Mediating Bolsonarism on Facebook: Religion, technopolitics and activism in Grassroots Digital Networks

0Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This study examines the intersections of religion and technopolitics in Bolsonarism through an in-depth case study of a prominent digital moderator, Actor 1, who mediated between Jair Bolsonaro’s leadership and grassroots supporters during Brazil’s 2022 electoral period. By employing ethnographic observations, semi-structured interviews, Critical Discourse Analysis, and Framing Theory, this research explores a multilayered model of mediation that merges the strategic coordination of programmed campaigns with the emotional authenticity of grassroots spontaneity. Through the strategic exploitation of Facebook’s algorithmic architecture, emotionally resonant content was widely disseminated, creating echo chambers that reinforced ingroup loyalty while excluding dissent. Religious framing was central to these efforts, positioning Bolsonaro as a divinely ordained leader whose political struggles integrated a larger spiritual mission. Actor 1 emerges as a paradigmatic intermediary, whose communicative practices integrate opinion leadership, moral-political curation, religious framing, and strategic activism. Religion plays an important role, positioning Bolsonaro as a divinely ordained leader whose political struggles were embedded in a broader spiritual mission. The study demonstrates how technopolitical strategies, intertwined with religious discourse, were used to adapt to regulatory pressures by casting institutional supervision as censorship. These practices shaped collective identities, sustained ideological cohesion, and rallied supporters within a polarized sociopolitical context.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mattos Luz, G., & Álvares, C. (2026). Mediating Bolsonarism on Facebook: Religion, technopolitics and activism in Grassroots Digital Networks. Media, Culture and Society, 48(2), 282–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437251385466

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free