Slacktivism (sometimes slactivism or slackervism) is a portmanteau formed out of the words slacker and activism. The word is usually considered a pejorative term that describes "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfaction. The acts tend to require minimal personal effort from the slacktivist. The underlying assumption being promoted by the term is that these low cost efforts substitute for more substantive actions rather than supplementing them, although this assumption has not been borne out by research. [1]
Slacktivist activities include signing Internet petitions,[2] joining a community organization without contributing to the organization's efforts, copying and pasting of Social Network statuses or messages or altering one's personal data or avatar on social network services.
The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS describes the term "slacktivist", saying it "posits that people who support a cause by performing simple measures are not truly engaged or devoted to making a change".[3]
People such as Rasmus Kleis Nielsen[4] have suggested bumper stickers and charity bands/ribbons as slacktivism, although this would be a matter of opinion. As a monetary donation is often required to gain these items, it does have a benefit to the charity or cause. It is also worth remembering that some causes can benefit greatly by simply being advertised. However, the most common causes posted about on social networking sites are causes that most people are already aware of; these fit the definition of slacktivism appropriately.
Contents |
The term appears to have been coined by Dwight Ozard and Fred Clark in 1995 at the Cornerstone Festival. The term was meant to shorten the phrase slacker activism, which refers to bottom up activities by young people to affect society on a small, personal scale (such as planting a tree, as opposed to participating in a protest). The term originally had a positive connotation.[5]
Radio host and political commentator Dan Carlin was using the term on his show in the 1990s and may have coined the present day meaning.
Monty Phan, staff writer for Newsday, was an early user of the term in his 2001 article titled, "On the Net, "Slacktivism' / Do-Gooders Flood In-Boxes" (Phan 2001).
An early example of using the term "slacktivism" appeared in Barnaby Feder's article in The New York Times called "They Weren't Careful What They Hoped For." Feder quoted anti-scam crusader Barbara Mikkelson of Snopes.com, who described activities such as those listed above. "It's all fed by slacktivism ... the desire people have to do something good without getting out of their chair" (Feder 2002).
Another example of the term "Slacktivism" appeared in Evgeny Morozov’s book, the Net Delusion: How Not To Liberate the World. In his book, Morozov relates the Colding-Jorgensen experiment to Slacktivism. To explain this further, In 2009, a Danish psychologist Colding Jorgensen (part of his research), created a fictitious Facebook group. On the page, he announced that the Copenhagen city authorities will be demolishing the historical Storck fountain site. The following day, 125 Facebook members joined the Jorgensen’s page. Shortly thereafter, the number of fans grew at a staggering rate, reaching 27,500. For that reason, Morozov argues that “when communication costs are low, groups can easily spring into action.”[6] For that reason, Morozov parallels the Colding Jorgensen experiment to Slacktivism. In addition, Morozov also referenced Clay Shirkey also touched on Slacktivism: “ridiculously easy group forming.”[6]
Despite the connotations of the term, a recent correlational study conducted by Georgetown University entitled “The Dynamics of Cause Engagement” determined that so-called slacktivists are indeed “more likely to take meaningful actions.”[7] Notably, “slacktivists participate in more than twice as many activities as people who don’t engage in slacktivism, and their actions “have a higher potential to influence others.”[7] Cited benefits of slacktivism in achieving clear objectives include creating a secure, low cost, effective means of organizing that are environmentally friendly.[8] These "social champions" have the ability to directly link social media engagement with responsiveness, leveraging their transparent dialogue into economic, social or political action.[9]
Yet skepticism of slacktivism’s value certainly exists. Particularly, some argue that it entails an underlying assumption that all problems can be seamlessly fixed using social media, and while this may be true for local issues, slacktivism could prove ineffective for solving global predicaments.[10] In turn, organizationally speaking, slacktivism may result in a “waste of resources, lack of productivity and a risk of liability for the employer.”[11] An NPR piece from 2009 also astutely asks whether "the publicity gains gained through this greater reliance on new media [are] 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." [12]
Criticism of slacktivism often involves the idea that internet activities are ineffective, and/or that they prevent or lessen political participation in real life. However, as many studies on slacktivism relate only to a specific case or campaign, it is difficult to find an exact percentage of slacktivist actions that reach a stated goal. In addition, studies suggest that "fears of Internet activities supplanting real life activity are unsubstantiated," in that they do not cause a negative or positive effect on political participation.[13]
