identities prevent them from serving as a loci of political action but their inseparability from the injunctions of consumerism reinforces capitalism’s grip. [10]

Thus the prioritization of the individual qua Individual over symbolic, or political, identities neutralizes political potential. Importantly, neoliberalism informs two salient points of this study: first, that crowdfunding platforms facilitate the marketization of human activity; and second, the displacement and neutralizing of political action through individuation of identity as well as activity.

Emerging from this transformative cultural shift is a reorganization of social relations and an emphasis on technological innovation and development, with the latter developing in response to the former. This constitutes a need for technological development and recognizes “neoliberalism’s intense interest in and pursuit of information technologies leading some to proclaim the emergence of a new kind of ‘information society’” [11]. This development frames the digital and cultural context of which crowdfunding is a product. Indeed, the technological innovation of particular interest here is communicative technologies, i.e., social networking sites as defined by boyd and Ellison (2008), a category in which crowdfunding platforms are included.



Crowdfunding campaigns, media coverage, and neoliberalism

In examining the campaigns in question, which are as ideological as they claim to be charitable, new questions arise as to how they function and their wider implications. When campaigns are positioned within an ideological framework, how then are we to interpret the contributions that are made: as political expressions or charitable donations? Further, how are we to understand the role of the platform? Importantly, we can’t neglect the over all ideological work that charity performs within the context of capitalistic economies and neoliberal cultures. Livingstone (2013) argues that charity, while it is a form of struggle, “limits creativity” and reinforces an acquiescence to the prevailing ideology. Part of this ideology, which will be discussed more below, is informed by an emphasis on participation rather than disruption. Importantly, Livingstone reminds us that at the very foundation of a neoliberal fetishization of free and active engagement or participation in these crowdfunding campaigns lies a larger function — the reinforcement of inequity in social relations. The following section looks more closely at crowdfunding, the campaigns in question, and the associated media coverage in relation to how they serve as a reflection and reinforcement of neoliberal practice.

Crowdfunding campaigns launched through Kickstarter or Indiegogo are reward-based and the motivation for the donor lies, at least in part, on the promise of an exclusive item or experience in return for a financial contribution. Alternately, campaigns through a platform such as GoFundMe (the platform utilized to support Wilson and Brown) are donation based campaigns (Belleflamme, et al., 2014) and, as such, do not offer a ‘perk’ in return for donating, beyond the purely affective. Campaigns established through GoFundMe typically seek to raise money for unforeseen crises or essential needs, e.g., medical costs, moving somewhere new, education, etc. Thus donations to these types of campaigns are motivated by an empathy or emotional connection with the subject (Gerber and Hui, 2013) of the campaign and as such donors do not expect anything in return.

This represents an important distinction. The presence of an empathy fostered through identification with a campaigner in his or her crisis can obscure or redirect a scrutiny otherwise placed upon the handling of funds raised once the campaign closes. The purely affective and altruistic motivation in giving contextualizes the process and expectations therein. The rhetoric and claimed motivation for these forms of crowdfunding campaigns only make mention of financial necessity as a means to a more righteous end that contextualizes participation and motivations associated with the campaign.

Conceptually and theoretically, crowdfunding campaigns such as those established in support of Darren Wilson or Michael Brown reflect, on various levels, how neoliberalism is operative within digital culture. Crowdfunding falls comfortably in line with neoliberalism in that it enables an individual or collection of individuals to establish an idea and actualize that idea as a product or commodity, free from third party intermediaries or state/institutional constraint, that can then be sold according to the individual’s own plan and ambition. Further, it reflects an emphasis on merit which is bannered as the main basis for failure or success within the free market economy. The wide variety of ideas financed through crowdfunding platforms such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo represent instantiations of Harvey’s general definition of neoliberalism as a theory and practice that “values market exchange as an ethic in itself,” free from state regulation, in which “the social good will be maximized by maximizing the reach and frequency of market transactions, and it seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market” [12]. Viewed through those lens, we can then conceptualize crowdfunding campaigns organized to raise money for college tuition costs (Sportelli, 2015), to help pay back medical debt (Adams, 2016), or to fund civic oriented projects (Ebeling, 2016) as understandable, if not predictable, outcomes in such an environment.

