Richard Telofski

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.

Share on Facebook