Ever since the internet discovered that it could be used For Good, people have railed against the phenomenon now known as “clicktivism.”
Clicking a link/signing an online petition is not nearly enough (goes the argument) — and worse than that, doing these things gives people a false sense of achievement. Having re-tweeted some punchy hashtag (the argument continues), people think they’ve “helped,” and move on to their reality-TV-watching, double-cheeseburger-eating lives, now freed of any sense that they might need to do anything truly useful.
Inevitably, any social campaign that goes viral leads to a great deal of such handwringing — as one headline recently put it: “Is ‘clicktivism’ destroying meaningful social activism?”
But the question is far from new: I recall the wrath of an old friend when I had the temerity to suggest many years ago that folks could help raise funds for hunger relief via The Hunger Site (where I still click, by the way, on a nearly daily basis, along with all the other clickable causes that GreaterGood Network now supports).
Here’s what I don’t understand about the question, though: What world do these people live in? Or, alternatively: What past are they remembering? Did they once live in a world peopled with passionate social activists burning with a sense of mission, ready to chuck it all, or at least the occasional evening, for the sake of repairing the world?
Because in the world in which I live, and in the past that I remember, most people have never known very much about the world beyond their own bills and laundry piles, and even fewer have ever had the energy, wherewithal, or time to really get involved. For a lot of people, the 30-second investment of clicking a link, learning a few facts, and auto-filling an on-line form is, in fact, change.
I don’t really blame non-activists much for being non-activists. We all have a lot to deal with, and it can be draining to consistently choose to focus on heartbreaking news rather than on getting a break from lousy jobs or difficult family lives. You can’t organize people where you want them to be, you can only organize them where they are — and most people are already pretty busy.
On the other hand, people who are the type to do more than sign an online petition — will do more than sign an online petition. People who are the type to dedicate themselves wholesale to a cause — will dedicate themselves wholesale to a cause. Folks in either of those camps are not (in my estimation) likely to say “You know what? I was going make a nice donation/stage a sit-in, but now that I’ve Facebooked that URL, my work here is done!”
On the other hand, quick-and-easy activism does allow for at least four positive goods:
- People who might otherwise have had no interest, or inclination to be interested, suddenly find themselves a little better informed. Will that lead anywhere? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s useful to remember that increasing knowledge is the only thing that has ever led to action.
- By sheer dint of numbers, issues that had been entirely relegated to the back-burner of public discourse come to the fore (witness the on-going actions against Rush Limbaugh).
- On certain issues, every little bit actually does count — all those $10 donations texted to the Red Cross in the wake of natural disasters actually do add up (see also: Mass Action Is Only Possible If You Have A Mass Of People), and,
- Those of us who, by virtue of being human, find ourselves incapable of keeping up with all the issues that genuinely matter to us have a way to stay connected to communities and issues for which we would otherwise simply have no time.
Nothing achieved with human hands will ever be perfect. Money will sometimes be misspent, people’s good will misdirected, problems made not better but worse by our involvement. We can only try, and inevitably fail.
Those of us who are deeply involved with an issue have a real and clear moral responsibility to do our best to keep all of that to a minimum. But in the world in which I live, at some point, we’re going to fail.
And it seems to me that shaming people for trying their best isn’t a particularly good way to counter that — or to get them more involved.
Crossposted at Emily L. Hauser In My Head.
Straight up truth. All the whiners about clicktivism are just cynics.
BRAVO! I intend to click away!
Thank you. I’ve been shaking my head over the “backlash” to the Kony campaign, which seems to take a few distinct forms:
1. “We’ve been talking about Kony for years.” Not particularly effectively, apparently, and
2. “This ‘Invisible Children’ charity has some issues.” Really? Are they on the order of child rape, murder, torture, forcible conscription, and brainwashing? Because if not, STFU.
So, what’s the plan then? Do we say Kony is bad and be done? He’s already on the State Dept. s&#t list. Do we give it to Defense to handle? What concretely? I do not mean these as rhetorical questions. I am curious to know your responses.
More people being aware of Kony’s crimes against humanity translates into more political will in Congress to do something concrete about it — such as continuing support of Uganda’s mission to bring him to justice, dead or alive.
Activism can take many forms, and I know that I get irritated with people who think everyone should do it their way, and other ways are ineffective. Direct activism (i.e. boots on the ground) and clictivism can both be effective.
For a very interesting (and contrarian) view on this, which also applies, even after the fact, to the “Occupy” movement, have a read:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell
Here’s a couple pullquotes to sharpen your appetite:
(emphasis mine)
…and:
Discussion?
I think today’s progressives are pragmatists – if you’re gonna ask me to physically to show up somewhere – you best to be on your A game. The problem is that most of the folks bitching about everyone signing a petition on color lines but not grabbing a picket sign on OWS – they don’t even have a C game.