The campaign set up for Darren Wilson, established in the immediate wake of the event and before the investigation was complete, entered into media discourse and was appropriated in ways that have become predictable in the current media environment that is characterized largely by sensationalism and binary narratives. The discourse, as exemplified by articles that appeared in Salon (Rothkopf, 2014), the Guardian (Swaine, 2014), Huffington Post (2014), among others, assumes a particular function which has very little to do with identifying anything instrumental that could perhaps lead to a better understanding of why such an event occurs in order to help prevent it in the future. Rather, media coverage obscures the potential for a better understanding and is set against a backdrop of historical de-contextualization and, more importantly, a fetishization of engagement in, and contribution to, ‘discussion.’ In a media environment so eager to invite spectators to engage in the ‘conversation’ through online voting, live tweeting, live Twitter chats, online forums, comment threads on news stories and ‘viral’ videos that are shared across Facebook, coupled with the fact that these modes of engagement are often incentivized, the main motive to engage becomes merely the act of engagement.

Dean theorizes “communicative capitalism” broadly as “the proliferation, distribution, acceleration, and intensification of communicative access and opportunity,” which, “result(s) in a deadlocked democracy incapable of serving as a form for political change” [13]. She goes to identify two important ways this form of capitalism functions. First, relevant in relation to the development of digital culture, is “the morphing of message into contribution,” and the devaluing of the “use value of a message” in the face of its “exchange value” [14]. The campaign page for Wilson, though neutral in its rhetoric, was host to number of racist comments (Swaine, 2014) which became a main talking point of coverage, as well as the focal point around which commenters defended or accused. The use value of such comments — i.e., the action towards collective goals, however defined (and as undesirable as these goals may be) — is generally low. They become “mere contributions to the circulation of images, opinion, and information ... trying to push or sway opinion” [15].

Further, it should not be assumed that an increased access to information via the Internet results in more informed discourse, rather it could very well diminish communicative efforts. Increased access to statistics, news stories and opinion columns, first hand accounts disseminated across social media platforms, long form documents published online, all of which are accessible immediately and can be consumed without attention to scope and context can just as easily flood the ‘discussion’ with unrelated noise, thus sending the conversation into numerous spirals. As Baudrillard writes: “Information devours its own content ... rather than creating communication, it exhausts itself in the act of staging communication” [16].

Second, communicative capitalism is inherently apolitical, or rather, the issues around which contributions circulate are depoliticized. Where the political is that which is elevated to the “level of the universal” [17], depoliticization prevents that elevation from occurring. Thus, events such as the shooting of Michael Brown, are redirected in ways that either directly, or indirectly, undermine the larger cultural or political implications. Žižek explains, “post-politics mobilizes the vast apparatus of experts, social workers, and so on, to reduce the overall demand (complaint) of a particular group to just this demand” [18]. The election of Barack Obama in 2008 and the subsequent claims that the United States is now “post-racial” (Schorr, 2008) work to frame discourse and reactions to events, such as the shooting of Brown, as an aberration in an otherwise racially harmonious society.

These two components of communicative capitalism (the replacement of messages with contributions, and depoliticization) largely constitute the function of these types of crowdfunding campaigns. Ultimately, what is at stake in the increased utilization of these types of platforms is not the possibility to effect substantial social change, but rather how these campaigns contribute to the privatization of public issues and concerns. A salient appeal of crowdfunding is the degree of agency it provides individuals seeking to actualize an idea. However, crowdfunding campaigns established around political or social issues are rendered impotent within, and through, the flows of communicative capitalism. Dean writes: “Networked communication and information technologies are exquisite for capturing and re-formatting political energies ... displac(ing) political struggles in local and institutional settings precisely because these latter struggles are envisioned as communicative engagements” [19]. Thus, these campaigns offer an affective sensation of principled and meaningful contribution both through financial expenditure and as verbal expressions on the campaign page, or elsewhere in the comment threads of news articles or Facebook walls. However, the proliferation of these expressions, be they financial or verbal, is channeled away from the public square so to speak, and relegated to inaccessible bank accounts and virtual grandstanding within a rapid media cycle. Flows of information, commentary, and criticism cycle in and out, serving as emotional pressure valves that stop short before arriving at the level of political disruption.



