Does Slacktivism Work?
The above article written for the Washington Post focuses on the effectiveness of slacktivism. The author describes slacktivism as a form of activism, primarily done through social media, where average people "get involved" in a cause in a minimal fashion. Advocates of various causes encourage people to "like" or "retweet" their message in hopes of spreading the word through technology. Although many people may think that slacktivism is not effective, the article defends that advocates believe that these "likes" will lead to deeper involvement by the participants. Research done by faculty at the University of British Columbia found that slacktivism can be effective, but there are variations between public and private slacktivism. They use the example that people who (privately) write to their Congressman are more likely to become deeply involved in an issue compared to people who (publicly) tweet about an issue. In all, the author defends that slacktivism has some merit.
The phenomenon of slacktivism has become extremely salient in our culture today, and has been a recent topic in globalization. In Tuesday's lecture, we discussed how the influx of technology has allowed people around the globe to get involved in various causes, whether it be #bringourgirlshome or the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. People are using slacktivism as a way to show that they are connected to the issues effecting the world today. The widespread nature of technology and global connectedness has allowed people across the globe, from China to Brazil, to become connected to one another through various causes.
However, I do not know if slacktivism is truly as effective as the author may say. Yes, the word is being spread through "liking" and "tweeting", but how much is really being done? I think that the study in the article shows a valid point regarding the difference between public and private activism. I think the public slacktivism is more related to cognitive dissonance, where people are trying to separate the lack of comfort they feel between two issues. People want to show their support for the issue, but do not want to fully invest their time and funding in the cause, which creates stress. So they use their social media platforms as a means of alleviating the stress of the dissonance. This public display of slacktivism then may not be as helpful as advocates want.
I agree that cognitive dissonance may well play a role in 'slacktivism' and that people might just be but I think it's important to discuss that 'slacktivism' may just be a byproduct of such awareness campaigns in the modern era. In the past, PSAs ran on the radio and television because that was the best way to reach people, and I would bet all the money in my wallet that a significant portion of people just muted the TV or got up to go to the bathroom during it. They may have said "Oh, that's sad", but then went about their merry way. This is the same thing argued by some as 'slacktivism' nowadays, only it now manifests itself as Facebook likes and Retweets.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with writing a letter to a Congressman as being slacktivism. I think that writing a letter is actually activism because you are trying to bring attention to an issue by alerting and lobbying someone in a position to do something, which I believe is fundamentally different than retweeting or liking a post on social media. I think that slacktivism is not inherently bad because it at least raises awareness of an issue, though it is certainly annoying that most people retweeting or posting about it probably don't understand the issue at play. In the global world, slacktivism can be a powerful tool for connecting cultures as an event in a remote part of South America or Africa can become front page news.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think there is a difference between tweeting in 140 characters to your friends versus writing a letter to a congressman or group that has the ability to lobby congress and ideally take action. While slactivism is become increasingly more popular, I feel like there is a growing backlash that was evident with ice bucket challenge; people either complained about it being a fad, complained about the people simply dumping water on themselves rather than donating actual money, or pointed out that this was taking money from other diseases. Do you think positing about things on social media negatively affects a problem? Do you personally thing many good things can come from slactivism?
ReplyDeleteThis is very similar to the article I reported on as well! Where social media is used to explained slacktivism. However, I also thing that there is a form of slacktivism separate from social media that just involves word of mouth on different issues yet the people discussing the issues do not go and do their own research or go and find out more about of the issue.
ReplyDeleteMatt and Julie, I agree that I think there is more merit to writing to a Congressman, which is why I believe that private slacktivism is more effective. However, there is a major difference between writing a letter (which often could be a form letter sent out on a list serve) and actually actively going out to fight an issue. After working in a Congressional office, I have seen thousands of letter that were submitted via certain issues, but i Feel thats a far cry from people who would actually come into the office to meet with the Congressman/staff on certain issues.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with you Tim a letter to a Congressman holds way more merit than a simple tweet. However as seen in the current media in things such as the ALS ice bucket challenge can be use to do things that a letter can not. Twitter and social media is becoming a way to show and more easily convey a message to the public.
ReplyDelete