The term relates to feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact and although it's seen by some as a way to build wide consensus on an issue, it has been described by others as nothing more than a way for " stupid, apathetic people to con themselves into believing they are helping make the world a better place."
Here's the deal ; You're invited by someone, somewhere, to click a button and show your support for a cause. It's a social network thing and it's usually driven through Facebook and it doesn't take much effort to do what's required. This last week, the campaign du jour has involved changing your profile picture to the image of your favourite childhood cartoon character - everyone who takes part is, apparently, supporting a movement against violence toward children.
But hold on. The Los Angeles Times and others have run articles and discussions that reveal the campaign was started by "an anonymous volunteer" and that there is no connection with any charity. You won't find a way to donate money, or any information about the issue of violence against children, or any website to refer to, or petition to sign. Theoretically, you have done something . But it's a something that's not far from nothing.
Reactions to the LA Times piece have varied. One Canadian reader pointed out that a road-related law change occured in his hometown, largely due to a 4000 strong Facebook movement, and that therefore such ideas are worthwhile. It's been argued that because social and political change only occurs through mass awareness , such campaigns hold an authentic value.
Perhaps , if all you do is click the button, it's enough - you are having your say and contributing to, potentially, a global movement of change. On the other hand, perhaps it's a slacktion that means nothing unless it's accompanied by practical actions in support of a cause.
Is something always better than nothing ? Or if all you do is click, in the vague hope that a pig in a crate or a sick child or a rainforest somewhere will benefit but without knowing if they ever really do, before you check the staff Christmas party pics ..... what's the point ?
Have Your Say New Zealand !
LA Times article by David Sarno @ www.latimes.com
Great post! Perhaps there is an inherent selfish value in Slactivism... Feeling good without hitting you where it (financially) hurts, looking like a caring sensitive punter in your online social circles to make up for all those 'take the piss' jokes that missed, or even just because M2 magazine labels 'being compassionate' as 'cool'... So it must be right?
ReplyDeleteThe other big question is even if you were to give money to a charity how many bother to check its legitimacy? Not many, if any... (I don't know any body)
I still laugh when some of the hoariest mustache growers in Movember can't tell you what the cause it represents is?!
Love it, you had me at Slactivism!
Some (maybe most?) people simply don't have the time and energy to be actively campaigning on every single issue that they have an opinion about. Does this mean that unless you can give a cause your all you should give it your... nothing?
ReplyDeletehaha... good point? Maybe if you can't give it your all you can still give it a small portion, just as long your small portion is meaningful and has some impact? In fact perhaps a small portion with impact is better than your inconsequential all?
ReplyDelete