slacktivism and the world of donald trump

22 Pages·2017·24.63 MB·English

H élène Widmer – Gautier Milewski – Margaux Peterle – Marine Bach – A lexandre Clement

SLACKTIVISM AND
THE WORLD OF
DONALD TRUMP
Let’s play the riddle game. I own an armchair, I
am particularly fond of two my fingers (yes, those two, Interestingly enough, the origins of the term are
and no, not like that), and - apparently - I feel generally still disputed, but most can be traced back to two events
pretty smug. Oh, and in a roundabout sort of way I have a in 1995. One claim, by Fred Clark and Dwight Osars, is
strong connection with Donald Trump. Who am I? that the word was first coined at the seminar they held
during the Cornerstone Festival (an annual Christian arts
…. A slacktivist of course! No? Still doesn’t ring any bells? and music festival) in Illinois… At the time it was used to
Let us explain… describe a new type of grassroots movement especially
popular among the youth, which involved modest
You see, the slacktivist is an interesting animal - individual actions (such as planting a tree as a symbolic
of the two-legged variety. Not unlike 'hipsters’ or ‘chavs’ gesture) as opposed to traditional forms of activism such
in the real world, slacktivists are, in the online world, a as mass protests. It was argued that those individual
category that most definitely exists, but one that nobody initiatives, in combination with one another, could bring
claims to belong to. Now, you don’t have to be an about social change in their own way… In that sense, the
etymologist to figure out that the word ‘slacktivism’ is a term slacktivism did not have the negative connotation it
portmanteau of the words slacker (yes, as in lazy) and carries now.
activism. (Why the English language uses the French word A second source, this time establishing the link
for 'coat rack' to refer to compound words is another between slacktivism and the Internet, quotes a viral email
story). In its most basic sense, it means just that: a lazy campaign1 organised by students at the University of
form of activism in which the participant speaks out in Northern Colorado the very same year. It was a well-
support of, or to protest against, a given cause, using meaning – but with not very well thought – initiative
means that require little time or effort. It describes a aimed at protesting against government cuts in public
phenomenon that sprang up in the late 90s and has broadcasting services and the Arts. The email petition
gradually become associated with online forms of social went viral but the whole thing proved fairly ineffective
and political campaigning. In doing so, it has also arguably and the students lost control - the amount of emails
turned the notion of activism on its head. overwhelmed their mailboxes and went on to cause
havoc with the university’s email server. The accounts online activism: the first refers to activities performed by
were closed and the students got a good telling off – but an individual, whereas the latter has a more positive
years later, emails were still circulating on the Internet connotation and denotes a notion of momentum
and the university was still taking enquiries and dealing gathered in a collective (and more effective) way.
with the aftermath of the campaign. All this for very little
The mechanics are pretty simple. Most studies on
positive impact. This may have sown the seeds for the
social media engagement describe a process involving 3
negative connotations slacktivism is now (rightly or
to 4 generic steps – one model by multi-channel social
wrongly) associated with – motivated by self-
analytics firm Unionmetrics1, lists 4 as follows:
gratification, not very taxing, at best ineffective, and at
- Stage 1 - Acknowledgement (i.e. reaction)
worst counterproductive.
- Stage 2 - Association (i.e. interaction)
Wherever the first association with the Internet
(reply / comment / mention / follow)
originates from, over the next few years the technology
- Stage 3 – Amplification
quickly evolved and the notion of slacktivism came into
(retweet / share / reblog)
its own. In 2003, during that prehistoric period that pre-
- Stage 4 - Action (i.e. activism)
dates the advent of social networks, the first definition of
(donation / on the ground campaigning)
the word ‘Slacktivism’ appeared on Wikipedia and
Slacktivism sits firmly in the first 3 categories
entered the Urban Dictionary, firmly establishing the link
and – it is argued – rarely progresses to stage 4 i.e. where
between the ‘armchair’ form of activism and the various
the real commitment is made and the action takes place.
tools the Internet and social media it had become
This is where one of the main criticisms lies, as we will
associated with.
explore later. Yet by contrast a number of people lament
the bad press slacktivism has been given and argue that it
is a force to be reckoned with. The core of the debate
boils down to some sort of profit-and-loss account of the
phenomenon – downsides/limitations of slacktivism vs
benefits and which outweighs the other. Taking a step
back for a minute however, the question is, why should
we be at all interested anyway? What makes our
slacktivist an interesting ‘animal’ to study?
Today, the term slacktivism has been mostly cut
off from its origins in the off-line world and is used almost Well, for starters, chances are you are one
exclusively in relation to online campaigning, to describe yourself. And we’re in the club too. We have all done it,
easy forms of participation such as online petitions, showing our approval for xyz stance by forwarding a
Facebook ‘likes’, sharing videos, sales of tee-shirts and punchy Twitter statement on to our friends etc. etc.
bracelets, etc. Anything requiring little effort other than a
click of the mouse and which has (supposedly) little
impact on the cause it is supposed to contribute to. Thus,
the distinction must be made between slacktivism and
And studies show that we spend an enormous The other reason we should look at slacktivism
amount of time on social media – the average person in and online campaigning is that there are some pretty
the U.S. spends nearly two hours on social media every major things happening out there, as in, in that off-line
single day1. In the U.K it is just under that, at 1h45min1. In world we seem to have lost interest in, and especially in
France it is 1h20min1. That’s between 4 and 5 years spent the political space. Unless you have lived in a cave for the
on social media in one’s lifetime - last 12 months, some things have happened in our world
– as in ‘the West’ as it is broadly referred to and that is
where you live - that should make us all take a step back
and have a good think. Brexit. Donald Trump. The rise of
populist movements and the resurgence of
protectionism. Some radical winds are blowing, social
media appear to both contribute to and reflect the
climate, and we should be paying attention.
All in all, that makes the slacktivist an interesting
beast. So, we thought we would don our reporter’s cap
and take a closer look.
First we go about exploring the nasty things
slacktivism has been accused of, and then give it a chance
versus c.7 years watching TV and c. 3.5 years eating and
to redeem itself by giving a voice to those who argue
drinking.
that, on the contrary, it is a very positive phenomenon. In
doing, so we will start examining where slacktivism stops
and where active social media engagement begins, which
is a key point in the discussion.
Second, using Donald Trump’s electoral
campaign as our case study, we will look at slacktivism in
the ruthless arena of politics, and more broadly at online
activism and campaigning across the social and political
spectrum.