Cynical, self-righteous, myopic haters are cynicalselfrighteousmyopic haters..
I’m a mother of four in a very buy household in a semi-rural region of a very red state. I can’t grab my torch and pitchfork every time Glannbill O’hannitybaughter calls the first lady names on tv, or some wacky senator does exactly what every one of my neighbors and friends and family approves of, leaving my reproductive rights gasping for oxygen. Clicktivism has given me a voice where I once didn’t have one. It’s also brought my attention to people and events I wouldnt have otherwise known about. It’s what brought me together with the other rare liberals in my area i wouldnt hve otherwise known of, and what convinced me that president Obama was worthy of my vote in 2008 (and 2012). Where I’m from, secularism, public funding, pro-choice, and planned parenthood are bad words, and democrat- and especially Obama signs are vandalized and supporters are ostracized.
Cynical self-righteous myopic haters can kiss it.
I actually like clicktivism, and while I recognize it’s not a complete substitute for physically getting involved, at the same time, there’s times when getting physically involved is counterproductive. That is, you’re being more helpful clicking a button or donating some dollars than trying to go do something. The odds are you’ll just be in the way, or not have a clue about what you’re doing.
Personal example: I helped raise funds for Pretty Bird Woman House, a shelter for abused women out in South Dakota. My involvement was to donate some money and write a series of fund-raising diaries over at Daily Kos. Could I have “run out there and gotten involved?” Well, sure, except there were already people doing the work; they needed the money, not my being there; and the cost of going out there, etc. would have been better spent being given to them. I may not have been doing “activism,” and goodness knows it wasn’t “hard,” or involving a lot of effort, but heck, it did some good. I’m sure they appreciated it a lot more than my showing up on their doorstep announcing “I’m here to help!”
I meant to say that…ahem: “…Obama signs vandalized/supporters ostracized,” —> “so FORGIVE ME if when I get an email from planned parenthood or change.org asking me to sign a petition or when I want to tell proflowers their flowers are tainted with misogyny, I oblige, a-hole.”
There. TYVM.
Love the way you write, ma’am – stay strong in you Land of Loony Legislators, wherever that is!
Why thank you, Doozer.
I’m somewhere between New Orleans and Lake Charles. Supposedly, the closer you get to NOLA the more tomatoes in your food, and the more democrats in your neighborhood. Unfortunately, even some of our Democrats are “preauxlife,” and we get- somehow well-liked- gut-everything-and-privatize-it governors like Bobby Jindal and senators like slut-shaming prostitute soliciting family men like David Vitter, who is currently “outraged” that teachers are preauxtesting the jindalification of public education, since, you know, it threatens their jobs and the state as a hole, er, whole… It’s often depressing and frustrating, but this place has its merits.
the question isn’t about whether clicktivism is bad or good, its about what we mean when we say engagement. My problem with slick campaigns like Kony 2012 is that the awareness that they raise is often shallow and misinformed. There is an old adage that says you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the paper. Shouldn’t we say the same about the internet? The expectation that by watching a 30min video and clicking a share button is alleviating the problems of the world is lazy. The truth is when we rely on others to do the good work for us, we remain unengaged. We hear about the trails and tribulations third hand and have no frame of reference for engaging in the dialogue. This stunts cultural understanding, civic participation and empathy.
I take issue with Norbrooks comment that she would just be in the way if she were to show up on the doors step of a women’s shelter. Activism is not something that you can just drop into on a sunday afternoon between your laundry and your matinée. It takes sustained effort over months or even years, often times without tangible results. The drive that you are doing something bigger than your self is often the only reward, not a dozen likes or comments on your facebook profile. Clickitivism is a kind of engagement that is designed not to address the ills of the world but you bring the participant social acknowledgement and praise. It has more to do with the reward of feeling good about your self, rather than the reward of tangibly helping others.
The problem of clicktivsim is that it relies on metrics and quantity as a form of engagement. This approach mirrors an advertising and consumerist model. There are a great series of articles by Micha White at http://www.clicktivism.org/ that address these very issues. Once a social movement becomes an ad campaign, it loses the poignancy that it had, and only can measure its success in percentages and page views.
At the end of the day clicks on a webpage will not end hunger, stop victimization of women or find a cure for cancer. Only when engaged citizens working together to better inform themselves and others through public dialogue and debate can we find the answers to these pressing and complicated problems. The internet certainly has a role in this, but we cannot afford it to take the palce of real world participation.
“I don’t really blame non-activists much for being non-activists. We all have a lot to deal with, and it can be draining to consistently choose to focus on heartbreaking news rather than on getting a break from lousy jobs or difficult family lives.”
That is the one thing these snarky, anti-Kony dinkwads can’t understand. In fact, trying to tackle all of these injustices such as Kony, the treatment of WOC, Trayvon Martin, etc. is one of the big reasons why I was hospitalized for a week (and just getting around to reading this now).