Malcolm Gladwell, in his October 2010 Yorker Article, lambasted those who compare social media "revolutions" with actual activism that challenges the status-quo. He argues that today's social media campaigns can't compare with activism that takes place on the ground, using the Greensboro sit-ins as an example of what real, high-risk activism looks like. "As the historian Robert Darnton has written, “The marvels of communication technology in the present have produced a false consciousness about the past—even a sense that communication has no history, or had nothing of importance to consider before the days of television and the Internet.” But there is something else at work here, in the outsized enthusiasm for social media. Fifty years after one of the most extraordinary episodes of social upheaval in American history, we seem to have forgotten what activism is.[14] In response to his criticism, Mirani argues that he might be right if activism is defined only as sit-ins, taking direct actions, and confrontations on the streets. However, if activism is about arousing awareness of people, changing people's minds, and influencing opinions across the world,then 'the revolution will be indeed be tweeted'.[15]
The term "clicktivism" is sometimes used to describe activists using social media to organise protests. It allows organizations to quantify their success by keeping track of how many "clicked" on their petition or other call to action.[16] For example, the British group UK Uncut uses Twitter and other websites to organise protests and direct action against companies accused of tax avoidance.[17] This varies from slacktivism in that it merely replaces older ways of communicating a protest's existence (telephone, word of mouth, leaflets etc.) and does actually involve a real life, physical protest. On the other hand, clicktivism is also used to describe forms of internet based slacktivism such as signing online petitions or signing and sending form letter emails to politicians or corporate CEOs.
Critics of clicktivism state that this new phenomenon turns social movements to resemble advertising campaigns in which messages are tested, clickthrough rate is recorded, and A/B testing is often done. In order to improve these metrics, messages are reduced to make their "asks easier and actions simpler." This in turn reduced social action to have members that are a list of email addresses rather than engaged people.[18][19]
Charity slacktivism can be described as actions in support of a cause that take little effort on the part of the individual. Examples of online charity slacktivism include changing one's Facebook status to support a cause, joining a charity organization's Facebook page or "liking" a cause on Facebook, tweeting or retweeting a charity organization's request for support, signing Internet petitions, and posting and sharing YouTube videos about a cause.
Examples of offline charity slacktivism include awareness wristbands and paraphernalia in support of causes, such as the Livestrong wristband and the Product Red campaign products, as well as bumper stickers and mobile donating.
The term slacktivism is often used to describe the world's reaction to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The Red Cross managed to raise $5 million in 2 days via text message donations [1]. Social media outlets were used to spread the word about the earthquake. The day after the earthquake, CNN reported that four of Twitter's top topics were related to the Haitian earthquake [2]. These impressive responses by the world community were both praised as helpful reactions and condemned as throwing money at a problem that needed a different type of response.
The act of purchasing luxury brand goods that highlight support for a particular cause and advertises that a percentage of the cost of the good will go to the cause. In some instances the donated funds are spread across various entities within one foundation which in theory helps out several deserving areas of the cause but criticisms of this type of donation highlight the thin spread of the donation.
Slacktivists may also purchase a product from a company because it has a history of donating funds to charity, as a way to second-handedly support a cause. For example, a slactivist may buy Ben and Jerry's ice cream because its founders invested in the nation’s children, or promoted social and environmental concerns.[20]
Certain forms of slacktivism have political goals in mind, such as gaining support for a presidential campaign, or signing an internet petititon that aims to influence governmental action.
An example of a social media campaign, such as donating one's status to a particular cause, functioning as a parody of slacktivism can be seen in the difference between the following examples:
vs
The cause is initially introduced and is visibly supported as a news feed begin populating the same message, but when the message becomes parodied, the initial cause is replaced with something absurd, false, ridiculous or completely unrelated.