And finally, we will endeavour to draw some
conclusions from the recent evolution of the
We reckon that means slacktivism and social media phenomenon and what opportunities and challenges it
engagement are something we should definitely be might represent for the future. So without further ado,
interested in. welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the
slacktivist…
If we take a tour around the slacktivist’s habitat, chances are we are unlikely to find anything remotely
associated with the traditional activist’s artillery. No poster, no banner, and certainly no breeze block. The slacktivist
is a hands-off kind of person. Except when it comes to the click button of course.

In a quick-fix world where campaigning groups are competing for our attention, reliance on social media has
increased considerably. Building support for a cause and raising public awareness are achieved by knowing how to
press all the slacktivist’s buttons (pun intended of course) and prompting a reaction: “like” posts on Facebook, sharing
tweets, creating videos, taking a picture for Instagram, wearing a specific item of clothing or an accessory, the list of
options at the slacktivist’s fingertips expands daily.
From the slacktivist’s viewpoint, all these activities are carried out at little personal cost and they deliver a
quick shot of feel-good factor derived from a sense of personal contribution. Oh, and it makes you look good - Get
you! Aren’t you the perfect-caring-responsible-generous type? And so what? From the viewpoint of those seeking
support for their campaigns, the logic is that increased awareness alone is plenty enough reason to involve people via
social media - the more attention the cause gets, the more likely government bodies or celebrities, as well as the
general public, are to get involved.

In other words, even assuming there are negative aspects to the trend, something is better than nothing. But is it
-really? Or are critics of slacktivism justified in their claims? Let’s begin by drawing up a list of all the charges aimed at
the poor slacktivist:

1. ‘Virtue-signalling’. A chief criticism of slacktivism: what it mostly achieves is self-gratification at very little
cost, it is about publicising one’s good deeds amongst friends and family online, about looking good and
making oneself feel good. (There is also the issue of increasing discrepancy between our identity off and
online, and the problems this ‘disembodiment’ is causing – from disinhibition and misrepresentation to what
constitutes real experience. This last point we can only touch on briefly here, it could be the subject of an
entire thesis).

2. It gets in the way of real engagement/action. Partaking in slacktivist activities means people do not bother
making real contributions to a cause. Once the self-gratifying purposes fulfilled, the slacktivist moves on to
something else without really getting involved at all, and never evolves to become a ‘proper’ activist.

3. At best it is ineffective or counterproductive, and at worst dangerous. The slacktivist gives the illusion of
action by making a lot of noise online, or only makes a meagre/token contribution, when more funding or
participation could have been obtained via traditional forms of campaigning. Many also argue that the effect
of slacktivist activities is ephemeral: they do not engender the sustained form of support most causes really
need. At worst slacktivism can be seriously harmful: it is often used to promote hoaxes or spread
misinformation especially in the political space.
4. ‘The delusion’ effect. Slacktivists spend so much time faffing on line – or worse, spending money on
props associated with a given campaign but not actually contributing to it – that they begin to convince
themselves that what they are doing is actually making a contribution, when in fact it is just an illusion.
This ties in with the ‘double identity’ issue mentioned earlier.

