-
DEBATE
Picking a Fight With Clay Shirky
-
THEOCRACY
What if Tunisia Ended Up Like Iran?
-
ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Revolutions and the Politics of Attention
Posted By Evgeny Morozov
Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 8:11 AM
Share
Last week, The Globe and Mail ran an article on the history of “slacktivism” (the G&M piece seems to have grown out of an interview I did with CBC's Spark a few weeks ago on the same subject). "Slacktivism" is an apt term to describe feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact. It gives those who participate in "slacktivist" campaigns an illusion of having a meaningful impact on the world without demanding anything more than joining a Facebook group. Remember that online petition that you signed and forwarded to your entire contacts list? That was probably an act of slacktivism...
"Slacktivism" is the ideal type of activism for a lazy generation: why bother with sit-ins and the risk of arrest, police brutality, or torture if one can be as loud campaigning in the virtual space? Given the media's fixation on all things digital -- from blogging to social networking to Twitter -- every click of your mouse is almost guaranteed to receive immediate media attention, as long as it's geared towards the noble causes. That media attention doesn't always translate into campaign effectiveness is only of secondary importance.
The adherents of "slacktivism" usually point a well-known narrative to justify what they are doing: while it's true that the dramatic fall in transaction costs of organizing activist campaigns has simply opened up the field to many more participants and issues, there has been no drop in the actual quality and effectiveness of these campaigns. It's easy to dismiss most criticism of "slacktivism" as simply unproductive: after all, having thousands of people -- most of them previously not involved in any activist campaigns at all -- suddenly start practicing the kind of click-based "nano-activism" available via Facebook and Twitter could be extremely useful, if only for specific campaigns that would, indeed, benefit from increased public attention.
Perhaps, it's high time to challenge this narrative and ask a very difficult question: are the publicity gains gained through this greater reliance on new media worth the organizational losses that traditional activists entities are likely to suffer, as ordinary people would begin to turn away from conventional (and proven) forms of activism (demonstrations, sit-ins, confrontation with police, strategic litigation, etc) and embrace more "slacktivist" forms, which may be more secure but whose effectiveness is still largely unproven?
Let's not get into trying to find answers to purely speculative questions like whether the utility of the very public work of 1000 "slacktivists" equals that of the very quiet and often unattributed work of one traditional activist. The real issue here is whether the mere availability of the "slacktivist" option is likely to push those who in the past might have confronted the regime in person with demonstrations, leaflets, and labor organizing to embrace the Facebook option and join a gazillion online issue groups instead. If this is the case, then the much-touted tools of digital liberation are only driving us further away from the goal of democratization and building global civil society.
Of course, the ideal case here is when one's participation in digital activism doesn't subtract from -- and instead enhances -- one's eagerness to participate in real-life campaigns. However, it's also quite possible that a significant portion of the activist population would be morally content with the "slacktivist" option alone, preferring not to get too close to more dangerous activities that are likely to get them in trouble with authorities. So should we be more careful when discussing the success of most digital activism campaigns, since they may also have unanticipated adverse effects on more effective forms of enacting political and social change? (Of course, the relative effectiveness of one type of activism over another is a matter of great contention too.)
I don't really have a good answer here and am increasingly of the opinion that the only way to conclusively answer this question is a scientific one: we simply need to start constructing gigantic surveys, otherwise these insights will forever stay in the land of the anecdotal. I also think that it might be useful to search for traces of "slacktivism" in other fields. For example, is the growing public fascination with "ethical consumerism" likely to erode other more effective (and more political) forms of protest? Given that some advocates of "ethical consumerism" still cling to the notion that "shopping is more important that voting," this may as well be the case.
Photo by Oddsock/Flickr
I think if you look at it in terms of effecting change directly you're looking at it in the wrong way. "Slacktivism" appears to be much better at building wide (although vague) consensus on an issue. Consensus, of course, will never change the world, but it's a nice step forward. People who would never have heard of Darfur in the past now have a little sticker on their Facebook that shows their support.
Ultimately, if someone publishes a research paper that shows that slacktivism does have a net negative effect on participation it's not like it's going to change any of the real world dynamics that cause the average Joe to be more likely to support an idea in theory rather than putting themselves on the line. Much more interesting would be research on how to turn passive support into micropayments that can be turned into real change by the truly committed.
I have met enough activists in my day to recognize that they share a special gene pool. Which is to say that there tends to be something in their personalities that motivates them to fight continuously against perceived injustices while the rest of us think about what we'll be eating for dinner and which is the best microbrew. In fact, I think you share their personality traits, but your abundance of energetic ambition has - at least lately - been expressed in protesting against slacktivists rather than allegedly oppressive governments.
The real power of online "activism" in my opinion lies in the power of deconstructing simple narratives formed by monolithic institutionsabout the oppressed and the oppressors, and encouraging debate about how to bring about change. I agree with you that no matter how many Facebook groups you join or online petitions you sign, nothing is going to change in Darfur. However, if you are willing to dig deep enough, any internet user today has access to more information about the roots of the conflict than would have ever been imaginable just a decade ago.