Crowdfunding and the neoliberal public sphere

Taking into consideration the role these campaigns play over any vague goals claimed as motivations, the opacity of what defines ‘success,’ and the space in which they play out, new questions need to be asked which go beyond the campaign itself and surrounding commentary to explore the industrial components of crowdfunding platforms and how they function within neoliberal practice. The porous and shifting boundaries between conceptions, appropriate roles, and functions of the public and private spheres constitute the space within and through which communicative technologies traverse and shape. The conception of a public sphere (Habermas, 1989), despite numerous contestations and re-imaginings since it was first introduced, remains analytically instrumental in efforts to conceptualize cultural shifts. Habermas’ “public sphere” stands as a framework against which Bauman’s theorization of “liquid modernity” is informed. When Bauman claims that “true liberation calls today for more, not less of the ‘public sphere’” [20], he calls on the Habermasian ideal of a public sphere constituted by informed rational critical debate between private individuals of equal stature and capable of shifting or disrupting political hegemonies. Christian Fuchs (2014) also recognizes the public sphere as both a space and a process of mobilization. “A public sphere emerges where people struggle for a better society and their struggle is a process of constituting the public that creates spatial domains of resistance in the public” [21]. Recognizing the public sphere as a location of struggle and influence is key to understanding neoliberalism’s interest in dismantling any hints of a Habermasian public sphere and ‘colonizing’ it with the private, which can then work to depoliticize and reduce the collective representation otherwise possible.

There is certainly a benefit and attraction associated with the freedom of private expressions of crowdfunding initiatives and contributions, although to celebrate such expressions as manifestations of a Freedom writ large obscures, in this case in particular, the economic model which is wholly indiscriminate. The playing out of the campaign in support of Wilson, which drew in over two hundred thousand dollars, was mired in confusion. Months following the establishment of the campaign, there was uncertainty over where the money ended up going. In addition to the GoFundMe campaign, there was another source of funding that raised US$197,620. The origins and final location/appropriation of these funds is still in question. It is believed that the campaign was associated with Shield of Hope, a charitable wing of the Fraternal Order of Police union, to which Wilson belongs (Pearce, 2014). Further complicating the fundraising are questions of legality. Both campaigns were shut down offering no explanation to the donors, and there is an uncertainty over whether “a charity can raise money to pay for a legal defense” under U.S. law (Larimer, 2014).

The various questions surrounding the appropriation of funds occurs within a media discourse which invites more commentary and contribution in the place of the socio-political issue itself, i.e., racism. To a certain degree, the individual(s) or organizations associated with this campaign and those who commented become obscured through media coverage, and what is left is the mechanism itself which is mobilized by third party intermediaries. As a result, questions of its efficacy become abstract, or non-falsifiable. That is, with no set monetary goal, no specific designation of — or a means to track — donated funds, no clear understanding of who was or is responsible for the campaign, and the questionable legality of raising money for legal fees through crowdfunding, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for the campaign to be gauged as a success or a failure despite the amount of money it raised. As such, how should these campaigns be assessed?



Concluding thoughts

Crowdfunding campaigns like those set up for Wilson reflect what Bauman (2000) sees as the blurring of public discourse and private concerns. He recognizes that what is at stake in such practices is a “redefinition of the public sphere, as a scene on which private dramas are staged, put on public display, and publicly watched” and, further, “the demise of the politics as we know it,” the task of which is “translating private problems into public issues” [22]. Where the campaign for Wilson was, as mentioned before, rhetorically apolitical, by virtue of the platform utilized and media coverage, it was ‘public.’ This version of the ‘public’ is one emptied of public dimension (in the Habermasian sense) and with it the possibility of substantive change. It is not that these campaigns reorient or re-characterize public concerns as private concerns but, rather, that public concerns are recast via rhetoric of the neutral individual.

It is this larger dynamic in which these crowdfunding campaigns operate that renders them impotent. As Harvie explains, “CF [crowdfunding] does not necessarily create a socially coherent or collective group of supporters,” but rather, “reif(ies) the understanding of the supremacy of the individual over the group that is so crucial to the neoliberal ideology” [23]. In this way, the financial contribution to a particular CF campaign functions symbolically as an affect, while the platform itself does not offer any way to organize collectively aside from allowing contributors or detractors to comment on the campaign page itself. There is only a semblance of the political, and this provides a sense of public engagement fostered and reassured through media coverage. The earnest utilization of privately owned CF platforms ultimately generates inroads leading to privately owned entities and away from the public sphere.

