I'm back again and publishing another paper from my undergrad, and also from 2013. With all of the recent news regarding Facebook data control, the US/Russia issues with election meddling, and the issues of Facebook's "leaky" API's, I think this is a particularly fitting paper to add to the blog now. Some of the examples used to illustrate the points are now showing some age, but are still useful in illustrating the main ideas.
P.S. If you haven't read the Guardian's piece on Cambridge Analytica, do yourself a favour and have a read through it - it's very interesting, regardless of your ethical stance on the US election and Russian involvement. (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump)
While this paper was written to outline some of the uses of social media to enable social change, it was quite obviously written from a perspective of positive change, as opposed to covert informational warfare. However, the points about using social media to combat the status quo online are just as relevant to either perspective, as well as the proposed movement of non-status quo social movements to online presence as opposed to physical presence.
Once again and as usual, this is NOT peer-reviewed, and comments/critiques are always welcome.
The Sl/ac(k)tivism Divide – Potential for Social Change Using Social Media
Written by Kris Jones April 2013
Social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter have gradually worked themselves into common use amongst a large proportion of the world’s population. The widespread use of social media has been noted to be a factor in the realization of real world social movements such as the movement toward democracy in the Arab Spring, and closer to home, the Idle No More movement. There are also many critics of the social media movement in terms of its role in real world activism. Some say that these social networks encourage a type of “slacktivism” action that occurs online that may make the user feel better about themselves and feel like they are participating in a social movement, when there is very little tangible effect on anything in the real world. How does the movement toward social media contrast with more traditional forms of mass media in terms of social control? What are the implications of the social media activism/slacktivism split? In what ways have successful activist movements utilized social media? Is there a way to effectively integrate the concepts of activism and social media/slacktivism? These questions are essential to the evaluation of social media as a vehicle for the initiation of social change.
It is important to define social media before an in depth discussion can be formulated. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines social media as “forms of electronic communication (as Web sites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (as videos)” (Merriam Webster Online, n.d.). Some of the biggest social networking sites include Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which have become household brand names in recent years, with widespread adoption and use in both commercial and personal areas. In 2008, social media became the top online activity, a title held almost exclusively by the pornography industry since the Internet’s inception (Goldsmith, 2008). The idea behind social media is to connect many users into a cohesive network of friends and acquaintances in order to share information, media, and ideas, as well as to communicate and plan events together. The use of the Internet in working toward these connections allows for instant global communication between connected individuals.
Given that the area of online social media has emerged and gained widespread support quite recently, much of the research around the topic is very current as well as varied in stances regarding implications of the new form of communication. Social media, as with much new development in technology, currently has both staunch supporters and strong opponents. While there are continuously occurring arguments surrounding the risks and benefits of social media, it is undeniable that it is changing the ways in which we live out our daily lives. The ability to talk with a friend from across the world and share pictures over a lunch break, plan large scale events and invite hundreds of friends instantaneously, or simply broadcast your thoughts to a large and potentially global community is something that was unconceivable in the past, but is now truly a reality. This is an important shift for many areas of life, but this paper aims to explore social media’s relation to the concept of social control within the ideas of activism and slacktivism. How could social media be utilized to overcome some forms of existing social control that have held a large amount of power in the past, and how have social movements harnessed the power of social media to achieve their goals? In what ways does social media tie into the idea of slacktivism, and what are the consequences of this link? To quote Clay Shirky in response to the question of whether online social media and other digital tools enhance democracy, “these tools probably do not hurt in the short run and might help in the long run” (Shirky, 2011). In other words, there is a lot of speculation around the effectiveness or lack thereof with social media in regards to affecting social change, but it would be folly to simply write off these digital tools as completely ineffective regardless of your stance in the debate.