5. The path to disillusion. Slacktivism is like a sugar fix; it provides instant gratification but not satisfaction
in the long term, ultimately leading to a complete loss of faith in online campaigning and campaigning in
general.

My. That does not look good does it? Let us put these charges to the test by looking at two of the most
famous online campaigns ever carried out, and see to what extent the criticism is justified.

Our first case study is that of Kony 2012. Kony 2012 is a viral video that was first shown on
YouTube in March of that year. It was a 30-minute ‘shockumentary’ about Joseph Kony, a rebel African
war-lord, and his guerrilla movement, the ‘Lord's Resistance Army’.

The video was meant to raise awareness for the atrocities committed by the LRA in Uganda and bordering
countries and put pressure on the American government to take action. To date Kony 2012 has had well over 100
million views and remains, some argue, a huge success story. But it also sparked controversy over its merits,
something we can investigate using our own template.
On count No3 of ineffectiveness, things do not look too good for Kony 2012 once we start looking more
closely. The video asked for donations to be made to the filmmakers themselves, not to those responsible for law
enforcement or peace-keeping in the region. The American charity that produced the film, called Invisible Children,
reported gross receipts of over $30 million dollars from the donations within 12 months of the video going viral. And
a low-key statement the filmmakers’ web site (which very few looked at) said in a roundabout sort of way that
basically the donations were used to make the movies about stopping Kony, not to effect change directly on the
ground. How much of those profits truly contributed to the cause is unclear.
As for the ‘raising awareness’ bit. Law enforcement had been on Kony's case for nearly a decade before the
YouTube movie. He had been indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Uganda, the
African Union and the U.S. had been actively engaged in finding Kony for a long time. By no means was there any
need to "raise awareness" among the people whose job it was to be aware of Kony and who were already on his case.

Finally, and onto our argument No2 - slacktivism getting in the way of real activism. It has been highlighted,
quite rightly, that sharing information about a war-torn zone, and volunteering in a war-torn zone, are two different
things: the former accomplishes next to nothing while the latter could save a life. So really, one could argue that Kony
2012 was slacktivism at its very worst. It took a world issue that was already known to those involved with it and
profited from well-meaning people – arguably slacktivists – under the guise of ‘raising awareness’, as if no one had
actually thought about the issue.

Our second example is that of the Ice Bucket Challenge. Remember that summer in 2014 when everyone on
your social trend filmed themselves dumping buckets of ice-cold water over their heads before nominating others to
do the same? The original objective was to solicit donations to fight a condition called ALS: a progressive
neurodegenerative disorder that affects the function of nerves and muscles. Based on U.S. population studies, around
20,000 Americans have the disease and over 6,000 people are diagnosed with ALS each year. There is currently no
cure. Beyond the millions of videos posted on Facebook, scores of celebrities including Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates,
and Robert Downey Jr made videos, contributing to raise worldwide awareness about the disease.

As online campaigns go, it certainly was textbook slacktivist material: narcissistically self-promoting, not too
taxing (unless you got carried away) and fun. It cannot be denied that the campaign raised millions of dollars - and
some sources quote that over 300,000 of the donors involved were first-time donors. But how many, if any, of our
charges was the campaigning also guilty of?

We can definitely say guilty when it comes to count No4, the ‘delusion’. Originally, those committing to the
challenge were meant to donate $100 unless they completed the task within 24 hours of their pledge. But the viral
nature of the campaign meant that it got watered down and that timeframe constraint completely disappeared.
Instead, people went on doing their own thing, buying their own equipment, doing rehearsals and spending
inordinate amounts of time and money on anything but the cause itself. Nevertheless, by the end of this frantic
activity, they had convinced themselves that they were philanthropists, unconsciously placing a value on the goods
and the time spent posting on social media and making videos. But this value had very little long term effect other
than associating donations or charity work with such activities instead of the real thing. The social ‘action’ of making a
noise on social media took the place of the donation.

