What are the criticisms of slacktivism?

Many authors view social media activism in general as slacktivism and make no distinction of the two (Skoric, 2012; Kristofferson, White, and Peloza, 2013; Lee and Hsieh, 2013; Cook et al., 2014, Hoffman et al., 2016; Castells, 2015; McCaughey and Ayers, 2013; Chan-Olmsted, Cho, and Lee, 2013; Breur and Farooq, 2012; Skoric, 2012;

Howard and Parks, 2012; McCafferty, 2011). These authors for the most part believe that traditional forms of protest are not only the best way to achieve change, but the only way to achieve change. They think that social media activism or slacktivism ends up doing much more harm than good within movements.

54

Several activists are also weary of slacktivism, similar to what was stated by Garza in her interview, they believe that there is no substitute for in-person participation. Many activists are even resentful of the label “activist” being given to those who only participate online because since they did not have to make any significant sacrifices, were not emotionally invested, and showed little commitment, they did not earn the title “activist”.

A lot of the research has also shown that young people participating in slacktivism do believe that they are somehow making a difference or at least feel good doing it. However, Foreman cautions against that saying “It is, however, a mistake for slacktivists to view their clicks, shares, and tweets as comprehensive, meaningful, intentional engagement of an issue. Engagement is costly in terms of time and often money” (Foreman, 2018, p.3).

In other words, the movements are spending a lot of resources on increasing engagement online and can be fooled into thinking that they are achieving success within the movement in terms of quantity of participation and awareness when looking at statistics on engagement and ultimately believe that their investments are paying off. They would think that because of the large amount of slacktivism which includes liking, sharing, changing pictures, etc. and would be calculated or factored into the statistics for engagement within the movement. This not only misleads activists; it is a sign that money is being wasted on false engagement because those participating and therefore the movement is not making as much progress as it was believed to have made based on the stats.

Another way, that statistics are being challenged or are unclear, is within the concept that when young people participate in slacktivism (the low-cost and low-risk opinions) it means that they are not heavily invested in the movement and will therefore not participate in actual activism (high-cost and high-risk), and make sacrifices in order to fight for change. The research is split on this, with many authors like the ones previously mentioned believing that slacktivists never participate in activism, versus others like Kwak et al., who believe the opposite. Kwak et al., actually found no correlation in their studies between the types of participation people engage in online and whether or not they participate offline in traditional methods and forms of activism.

It is very difficult, if not impossible to determine the exact impact that slacktivism has on social movements, but the overarching consensus is that it is negatively impacting it. They clearly declare:

55

“It is important to note that we do not observe a negative effect of expression on participation as the narcotizing dysfunction or Slacktivism accounts would predict, but rather find no evidence to suggest that political expression on social media is influencing young people’s offline participation.” (Kwak et al., 2015 p. 215) This is contrary to a lot of the research on this topic but could revolutionize views of slacktivism if it is true. Part of the problem lies in the difficulty of analysis of the effects of actions online.

Another very difficult thing to do sometimes is distinguish between slacktivism and social media activism, and then further whether actions online, help, hurt or do not affect the cause they are on behalf of. Some authors are conscious of that. Lane and Dal Cin (2018) revealed that

“when young people share a video from a cause they care about on their Facebook wall, they are engaging in both impression management and a complex performance of identity with perceived social consequences. Online sharing is often viewed as low-cost participation (because it is fast and easy to accomplish) but sharing social and political views online is in fact a highly delicate matter.”

(Lane and Dal Cin, 2018, p.1527).

This simply shows that in spite of the criticisms of slacktivism as low-cost and low risk, sometimes it can have an impact. In the example stated, while sharing a video for a cause may not obtain the exact change the cause seeks, it does help to increase awareness of the cause and also, as stated has social consequences. Particularly for young people, the possibility of social consequences can be viewed as a high risk and this further complicates the research on slacktivism and criticisms of slacktivism because slacktivism should technically be low risk.

Regardless of whether or not actions are classified as slacktivism, it is useful to understand and know why people participate in it in order to fully understand participants, their motivations, and possibly make activism more appealing to participants in the future.

As a result of that, the next question will identify, address, and analyse what exactly is so appealing about slacktivism and why people tend to participate in it.

56 2.4.5 Why does slacktivism exist?

Before answering this very important question, this section will begin with an illuminating and revelatory quote from Foreman.

“We are all “slacktivists” to some degree if we have any presence on social media that goes beyond posting selfies and pictures of our dogs, kids, and trips. I click a button and feel like I have done something to express solidarity and raise awareness for at-risk kids; I share information that I think others would find interesting, or I might share a post to indicate that I care about the issue.”

