I am taking a class this semester called Social Media and Contentious Politics. Thus far, it has been an interesting class. We have been tracing the paths of various political movements and protests throughout the world. We started with theory, then went on to talk about the Arab Springs. We're gradually moving through the protests that took place during this time around the world, and will end with Occupy Wallstreet.
One of the main themes in this course is the debate centered around whether social media helps or hurts a political movement. It's not hard to argue either way. Social media can help a movement by raising awareness, bringing people together, and expanding the social sphere. It can also hurt a movement due to government control and, the focus of this post, "slacktivism."
What is slacktivism? In essence, it is the idea that people who might otherwise go out there and fight for a cause are going to instead just click a "like" button and be done with it. Slacktivism is not true activism, because little comes from it. If millions of people watch Kony 2012, but no one does anything... is that activism? If a thousand people share a photo of a girl dying of cancer... is that activism? If a million people "like" the HRC facebook page... is that activism? What is activism?
Of course, it's difficult to define. And even the problems we have with slacktivism aren't necessarily "real" problems. We can't say that those people liking, or watching, or sharing would have instead gone out and donated or protested if not for facebook. It's likely they would have sat home, unaware.
Further, even slacktivism has power. It has the power to share ideas and spread awareness. Without those shares and likes, fewer people would know about key issues in their lives.
Surely, slacktivism isn't wanted. But even this negative holds positive outcomes. We just have to decide how we are going to approach social media. Are we activists?
One of the main themes in this course is the debate centered around whether social media helps or hurts a political movement. It's not hard to argue either way. Social media can help a movement by raising awareness, bringing people together, and expanding the social sphere. It can also hurt a movement due to government control and, the focus of this post, "slacktivism."
 |
| Slacktivism in non-Action |
What is slacktivism? In essence, it is the idea that people who might otherwise go out there and fight for a cause are going to instead just click a "like" button and be done with it. Slacktivism is not true activism, because little comes from it. If millions of people watch Kony 2012, but no one does anything... is that activism? If a thousand people share a photo of a girl dying of cancer... is that activism? If a million people "like" the HRC facebook page... is that activism? What is activism?
Of course, it's difficult to define. And even the problems we have with slacktivism aren't necessarily "real" problems. We can't say that those people liking, or watching, or sharing would have instead gone out and donated or protested if not for facebook. It's likely they would have sat home, unaware.
Further, even slacktivism has power. It has the power to share ideas and spread awareness. Without those shares and likes, fewer people would know about key issues in their lives.
Surely, slacktivism isn't wanted. But even this negative holds positive outcomes. We just have to decide how we are going to approach social media. Are we activists?
hey, where are the update? ;) waiting for the very much.
ReplyDelete