In order to explore the potential of social media to foster social change, a review of relevant theoretical literature is crucial. The overarching concepts of formal and informal social control are relevant and important terms to define in the discussion. Formal social control involves “processing at some type of an organizational or institutional level” (Bereska, 2011 page 30). Examples of formal social control include societal laws, rules of institutions or groups, and dress codes. Informal social control “emerges at the level of patterns of informal social interaction” with a variety of different people (Bereska, 2011, page 29). Examples of this type of social control include a variety of interactions such as staring, shaming, ignoring someone, amongst other interactions. Social control by mass media can be considered a combination of both formal and informal social control, as many media sources are governed by the set codes and conventions within each medium and genre (formal control), while reinforcing certain ideals within their consumer base through language use and framing of stories which may play out in less obvious ways through each consumer’s social interaction in situations relevant to the information they have been given (informal control) (O'Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2008). In the same stream of thought, these media outlets may sometimes be considered “moral entrepreneurs”, as through the function of providing news and information to the public through journalistic practice, the media can serve to create or reinforce ideas of public morality (Bereska, 2011). With regards to social media’s effect on the concepts of social control, Yamamoto (2011) mentions the idea of new social media such as Facebook having an overall weakening effect on informal social control, as people are able to engage in many different social interactions by utilizing these new forms of communication. Social media could serve to undermine the idea of the social entrepreneur function of media through its increased importance placed on personal stories, while also having the potential to reinforce the social entrepreneur function since many media outlets, public figures, celebrities and corporate entities also have social media presences.
Another highly relevant theoretical base is the idea expanded upon in Yamamoto’s article “Mass Media as a Macrolevel Source of Social Control: A New Direction in the Community Structure Model” (2011). The article states “the media foster the regulatory capacity of a community to achieve core social values by distributing a common set of messages that promote its social structural and cultural dimensions” (Yamamoto, 2011 page 821). The article talks about several types of mass media and their social control functions, for example newspapers that exist in structurally pluralistic communities perform “system maintenance by institutionalizing conflict and dissipating tension before it becomes uncontrollable”, especially in differences of opinion between powerful groups and/or interest groups, while also minimizing the effect of conflict on local power structures through presentation of selected information, censorship, and delayed publication. (Yamamoto, 2011 page 823). Through this analysis of mass media’s function of minimizing the effect on local power structures, it can be inferred that these functions will often benefit and reinforce hegemonic ideals while also limiting critique of the status quo.
These theoretical backgrounds provide insight into the potential of online social media to subvert ideas of traditional media sources and their social control functions. Because social media is inherently personal, the focus is on individuals and their views on any given situation that they share with their social network. This sharing function, especially when related to social media users who have a large online network, may be considered a personalized media outlet. Each personalized media outlet has the potential to engage in and share information on any topic they are interested in, without censorship (as long as they stay within the policy guidelines of the particular social media service that they are utilizing) and in real-time, with a focus on personal narrative. These opportunities to share information on such a large scale have the potential for profound effects on activist causes, which may not have received mass media attention, or that have been censored by the media. The potential effects are compounded when you consider the possibility of a social media chain reaction when each person who may feel involved with or intrigued by a cause takes the time to share information with their own personalized social media networks. At the same time, social media fits within some of the traditional ideas of mass media function in that it connects groups of people and can distribute “information that promotes the regulatory capacity of a social group to achieve common values” (Yamamoto, 2011 page 827). While fitting this traditional sense of a social control role of media, social media tends to subvert the same idea by providing a connection point for people whose causes may not be covered by mainstream mass media, and these groups may work toward these common goals against the status quo, instigating social change.
Activism and slacktivism are two closely linked, but very different ideas, both in the actions associated with each idea and people’s attitudes toward each idea. Why is there such a divide between activism and slacktivism when both activities are often hoping to see the same end results of mobilized social change? Activism is defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary as “a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action, especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue” (Merriam Webster Online, n.d.). Activist activities are often considered those that take place in real world settings, such as protests, marches, and other events motivated by a move toward social changes. Slacktivism is connected to the idea of activism in that those who engage in slacktivism are often attempting to engage in activity that will produce social change, but are seen to do so in a way that has little practical effect other than personal satisfaction or to portray a certain characteristic on social media. For example, an article discussing the power of social media involvement in Outlook, a magazine produced by UNAIDS, describes slacktivism as a term that “combines the words slacker and activism and posits that people who support a cause by performing simple measures are not truly engaged or devoted to making a change” (UNAIDS, 2010 page 142-3). The idea of slacktivism is often tightly connected with social media, and examples of slacktivism include actions such as “liking” a cause page on Facebook, sharing a picture or status describing a social issue, or signing an online petition. The idea is characterized by actions that take very little initiative or willpower to follow through with, and may or may not produce some change, for example, a collective group collecting enough signatures on a petition or the idea of raising awareness about a specific cause. The other side of the slacktivism coin is the image that the action portrays to the social media user’s social network. Because of social media’s tie to the user’s image as a person, they may want to engage with certain causes because it looks good on their page, or they may be trying to give off a caring image to others. The concept of slacktivism gives these users a way to show off their involvement with a cause to their social network with very little input of effort. It is potentially a result of this perspective of looking at the idea of slacktivism that leaves a bad taste in many people’s mouths, and causes them to look down on the concept and those who engage in it.
Another perspective on the idea of slacktivism is that it may also have ties to the concept of the ethical citizen. Once again, this perspective first brings us back into the realm of the mass media. “By focusing on the most disorderly performances of resistance, the media casts public activism (on both the left and right) as naïve, ridiculous, shallow, and juvenile… It subtracts personhood from activists, making their gestures of citizenship seem proof that their very claims are illegitimate” (King, 2003 pages 303-4). By creating the image of activists as somehow illegitimate in their claims and means of instigating social change, the media serves to reign in on radicals, and reduces the number of everyday citizens who are willing to participate in public displays of activism. In some ways, the idea of slacktivism could also be seen as a way for everyday citizens to engage in activism “politely”, and without being associated with the potentially unappealing representation of activism that is portrayed through the media. In this way, traditional mass media serves to legitimize certain ways of engaging in activism and the pursuit of social change while delegitimizing other means, effectively exerting control over the general public’s capacity of affecting social change through negative representations of activism (King, 2003). By doing so, the media may be pushing regular citizens more into expressing their feelings toward causes on social media instead of in real world settings, essentially fostering a society of slacktivists. If this is the case, those who are marginalized by the media’s representation of activism in public spaces (activists) may be those who look down most on the concept of slacktivism as a whole. At the same time, many activists have expressed support for the use of social media as a vehicle for social change and information on causes, so this hypothesis is far from universally true.
Is engaging in slacktivism a bad thing? Many people agree that it is difficult to quantify the benefit of engaging with causes on social media. Quotes abound from many areas, calling for a re-evaluation of how we think of slacktivism, and whether that term is really accurate and synonymous with online activism. Rupert Daniels, head of the 1 Goal education campaign says “Interaction on social media leads to something. If you ask someone to contribute and they do—by signing a petition or retweeting a message… Every contribution matters,” (UNAIDS, 2010 page 143). Clay Shirky, a professor of New media at New York University says “The critique (of slacktivism) is correct but not central to the question of social media's power; the fact that barely committed actors cannot click their way to a better world does not mean that committed actors cannot use social media effectively … (groups) have used social media not as a replacement for real-world action but as a way to coordinate it” (Shirky, 2011). Lastly, Brie Rogers Lowery, a strategist for the eCampaign consultancy FairSay says “it is time to move the discussion from the ‘cyber-skeptic view’ that online activism is somehow less legitimate and inferior to older approaches. Instead, there’s a need to show how ‘old’ and ‘new’ activism can work together to serve” (McCafferty, 2011 page 19).