(Foreman, 2018, p.1)

This was one very important realization of the research. Everyone on social media engages in low-cost or low-risk activity that has to do with some level of activism, and if that is the criteria to establish actions as “slacktivism”, then everyone is guilty of slacktivism. This question of “why” is answered within the quote as well where Foreman says that people engage in slacktivism because it is self-validating. Once you have liked something, you feel like you have shown support to the individual or cause that the post is about; you share things to help others increase their knowledge; you post things about causes to show solidarity with the movement; all of these things are cost and low-risk, however, the intentions behind them and even the actions themselves, if you think about it, do sound like activism and not slacktivism. Perhaps this is an additional reason why slacktivism exists; it can actually help sometimes, or at least make one feel like they have helped or have made a contribution to a worthy cause.

The problem with “slacktivism”, however occurs not just when people participate in low-cost and low-risk activities; the problem comes about when they do that, feel as if it was enough effort and then do nothing else. When people do absolutely nothing, they are able to sense a discrepancy and feel unvalidated or useless. “Token displays of support may reduce such a discrepancy, thereby rendering subsequent action unnecessary” (Lane and Dal Cin, 2018, p.1526). People participate to feel validated and useful, and then they do nothing else. That is when the problem occurs because not participating in person or in traditional forms of activism which would pose a higher risk and have a higher cost, will set the movement back significantly because those actions have proven to be the most effective.

57

The concept of engaging in slacktivism in order to bring awareness was a recurring reason for participation in slacktivism in the research. Coffé and Chapman (2014) write in their study “Changing Facebook Profile Pictures as Part of a Campaign: Who Does it and Why?” that the most commonly cited motivation of young adults participating in social media activism is to “spread awareness” (Coffé and Chapman, 2014, p.18) Interestingly enough, when one posts in order to bring awareness of a cause, one is also bringing awareness of one’s self because the simple fact that one posts about something reveals a lot about the one posting it. This train of thought is particularly applicable with college students and younger participants because they are still in the process of forming their identity and act based on how they want to be perceived. Slacktivism is also a way of forming external perception of one’s self. Thorson (2013) shows that college students approach sharing with concerns about how they present themselves and the social ramifications of their posts (Thorson, 2013) and Davis’ research shows that “young people balance their desire to express themselves with the knowledge that they are under constant scrutiny” (Davis, 2012), which is a process that Xenos, Vromen, and Loader (2014), have named a “personalized politics of self-actualization and expressive engagement” (Xenos, Vromen, and Loader, 2014, p. 155). They therefore act or “slack”

accordingly to make a statement and on the occasion that it is not slacktivism, make a difference as well.

Based on the research, Social Media Activism can easily be confused with slacktivism, however the motives for participation seem to be the best way to distinguish them. People participate in slacktivism because it takes little effort, is low-risk, low-cost and can make them feel good about themselves, validated, or like they somehow made a contribution to the world and therefore fulfilled their purpose here on this earth.

A fascinating discovery was that the same reasons that people participate in slacktivism can be what encourages social media activism and therefore could be used as a strategy to gain more participants. For example, many people use Facebook for activism because they already use it in everyday life and it is therefore not just familiar to use, but very easy. However, the ease of Facebook as a tool for movements is a positive thing because

“Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice” (Gladwell, 2010, p.45). Even these actions that do not require real sacrifice can be impactful in spite of the fact that many might be concerned about the

58

intentions of participants. Sometimes the simple things or the smallest things can make the biggest impact especially when they exist in large quantities. “It is a misleading sense that publications on social networking websites, participation in campaigns of sympathy, sharing of information et cetera, cannot fundamentally change something” (Sutkute, 2016, p. 5). These simple actions do have the power to make an impact, and that in its essence is why people continue to participate through these modes.

In fact, these small ways of participation, or the slacktivism, contribute to user identity online which gives participants a vested interest in the movement, keeps them in the loop and ultimately may lead them to becoming more active. The option to personalize activism online is part of the appeal to slacktivism. People also have the freedom to determine what their activism looks like and how effective they want it to be then act accordingly. Users can create and shape their personal online presence and also the impact those they engage with can make with collective effort. Saunders states that “the Internet emerges as social space only through the actions of its users” (Saunders 2006, p.51) The actions taken online are only as effective and powerful as the participants engaging in those actions, and the results they want from them. Through the research it was found that most people participate in slacktivism because they genuinely want to help in some way or form; either by showing support or bringing awareness or making a statement about where they stand. And while, some people certainly participate because sometimes movements are trendy, it can be assumed that the vast majority, particularly those who participate with longevity, actually are participating in activism as opposed to slacktivism solely based on the answer to the question of “why?”. This leads to the next section which seeks to distinguish slacktivism and activism.