Of course, it is fair to argue that we will spend too many of our 24-hours-in-a-day informing ourselves and not enough time acting on that information, but that's not what I have found. When the majority of my acquaintances have invested a great deal of time informing themselves about conflicts in Sudan, DRC, and Liberia they want to get more involved, not less. Most of them travel to these countries, enlist with NGO's, and realize that the dynamic they had once thought so simple is actually very complex. That, in my opinion, is a big step forward.
But you're right, this is all anecdotal. Even surveys will be hopelessly biased - only representing the most vocal respondents.
Now, time for me to figure out what to eat for dinner ...
I am sure the people of Darfur are very appreciative of all the people on Facebook who took the one second out of their busy lives to click and add a sticker of support.
Slacktivism allows stupid, apathetic people to con themselves into believing they are helping make the world better place.
@money, I'm sure they are pretty much equally appreciative of those people whether they add a sticker or just do nothing as they would have otherwise, but that's not really the point I was making.
It is not all or nothing though
Many activists, however, do use the web social media in addition to their demonstrations, litigations, and sit-ins. Moreover, Slacktivist who go too far in some countries by challenging the authorities are suddenly arrested, harassed, and their computers taken away. In the Western world, the Slacktivism model may be a good critique, but not necessarily in other less democratic places in the world.
it DOES work... at least in my province
yep; in Ontario (in Canada for those who don't know), the government almost passed a law forbidding people 18 and under with full licenses to carry more than one person in the car. 4000 people joined a facebook group protesting. It was mentioned all over the media here, until at last the government gave up its quest... thank god
Not only this, but you can really equate joining a group online to writing a letter to a newspaper. While it may not represent a view as personal, creating a group will get many more people actually involved and doing a positive action, in comparison to people reading and saying 'oh, that's nice'.
This is a story based on opinion only
You give it away with the whole anecdotal response versus scientific. New modes of communication never seem like they are going to change anything, but a simple look through history would change your tune. I keep hearing how being informed isn't going to catalyze anyone to do anything, but that was the logic of the Catholic Church right before Luther and the printing press. At the risk of using buzzwords, increased network connectivity changes everything - not just human social patterns, but every type of natural law we think we know before hand. They set the boundary and starting conditions of the huge human game theory experiment. I also agree that any surveys taken will be biased.
I often ponder this issue.I am Native American in the swamps of Southeast Louisiana.I did not attend a "Whiteman School" until the age of 13.It was a High School/Junior High combo.There was not one Black there and the Principal of the school did not want us there.(All 5 of us.)This was in 1963.The world was changing.Not where I lived.But inside a lot of these young kids there was something brewing.By 1965 I started introducing some of my friends to Grateful Dead,Big Brother and the Holding Company,Moby Grape.Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention.Dardar's(my family name)were like untouchable Dalits in India.I was the first male Dardar to attend a "White School".I also read GQ magazine and influenced fashion amongst these Stone Age Cajuns.In 10th grade I met two young men who were martial artists instructors and read books I read.Bhuddism,Nietzsche,Kirkegaard,Satre,Freud,Jung etc.We started the First Revolution on the Bayou.I was in a band called Fresh Garbage.(There are actually pictures of us in the yearbook.)From the influence of the Band our numbers grew.Mostly the upper middle and rich class of kids but eventually our included every aspect of young society.In college at U.N.O.(I didn't attend the college in the north part of our Parish.Nichols State named after Civil War Hero and Klu KLux Klan Grand Wizard.) I was involved in protest.One 2000 strong down Canal Street in downtown New Orleans.Of course this was the era of the Viet Nam War.The 4 students at Kent State had just been shot.
This article has piqued my interest.I must ponder this more but I do think the Internet can be a powerful tool to empower us as citizens.The most powerful tool in the History of mankind.
I must admit the "Revolution"of the 60's was a Godsend to my people.I went from being spit on to elected leader of "The Youth Progressive Movement on the Bayou" in 1971.400 whites and two Indians.(Me and my Brother)
But sadly the majority of these revolutionaries became apathetic "Yuppies".I saw a powerful voting block...."The Baby Boomers".Soon to be bankrupting Social Security.Not me.This old Indian Chief married a young MBA from India(I'm 58 she's 37) who works for Wells Fargo and is studying Investment Banking.I will luxuriate in mt TeePee smoking the finest tobacco in my peace pipe.LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!!!
I used to work for an international NGO where my job was just this: organize people on facebook, twitter, youtube and use the masses to sign up for change. It worked.
We have countless case studies of campaign successes that were achieved by have lots of people sending an email, a postcard, signing a petition etc. Numbers do count. Ask something to a politician and point out that 2000 people also wrote to him asking the same thing: makes a difference. Demand change and point out that 200,000 people know about the sleazy things happening behind the scene because they watched a YouTube video: makes a difference. There are a lot of skeptics like you within NGOs, and if we didn't have the numbers to back us, online actions and petitions would have been cut from the budget a long time ago.
It's always harder to influence outside your country, of course. The many petitions going round right now asking for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi are probably not going to have an impact on the junta. They will, though, remind OUR governements that we remember her and she matters to us. They will remind our government that in Burma or at home, we like democracy and freedom of expression.
http://blog.brian-fitzgerald.net/?p=575
Evgeny Morozov, originally from Belarus, is a visiting scholar at Stanford and a Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation.
Read More
Sept/Oct 2011
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
The List
(9)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE