The article in the Washington Post, “Does slacktivism work?”
by Laura Seay begins by explaining what slacktivism is and then goes in to how
it works. The explanation she gives is very similar to what we discussed in
class: slacktivism or “armchair activism” is a form of advocacy related to
social media. A lot of the support for a specific cause is shown through a “like”
on a Facebook post, or retweet, or posting a picture on Instagram. Following
that advocates often ask supporters to wear a particular color on a certain day
or by a piece of jewelry or shirt to support the cause. Seay explains that
campaigns target slacktivists because they believe that an increased awareness
of a cause is a worthy reason. Additionally advocates believe that the more
attention a cause receives the more likely public officials will pay attention
and provide tangible benefits. Then Seay referenced a study done at the
University of British Columbia that finds the determining factor for getting
people engaged. The paper states that “the socially observable nature (public
vs. private) of initial token support is identified as a key moderator that
influences when and why token support does or does not lead to meaningful support
for the cause. Consumers exhibit greater helping on a subsequent, more meaningful
task after providing an initial private (vs. public) display of token support
for a cause.”
This
study explains the support seen for different campaigns that we discussed in
class. For example, the KONY 2012 campaign the people who show their original
support privately by writing to members of Congress and starting petitions are
the ones to be more engaged throughout the campaign. However, those who simply
supported it publicly, through Facebook or Twitter, are less likely to engage
more deeply. This is similar to what we saw recently with the “#BringBackOurGirls”
campaign where the campaign itself promotes slacktivism among all except for
those highly connected to the cause. Another example, briefly mentioned in
class, is the “Ice Bucket Challenge” that many people participated but not as
many donated except for those who were actually passionate to the cause.
Very nice choice in article, great minds think alike!
ReplyDeleteAs you can see I chose this article too, as it is a good study on whether or not slacktivism is effective. As I said in my post, I think the idea of public vs. private slacktivism is extremely intriguing and relevant to class.
Do you think that with the growth in technology we will begin to see an elimination of private slacktivism (such as writing to a Congressman) and shifting towards public slacktivism on social media?
Is it slacktivism to write to a congressperson? Where do you think this line is?
ReplyDeleteI wonder because writing to a congressperson means that you are doing something, not just retweeting or donating a few bucks.
As I said on Tim's post as well, I think that writing a Member of Congress is not slacktivism but is actually activism because you are taking a tangible step to influence someone in a position of power to do something about an issue. I think that in some ways slacktivism and its effects vary by the issue and what is being done about it. For instance the Ice Bucket Challenge, while very clearly being an example of slacktivism, did raise considerably more money than they would have without the campaign. In a global context, campaigns like Bring Back Our Girls at least bring awareness to people about an issue that they most likely would not have been aware of had there not been social media. I think technology will make slacktivism more prevalent, but at the same time it will make more people aware of an issue which may make them passionate about it and work for change.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe writing to a congressman qualifies as slacktivism. I believe that writing to a congressman you are putting more effort into it and hoping that this congressman or even an interest group will lobby and make actual change (ideally congress will do things). There is a difference between being an engaged citizen that writes an entire letter trying to make a change versus someone who just tweets in 140 characters or less to their followers. I do think a great benefit of slacktivism is raised awareness though. Spreading the message is important but it is not the only thing needed to make real change.
ReplyDelete@ Professor Shirk I believe that the individual believes that they are doing something however I'm not sure how much it would actually help that an individual wrote once, unless there are several people all writing constantly on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that slacktivism is a helpful and very useful tool to help convey a message to the public. It also helps to create awareness on an issue for example the ice bucket challenge, although not many donated it did help to spread awareness. However social media does not hold the merit or power that a written letter has which is more formal.
ReplyDelete