In analysing the research and the newfound realisations, it was clear that it was essential to look at intentions of activists and their perceptions of their actions because that would determine what actions they take online and whether they take them seriously, then ultimately whether those actions should be deemed as activism or slacktivism. It was discovered in one of the few articles focusing on participant perception, that participants in SMA do see even the littlest effort online as activism and think that their contributions online constitute them as activists (Harlow and Guo, 2014, p.472). This may come across as negative, but any action aimed at advancing a cause is activism regardless of the amount of effort it takes. Then, ‘With the advent of new technologies, such as social networking sites, people are able to connect and organize around common beliefs and

59

causes despite geographic and time restrictions’ (Edrington and Lee, 2018, p. 302).which has seen a significant increase in both activism and slacktivism worldwide.

2.4.6 How is slacktivism different from activism

The main distinction that has been made between slacktivism and activism by existing research so far is that slacktivism consists of actions that are low-risk and/or low-cost, while activism consists of actions that require sacrifice. This research, however, slightly disagrees in that it has seen that activism can also be low risk and low cost, and also that both slacktivism and activism especially when combined, can be very useful in obtaining change.

As this is the literature review however, in continuation, the literature on this subject matter will be discussed in order to identify the distinguishing factors between social media activism and activism.

A quote by Li et al. (2018) encompasses many of the main known distinguishing elements of slacktivism from activism although the quote was made in criticism of using those labels to determine activism. They state that

“Technology has enabled new digital forms of activism, such as participating in online social movements or signing petitions. Performing these actions in lieu of physical protesting may eliminate accessibility barriers for people with disabilities.

Unfortunately, many of these actions are viewed as ‘slacktivism’ – low-effort and low-impact alternatives to meaningful engagement with a cause. Activist rhetoric often refers to ‘putting your body on the line’ or ‘being in the streets’, which not all disabled activists can do” (Li et al., 2018, p.1).

From this, it can be noted that the main identifying factors of slacktivism are that firstly, as has been discussed, the actions occur online instead of physically or in person;

secondly, that actions are low effort; thirdly, slacktivism is low impact, fourthly, the engagement is meaningless; and lastly from the quote, that one avoids or simply does not

“put their body on the line” or “be in the streets”. These elements are generally agreed upon by the majority of the literature. From this, it may be taken that activism on the other hand does not really occur online, requires significant effort, has an impact, consists of meaningful engagement, and also involves people putting their bodies on the line and being in the streets. However, as the quote says, some people are simply not able to

60

participate in these ways in spite of the fact that they may want to; and therefore they are forced to participate within the means of their abilities and that participation may look like what is traditionally known as slacktivism. However, this does not seem right which is one of the reasons why this research disagrees with the antiquated perceptions of slacktivism and instead argues that the most important distinguishing factor is the intent and willingness of participants.

Another distinguishing factor of slacktivism is solely participating online and not being a least willing to participate in person and make the sacrifices necessary to achieve change.

“Slacktivism includes clicking ‘like’ or ‘retweet’ to show support for a cause, signing online petitions, sharing videos about an issue, and changing your profile picture to support a cause – but not engaging in offline activism” (Dookhoo, 2019, p.6). In an experiment that was conducted by Lee and Hsieh on slacktivism and how it affects in person participation or subsequent related actions, they observed their participants to test whether or not signing a petition online would increase or decrease subsequent donations to charity. “The results were surprising and revealed that when participants signed an online petition, they were more likely to donate to a related charity” (Lee and Hsieh, 2013). This contradicts the earlier supposition by Lane and Dal Cin (2018), who stated that participants are less likely to participate in person after engaging in activism online, because through those online actions they feel satisfied and are absolved of the need to contribute any further. From this part of the research it may be implied that those engaging in slacktivism will be satisfied with participation online, however those whose actions constitute activism, are likely not to stop with the online actions, but participate offline as well.

Another distinction also related to intention of participation is the concept of trends.

People who only participate in a movement in order to follow or be a part of a trend are slacktivists, while those who participate in order to obtain the changes needed and desired, are the real activists. Multiple sources spoke about movements succumbing to the perils of slacktivism and trends but they unfortunately do not suggest ways to avoid that outcome (Howard and Parks, 2012; Skoric, 2012; Kristofferson, White and Peloza, 2013;

Freelon, McIlwain, and Clark, 2016; Hoffman et al., 2016). This appeal of trends and participation to be trendy has been the case for several movements however it does not signify that the actions are ineffective or that the movement will fail. In fact, several

61

movements in the past have thrived off of being trendy (like the #Icebucketchallenge¹) and have received and exceeded their desired results, regardless of the intentions of participants. This does not negate the fact however that it is crucial to understand the intentions and perception of participants because through understanding that, movements can garner maximum participation, interest, and ultimately, impact.

There is a lot of research on what the problems are within activism, but sadly, not much research on how to solve them. It is hoped that this research will help to solve at least a few of the puzzles and problems existing in the world of social movements, and social media activism.

Another example of a trendy movement that was extremely successful was the movement for gay marriage equality in the USA. Millions of people changed their profile picture to

Another example of a trendy movement that was extremely successful was the movement for gay marriage equality in the USA. Millions of people changed their profile picture to