Analyzing Slactivism

by Sudip Bhandari, HIA Fellow

A senior HIA fellow from the US once shared with me his blog entry, where he vehemently argued that social movements happen because real people move; in real time; in real space. He was directing his frustration towards many social media campaigns, like Kony 2012, which created massive Internet sensations but failed to achieve practical solutions. His blog entry created a paradigm shift in my perception of the importance or lack there of, of social media like Facebook in creating substantial social change. I doubted the efficacy of #bringbackourgirls campaign, a Twitter hullabaloo that aimed in generating enough public pressure so that the Nigerian government would act to bring back 200 Nigerian school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. I doubted if the online petitions would be enough to change the law to restrict gun usage in the United States. I doubted if online video campaigns would incite appropriate changes in the environmental policies to tackle climate change. I came to HIA Poland with these doubts, and today, I was forced to reevaluate my skepticisms.

HIA fellows and I entered a contemplative discussion with Chris Worman, the director of TechSoupGlobal, which helps Non-Governmental Organizations get better acquainted with new technology and software. We conversed on issues varying from the importance of memes, to the reasons for failure of Occupy Wall Street movement. What caught my attention the most was when he argued that some social media campaigns in societies that lack freedom of expression, do have immense political meaning. While he underscored the importance of real human connection, which virtual world cannot provide, he criticized the author Malcolm Gladwell who downplays Slactivists. Slactivism, as Wikipedia defines it, is “…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 take satisfaction from the feeling they have contributed.” So, changing one’s Facebook profile picture to Kony 2012 poster would be slactivism. Tweeting #bringbackourgirls would be slactivism too. Social media provide space for the general population to demonstrate frustration or take a political stance, which according to slactivism concept provides them with “fake” sense of creating a change. Slactivism, in essence does not create any social capital. Chris, to my surprise believes otherwise. He believes that the concept of Slactivism as something that generates no political value is ethnocentric. Unlike the United States, where everyone enjoys the freedom of expression, countries like Turkey strip its population of such rights. Countries like Egypt have authoritarian governments that deny congregation of people. In such situations, a “Like” on a Facebook page or a “Retweet” on Twitter post for a pro-democratic campaign can send enormous political message to the oppressive regimes. In Uganda, where engaging in a same sex relationship leads one to a life long prison, a grass root online video campaign in favor of same sex marriage can be revolutionary. Comments, Likes, Shares and Online Petitions might not topple such regimes, but they can definitely prove to be a small stepping-stone towards that reality.

            As I struggle to conclude my thoughts on my position of whether I truly doubt the power of social campaigns, I eagerly look forward to our group projects of creating memes to address hate speech online. Will our campaign stop hate speech? Probably not! But, I believe it could prove to be a symbolic way to demonstrate our willingness for a positive social change.

             

Figure caption: Chris Worman shares his insights on social media campaigns.