On the count No 2 and 3 of our list – lack of real engagement and ineffectiveness - we reckon that campaign
ranks pretty highly too, in fact it is a double whammy (and we are not even going to mention the waste of water).
First, if the thousands of people who spent money on buying bags of ice had actually given that money to the
ALS, the overall amount would have been off the charts. And second, the slacktivists taking part can be accused of
being misguided. When it comes to donating, governments and individuals alike have finite resources and whilst ALS
is a terrible disease, ultimately it is a question of prioritising: first assess where the need is the greatest, second where
the money will have the greatest influence and third where it is needed most urgently. Well, the ice bucket challenge
failed all these tests. First, thankfully ALS is an extremely rare disease affecting very few people compared to the most
fatal diseases such as cancer. And second, if we look at the amounts donated to research in that field, it is already
extremely well-funded compared to areas such as heart disease. And finally it cannot possibly qualify as an urgent
need compared to other causes such as finding a cure for the Ebola virus, the Syrian crisis or the famine in central
Africa and other parts of the world, that kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. Unfortunately for these
people, at that time no one came up with a campaign quite as catchy. Why support what’s most needed when we can
support what is most entertaining? Enough said on this count I think.

And then there’s No2, virtue-signalling. You just need to look at the many videos that have been shared
online to see that the ‘challenge’ was an opportunity for self-promotion. It made you look good – and in many cases,
not just in the figurative sense of a good person who cares and contributes to good causes. For many it became an
excuse to show off their toned beach bodies. When one has seen what ALS can do to someone’s body, that very
display of exhibitionism was distasteful to say the least. So really what can be argued here is that slacktivists better
dispense with the showing off, put their money where their mouth is and just donate.

If these two campaigns are representative of online slacktivist participation, the evidence in support of its
condemnation is mounting. Away from these two specific examples, we can safely say that the ‘path to disillusion’
quoted last on our list is very real - if paved with good intentions. We move from cause to cause like butterflies and it
is contributing to our developing some sort of immunity to misery and world problems. In turn, online campaigning
has become some giant market driven by offer and demand – in competing for everyone’s attention it has become
about making the claims bigger, the visuals more shocking, one cause worthier than the next. Slacktivist fatigue will
inevitably lead to disillusion and disinterest, and if we lose the only positive element of the phenomenon everyone
seems to agree on – the opportunity to raise awareness for a cause – then what?

One last element only touched on by our two case studies, is that of the more serious dangers inherent to
slacktivist practices, the seriously harmful bit. What if the slacktivist’s contribution is not used for good, for the
betterment of our lives and the lives of those around us, but for sinister motives? The Internet on the whole is vastly
unregulated, and despite progress by authorities to come up with ways of monitoring the discourse and campaigns
that circulate online, there is clear evidence of malpractice. Brainwashing, online indoctrination of new recruits by
religious or political fanatics, the list is long. One can hope that any overtly malicious campaign would be
counteracted online, but the sheer volume of information means that social media and the Internet in general is
nothing but a giant, dangerous online jungle.
Finally, what does this all tell us about people, and social media, in general? Our children are growing up in a
world where they equate ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ to a validation of their popularity and how cool they are, so of course,
when everyone else is dumping buckets of water over their head, there’s nothing like jumping on the bandwagon and
following the trend. Are we nurturing generations of shallow, self-centered, apathetic individuals?

At this stage of our story, the evidence against our slacktivist is pretty damning. But in the interest of
journalistic impartiality, we ought to give the defence a voice and hear all the good reasons why the slacktivist has a
place and should, in fact, be given plenty encouragement.

So if you were finding it hard swallowing all those negative comments, don’t worry! This next section will
make them a lot more palatable. Yes, slacktivism does have its limits and no of course it’s not the panacea for all
social ills, but there is plenty of goodness in it and we owe it to you to highlight the good bits. Only then we can
decide which, of the pros or the cons, tip the balance.

What Prompts People to Get Involved in Social Causes?

First, we need to understand what leads people to commit their time, money and energy to social causes.
Most of us have at least one cause we care deeply about. Be it breast cancer, mental illness, or gun control, social
activists strive to make our world better. How? By getting other people enthused in their cause(s) and inspiring them
to act. And that’s the challenge: no one is as dedicated to a given cause as those for whom it’s deeply personal.
People outside that committed circle, tend to use a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ approach: do I care enough about the
environment to dedicate a whole Sunday afternoon to a climate change rally? Is gun control important enough for me
to support that campaign? When we try to decide just how committed an activist we should be, research on the
subject suggests there are two different paradigms we tend to use. The first framework is “moral balancing,” the idea
that if you do something good, then you have done your good deed for the day and you give yourself permission not
to do something else. The second framework is “internal consistency,” and it’s almost the complete opposite
perspective. This model argues that we want our actions to match our self-image. That is to say, if you do something
good, you begin to see yourself as such and you will get more involved in positive social actions. Thus, depending on
the individual, these two frameworks compete against each other, both online and in the real world.
So, what’s the relationship between “slacktivism” and” activism”?

