In the digital world, most everyone keeps their eye out for what will be the “next big thing.” Usually it’s a technology, either hardware or software. Lately Google’s been hitting it hard and heavy on the forecasted next big thing stage, Google Wave and Droid.
But I’ve been thinking lately that the next big thing in the online world might be a movement, rather than a technology. And that movement I have in mind is “slacktivism.”
What’s slacktivism? The word itself is a portmanteau of “slacker” and “activism.” Thus, the meaning becomes clear. For further edification, let’s take a definition from the UrbanDictionary.com. They define slacktivism as:
One of those feel-good internet campaigns that doesn’t actually help anybody or has political impact. It’s your way of pretending to care while sitting on your butt in front of a computer playing WoW. Also used for people who want to get a million people on their page by before bettering themselves (sic) or the world instead of just doing it.
Other than the grammar or typo error there in the last sentence, the UrbanDictionary.com is clearly saying that slacktivism is something like what we could call “armchair activism.” It’s being an “activist” without actually being one, although you could still wear the black tee shirt and/or beret while sitting at your computer.
Slacktivism is a way for people to make themselves feel like they are advocating for a social cause, while actually committing little or no time or money to the effort. It’s, for the most part, a feel-good activity. Not only does slacktivism make individuals feel good about themselves when they sign up to be a friend, fan, or follower on the page of a cause’s website or social network or Twitter page, but the act of slacktivism impresses others with the individual’s “social awareness.” That impression, of which the individual is aware, further adds to the individual’s ego gratification.
I don’t think we need any social psychology references to support these assertions. It’s all pretty much backed by common sense acquired from our years of experience with the human condition. So, given the ease of slacktivism as measured against its psychological benefits, it would follow that many people would sign-up online for an activist’s cause, and not really add much to the activist effort in the process. To test my theory, let’s have an example.
On Tuesday, January 19, 2009 which is the day on which I wrote this post (Yes, I know it’s dated January 28th, but thanks to the magic of the Word Press scheduling function such miracles are possible.), I went to the Greenpeace.org/usa site and clicked on the link to their Facebook fan page. When I went to their Facebook fan page, I noticed that, on that date, Greenpeace USA had 41,728 fans. I wanted to see how “active” these individuals might be, so to test my slacktivism theory, I scrolled down to the Greenpeace USA “Causes” box and clicked on “See Greenpeace USA’s Total Impact.”
For those unfamiliar with Facebook fan pages and causes, following is a brief explanation. Any organization, or company for that matter, may sign-up on Facebook for a “fan page.” On the fan page, the organization can gather fans and communicate, interactively, with them through text and pictures. The organization, and individuals can do this on Facebook also, may then sign-up for “Causes” pages, which are pages featuring a particular charitable organization’s agenda. On the Cause page, the organization can then accumulate “members,” who can be different and/or the same people as on the fan page, and solicit donations for the featured cause.
When I clicked through on Greenpeace USA’s “Total Impact” link, I was taken to their page which summarizes the four Greenpeace causes they feature via Facebook: Climate Rescue, Greenpeace Organizing Term, Kleercut, and STOP the Whale Hunt. Clicking through on each cause listed revealed the following activity and support:
- Climate Rescue – 473 members for this cause with $0 contributed.
- Greenpeace Organizing Term – 574 members with $25 contributed.
- Kleercut – 1,202 members with $40 contributed.
- STOP the Whale Hunt – 153,941 members with $23,756 contributed.
Until I got to the Whale Hunt cause, I thought slacktivism was going to make the Greenpeace/Facebook contributions endeavor a total bust. The Whale Hunt cause showed 153,941 members with almost $24,000 in donations. But that means that on average each Whale Hunt member contributed only about 15 cents.
Perhaps after signing up for the Whale Hunt cause, most of those 153,941 members, feeling good about themselves, went back to playing World of Warcraft (WoW).
Slacktivism? Is it the next big thing?
At least judging by this test case, yes, I think my theory holds.
In my previous post, “
The majority party is now turning, in a deliberately obvious fashion, toward other “issues of concern,” such as the economy and jobs. Yesterday, Mr. Obama announced new, proposed banking regulations and frightened the financial markets. This strategic turn, which is more politically-based than economically-based and (this next clause was added after the market close on Friday, 1/22/10) looks to be nothing more than a temper tantrum from a guy who never even ran a lemonade stand, was made at this point in time in an effort to take the public’s attention off the health care reform failure. Today, he doubles down on this new “hissy-fit” strategy and goes to Ohio to give a speech about jobs. All done, I believe, in an effort to convince the electorate that the majority party is addressing the people’s main concerns, jobs and the economy. Duh. It took them this long to figure this out? (For now, let’s put aside the fact that Mr. Obama’s proposed banking changes would actually do more to hurt the economy than help it.)
In July 2009, 
Does the 
To go along to get along with this trend, multi-national corporations (MNCs) are moving, seemingly together as if in lock step, to establish corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs in order to meet the demands and expectations of NGOs, whether it be on environmental, social, labor, or cultural issues. And to help them craft their CSRs, MNCs now regularly collaborate with NGOs, bringing NGOs to the table as trusted advisors and de facto consultants. And when MNCs do this, which is increasingly often, they seem to do it with a “mea culpa” attitude.
From pages 148 to 149 Paul presents an interesting concept: that there will be an increase in activism because of the Baby Boom. He doesn’t say it in quite this way, but he does say that because of the aging of the U.S. population that there will be a decrease in the number of employees working for the American government. Paul hypothesizes, from the perspective of the publication year of 2005, that these retiring employees would likely not be replaced at a rate that would equal the attrition. The reason he gives is that government employment is not as attractive as that in the private sector, and that because of this handicap the attrition rate may exceed the replacement rate.