Both the campaign for Wilson and the family of Michael Brown are reflective of an exchange through which individuals can express themselves and create meaning, but ultimately falls short of any real disruption or challenge to the social relations or policies that contextualize the campaigns. It would certainly be fair to ask whether or not it was the intention of the campaign and those who donated to ultimately effect social change through their engagement, but that question sidesteps the larger context that invites such engagement and ignores the surrounding coverage that obscures and redirects. Questions and commentary which discuss where the money goes (Larimer, 2014), the racist comments posted to the page (Swaine, 2014), the establishment of two campaigns which support both Wilson and Brown (Alois, 2014), stories which discuss media coverage of the event (Deggans, 2014), etc., serve merely as a staging of critical discourse reflective of a free, politically engaged, and informed society. This activity represents the abundance of ways to express oneself politically, yet, these expressions are channeled through ‘appropriate’ avenues which redirect away from the public sphere, reducing the possibility of disruption.

GoFundMe and similar crowdfunding platforms rely on revenues from donors, thus, we can understand donors as commodities. The more coverage of events which are directly associated with crowdfunding campaigns, the more capital is generated by the campaigns. Papacharissi recognizes that such commercialization of public space “dislocates public activity” in ways that offer “visibility” through “spheres of entertainment, consumption, and information processing, often blending activities previously categorized as social, cultural, or political into vast multimedia category of infotainment” [24]. As a comparative example to illustrate why virtual protests are preferred by corporate or political interests over protests that occur in physical space, it is perhaps helpful to recall the tumult that arose from the physical presence of protesters in Ferguson and the response from law enforcement that was heavily criticized by both conservative and liberal, legacy and independent media outlets.

The celebration around the proclaimed emancipatory quality of communicative technologies, and industrial components that profit from this engagement, reflect the processes identified by Bauman, Dean, and Fuchs. Crowdfunding represents an ideological mechanism simultaneously more transparent and obscured than other social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter. In one sense, there is a visible economic exchange inherent to crowdfunding platforms, which, in this instance, symbolizes an ideological position. The obscurity is represented by virtue of the absence of accountability required of the campaign organizers. Further, any scrutiny of the campaigns that may arise through commentary becomes buried under the flux of media flow and generally forgotten.

This exchange through crowdfunding is particularly useful as an example of how digital culture is increasingly vulnerable to the pervasive shift of neoliberalism, fetishizing forms of engagement which are not directly political but, rather, are linked directly to acts of consumption assigned a form of cultural meaning and importance. As crowdfunding becomes more popular, it becomes plausible that more platforms will be established that expand into areas, which up until recently, were in the interest of the state. Richard Davies, a researcher at Stanford University claims, “I think it was kind of inevitable that crowdfunding would be used to address more controversial, divisive issues,” and both Davies and Richard Swart at the University of California, Berkeley predict an increase in more “politicized, niche crowdfunding sites” (Collins, 2015). The increasing utilization of crowdfunding will raise new questions that investigate the shifting boundaries between the role of public institutions and private interest. End of article


About the author

David Gehring is a professional musician who lives in Virginia Beach, Virginia. He received his M.A. from Old Dominion University in 2016 in digital humanities. His work focuses on critical media studies, crowdfunding, and digital culture.
E-mail: dgehr001 [at] odu [dot] edu



1. Bauman, 2000, p. 14.

2. Bauman, 2000, p. 51.

3. Ibid.

4. Bauman, 2000, p. 51.

5. Harvie in Wodtke, 2015, p. 181.

6. Gerbaudo, 2012, pp. 84–85.

7. Gerbaudo, 2012, p. 117.

8. Rainie and Wellman, 2012, p. 21.

9. Harvey, 2005, p. 3.

10. Dean, 2009, p. 51.

11. Harvey, 2005, p. 4.

12. Harvey, 2005, p. 3.

13. Dean, 2009, p. 22.

14. Dean, 2009, pp. 26–27.

15. Dean, 2009, p. 24.

16. Baudrillard, 1994, p. 81.

17. Dean, 2009, p. 14.

18. In Dean, 2009, p. 15.

19. Dean, 2009, pp. 31–32.

20. Bauman, 2000, p. 51.

21. Fuchs, 2014, p. 65.

22. Bauman, 2000, p. 51.

23. In Wodkte, 2015, p. 181.

24. Papacharissi, 2010, pp. 41–43.



Dominic Adams, 2016. “GoFundMe started for mother on life support after shooting,” Michigan Live (27 July), at, accessed 29 July 2016.