So, what’s the relationship between slacktivism and activism?

One of the most comprehensive studies on this question comes from Yu-Hao Lee and Gary Hsieh at Michigan
State University: ‘Does Slacktivism Hurt Activism? The Effects of Moral Balancing and Consistency in Online Activism’.
They defined slacktivism as ‘a low-risk, low-cost activity via social media whose purpose is to raise awareness,
produce change, or grant satisfaction to the person engaged in the activity’. They then went on asking themselves
when and how this type of activity inspired others to give up their money or time.

On the plus side, they found that the main criticism of slacktivism – that it allows us to say, ‘I’ve helped the
world’ without in fact effecting any change – isn’t supported by evidence. Their study goes much further but their
overall conclusion comes down to one sentence: Slacktivism rarely hurts activism, but it doesn’t really help much
activism either. Nevertheless, slacktivism cannot be said to have no impact at all: in spite of the little commitment it
entails - or perhaps because of it - the mechanisms slacktivism involves are actually somewhat effective:
Indeed, even if someone enters the ‘chain’ of social media engagement only to stop at its bottom: (Stage 1-
2), say he ‘likes’ a Facebook status update, or forwards a tweet on to his followers, and then refuses to engage any
further. Well, he is taking part in the campaign, albeit via a very modest act of sharing. And although it is the easiest
form of action – all it usually requires is the click of a button, it is nonetheless the first step in the advancement of the
cause. The mass-sharing, tweeting or petition-signing has the effect of showing that a lot of people care or feel
concerned about a given situation. This online exposure and support will more likely encourage (say) governing
bodies to take action in favour of that campaign. Also, it may also very well create some sort of snowball effect,
ultimately leading to someone personally engaging in the cause. Awareness is never wasted.

‘Flash activism’, another strand of online protest that carries a less negative baggage, can be effective at
influencing target audiences in specific circumstances. The idea is that of a flash flood, where the sheer scale and
unforeseen impetus of the participation overwhelms the system. Numbers matter. Whether you are a high school
coach, Bank of America, the Trump administration or a local council member, widespread protest in the form of an
uncontainable flood of signatures, emails and phone calls can be quite persuasive.

Furthermore, slacktivism can also be seen as providing logistics support to other forms of activism: for
instance, there is no denying the central part that social media played during the Arab Spring: linking communities,
facilitating communication among political activists and protesters, and spreading the word about forthcoming events
and demonstrations both within and outside the North African borders. As history was being written, the
revolutionary ideas exchanged online were gradually translating into action and mass protests on the ground. This
logistics function, as a catalyst for change, a real-time communication channel, whilst less quantifiable than votes or
donations, is no less important – the hive of activity in press offices and the changes triggered in the political
landscape bear witness to this fact.
So, let’s emphasise it again: social media is not a panacea, and it can be as much a repository for ignorance
as for enlightenment, but there is now significant evidence to support that online campaigning, at every level, is
impactful. And a fair proportion of the results achieved in those campaigns, such as those mentioned above, can be
undoubtedly attributed to slacktivists, meaning that they do effect change after all – albeit in a roundabout, modest,
and amateurish kind of way.

Success takes many forms, and in many other cases, benefits of a campaign can be precisely quantified. The
Ice Bucket Challenge falls in this category in that it involved donations, and is often quoted in relation with
slacktivism. Far from all the negative aspects we touched on earlier, here we go back to that campaign and look upon
it as a very encouraging example of the phenomenon:

Controversial, but efficient.

One of our concerns earlier was that the exercise exacerbated people’s tendency to donate for emotional
reasons, rather than after careful evaluation of where money can do the most good. It was argued that it would divert
donations from diseases that afflict many more people than the six thousands who receive a diagnosis of ALS every
year. At the time participants were also verbally attacked for wasting water, and to be honest, the very nature of the
challenge can be perceived as inherently offensive by those affected by the disease - whilst some of the arguments
were arguably not well founded, here they may have a point. But what is often overlooked is that the challenge had
not been devised by the ALS Association, who would very probably have been more mindful of such issues. The
challenge was a grassroots movement that had taken on a life of its own.

All these concerns aside, there are three ways in which the Ice Bucket Challenge was, in fact, a brilliant campaign for
ALS:

 Awareness.

For months, ALS condition was on everyone’s
tongue and the month of August saw the
number of visits on the ALS website skyrocket:
a significant rise which is undoubtedly due to
the Challenge.

We are talking about a billion videos showing people taking part in the challenge and originating from more than 150
countries.