Anti-corruption “Slacktivism”- is it activism or just an ism or neither?
My Grade 11 daughter educated me. One of her English Language paper 2 exam questions (school specific) was on whether slacktivism (not slackerism) is activism or not. Yes, there is such a term and a thing.
We had a ding dong debate as she had answered in the negative i.e that “liking” a page or cause on social media as a couch potato eating potato chips or following the herd in a cause with car stickers or tweets, is not activism.
I disagreed as I “like” many of the messages on Linkedin or DM that forward the cause of being aware and educated in this field as it encourages, educates, creates a tighter group of those fighting corruption. Am I too slack? This made her all jittery about her exam. My husband also added his few cents. He got a death stare. And then I got jittery. Is another way to ask is rather whether I am an activist or supporter of a cause?
So as all lawyers do, I started with research. Well, because I am a slacker, humph, I used Google, Chat GBT and AI to help me (evil laugh).
Slacktivism is an informal English term which first popped up in the 1990’s. Oxford and Wiki say respectively that it’s “the practice of supporting a political or social cause by means such as social media or online petitions, characterized as involving very little effort or commitment.”
“It… uses the internet to support political or social causes in a way that does not need much effort”.
Examples are:
-“liking” posts,
-Wearing ribbons
-petitions
-awareness wristbands or merch,
-creating or signing online petitions
-bumper stickers
-mobile donations.
Slack/ slacker has a negative connotation of laziness. Is it a fair assumption for this term? Apply logic. Break down the definitions to the essentialia.
1. There must be a cause -like anti-corruption, saving the environment
2. There must be an action (no omission), a practice of not being there physically (“armchair” or “hashtag” activism) but pressing your tabs
3. There must be an intentionality, a consensus- a unilateral support for that cause
4. It must be on the internet /social media/ online
5. There is no huge sacrifice, effort or cost /time allocated
The condescending term grates me. It’s mocking. Why judge and begrudge those who give in that small way - better than nothing and we want/ need online giving, resources and people using their social media power.
In the 26 types of activism (https://www.goodgoodgood.co/articles/types-of-activism) just before halfway is the Slacktivism example.
We best not underestimate the power of social media or online activism. It was used in the recent Hong Kong protest narrative to indicate to the (traditional) activist students protesting for democracy where the police were so they could avoid them. There are powerful movements around the world that have mobilised thought online towards a worthy cause. It unites.
I still don’t like this oxymoron word- an awkward coupling of opposites that are not mutually inclusive yet in purpose, have similarities. I don’t want to just tick a social conscience box but be someone who actively transforms/ adds value to that cause by my actions.
Methinks the second objection is the lack of physical action and the woke aspect of a serious subject to be popular or “pc”.
But the underlying principle of democracy is a voice for every soul- and that should include a consensual choice to “like” or wear a ribbon. All actions, big or small, passive (like on the internet a la Slacktivism) or an active walk for example by Cynthia Stimpel to raise awareness for Whistleblowers on an ‘Activism spectrum’, are a degree of protest to a status quo that it is just not okay. Moaning just deflates everyone. Or its dressed up with ‘awareness’.
My view is that we speak up for that for which we are passionate about, find facts, think up possible solutions or/and say no or ”that’s enough”. With every issue we have an issue about, add possible answers.
That is not being slack.