J.D. Alois, 2014. “GoFundMe hosts crowdfunding campaigns for both Darren Wilson & Michael Brown,” Crowdfund Insider (23 August), at, accessed 19 July 2016.

Jean Baudrillard, 1994. Simulacra and simulation. Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Zygmunt Bauman, 2000. Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Paul Belleflamme, Thomas Lambert, and Arwin Schwienbacher, 2014. “Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd,” Journal of Business Venturing, volume 29, number 5, pp. 585–609.
doi:, accessed 6 September 2016.

W. Lance Bennett and Alexandra Sergerberg, 2012. “The logic of connective action,” Information, Communication, & Society, volume 15 number 5, pp. 739–768.
doi:, accessed 6 September 2016.

danah boyd and Nicole B. Ellison, 2008. “Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, volume 13, number 1, pp. 210-230.
doi:, accessed 6 September 2016.

Terry Collins, 2015. “Are crowdfunding sites becoming too political?” CNET (19 April), at, accessed 29 July 2016.

Jodi Dean, 2009. Democracy and other neoliberal fantasies: Communicative capitalism and left politics. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Eric Deggans, 2014. “Four lessons from the media’s conflicted coverage of race,” NPR: Code switch (6 December), at, accessed 19 July 2016.

Lou Dubois, 2014. “$225,000 in crowdfunding raised to support Darren Wilson,” NBC News (22 August), at, accessed on 19 August 2016.

Paul Ebeling, 2016. “Crowdfunding for the benefit of the public,” Live Trading News (18 July), at, accessed 29 July 2016.

Christian Fuchs, 2014. “Social media and the public sphere,” tripleC, volume 12, number 1, pp. 57–101, and at, accessed 20 July 2016.

Paolo Gerbaudo, 2012. Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. London: Pluto Press.

Elizabeth M. Gerber and Julie Hui, 2013. “Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for participation,” ACM Transactions on Computing-Human Interaction, volume 20, number 6, article number 34.
doi:, accessed 6 September 2016.

Jürgen Habermas, 1980. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeoise society. Translated by Thomas Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

David Harvey, 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huffington Post, 2014. “Awful racism prompts organizers to shut off comments on Darren Wilson fundraising site” (26 August), at, accessed 30 July 2016.

Thomas Johnson and Gail Sullivan, 2014. “Thousands donated to crowdfunding campaign for Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Michael Brown,” Washington Post (22 August), at, accessed 19 July 2016.

Sarah Larimer, 2014. “What’s going on with the fundraising campaigns for Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson?” Washington Post (2 September), at, accessed on 19 August 2016.

Nicola Livingstone, 2013. “Capital’s charity,” Capital & Class, volume 37, number 3, pp. 347–353.
doi:, accessed 6 September 2016.

Jean-François Lyotard, 1984. The postmodern condition. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Jean-François Lyotard, 1979. La condition postmoderne: Rapport sur le savoir. Paris: Minuit.

Zizi Papacharissi, 2010. A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Matt Pearce, 2014. “Ferguson fundraiser mystery solved — Or is it?” Los Angeles Times (1 September), at, accessed 19 July 2016.

Lee Rainie and Barry Wellman, 2012. Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Joanna Rothkopf, 2014. “Darren Wilson fundraising campaign has become a hub of racism and hate,” Salon (22 August), at, accessed 30 July 2016.

Daniel Schorr, 2008. “A new, ‘post-racial’ era in America,” NPR (28 January), at, accessed 30 July 2016.

Natalie Sportelli, 2015. “Meet the millennials crowdfunding their college tuition,” Forbes (24 August), at, accessed 29 July 2016.

Jon Swaine, 2014. “GoFundMe defends Darren Wilson fundraising page despite racist postings,” Guardian (22 August), at, accessed 19 July 2016.

Larissa Wodtke, 2015. “Public service announcements with guitars: Rock ’n roll as crowdfunding cause for Amanda Palmer and IAMX,” In: Lucy Bennett, Bertha Chin, and Bethan Jones (editors). Crowdfunding the future: media industries, ethics and digital society. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 173–188.


Editorial history

Received 5 September 2016; accepted 6 September 2016.

Creative Commons License
This paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The depoliticized politics of crowdfunding: A critical examination of the Darren Wilson crowdfunding campaign
by David Gehring
First Monday, Volume 21, Number 10 - 3 October 2016

A Great Cities Initiative of the University of Illinois at Chicago University Library.

© First Monday, 1995-2019. ISSN 1396-0466.