Current research appears to support these quotes in several ways. A study done on a representative sample of 2000 American citizens conducted at Georgetown University found that those who identified social media as their top method of social cause engagement were just as likely as non social media users to donate money (41% - 41%), were twice as likely to volunteer as non-social media cause promoters (30% - 15%), and were also twice as likely to participate in events and walks (25% - 11%) (Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide & The Center for Social Impact Communication, 2011). A content analysis of Facebook political groups around the 2008 presidential election in the U.S. found that while social network sites are not of themselves designed with political or social action in mind, they have important implications for how people interact today (Conroy, Feezell, & Guerrero, 2012). As well, the same study found that online political groups provide many of the services and benefits that offline groups and interaction also provide, in which sense, Facebook can be considered to be encouraging and assisting with political engagement (Conroy, Feezell, & Guerrero, 2012). In a study of political dissent and action against the Iraq war, it was found that the use of online networks, especially participatory and social networks, parallel and in some cases may surpass the effects of offline communication in terms of becoming involved with causes and social action (Hwang et al., 2006). This was found to reinforce the idea of the Internet’s role in mobilizing social action through the creation of a collective identity with likeminded people in order to build solidarity and organize collective action (Hwang et al., 2006). Lastly, the widespread use of social media and its use in collective social action has lead to the development of new organizational techniques “in which stable membership in an organization is substituted for a continuous communicative engagement with the ‘movement’ at large” which emphasizes a decentralization of leadership and in which individual activists are considered the basic unit of the movement instead of groups, which can allow for “organizing without organizations” (Gerbaudo, 2012 page 136). All of these findings and developments show real strengths in the utilization of social media and the overturning of the idea of slacktivism and social media use as ineffective tools for social change.
While there has been much evidence presented thus far as to the advantages of utilizing digital tools in social activism and social causes, there are some documented disadvantages as well. The biggest disadvantage to the use of digital tools is the potential for spam-like appearance and “cause fatigue”. If social media is not used responsibly and strategically, there is potential for users who were previously engaged to become disinterested as a result of over-communication. The study conducted at Georgetown University found that “already, three-quarters of Americans (75%) agree that emails about causes can sometimes feel like spam, about half of Americans believe that they get too many emails and messages about causes (47%)” and Facebook ‘likes’ on cause pages do not mean anything (48%) (Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide & The Center for Social Impact Communication, 2011). As a result, social media and other digital tools must be utilized carefully and strategically in order to sidestep the potential pitfalls of alienating the group who is most likely to engage with the social issue at hand.
In order to look more closely at how social media can affect social change, it is important to take into account movements that have engaged with social media and digital tools. Two specific social movements have which have had an effect on social change have occurred in the recent past, and will be briefly discussed in their use of social media: events surrounding the Arab Spring, and the Idle No More movement within Canada.
The Arab Spring involved social conditions of political corruption in many countries, and long terms of power. The start of the movement is placed in December of 2010 in Tunisia with the death of the young Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi after lighting himself on fire over frustration with the inability to fight a small inspector’s fine (Howard & Hussain, 2011). While the state controlled media ignored the story, word spread throughout the country as people utilized means of communication that were outside of state control. Through communication about the tragedy, many people found that they shared similar grievances and through communication with each other, and experienced “cognitive liberation” (Howard & Hussain, 2011 page 36). News spread to neighboring countries, and there were major protests across North Africa by early January, with communication being transmitted to some extent through social media, and to a large extent through mobile phones, as a much larger proportion of the population were routinely using them as compared to the less than 20% that were active social media users (Howard & Hussain, 2011). When the movement spread to Egypt was when much more social media was utilized in conjunction with cell phones, as Egypt has the second largest Internet using population in the region. In Egypt in late January, Mubarak (the leader of Egypt at the time) attempted to exert control over the situation unfolding by trying to “unplug” the country and isolate the Egyptian people from the global flow of information, but many people had anticipated the move and had set up ways to maintain connection to the rest of the world. There were also unintended effects from the severing of Internet connectivity, as those who were now cut off from home Internet access flooded into the streets in larger numbers as they looked for more information on the unfolding events (Howard & Hussain, 2011). Throughout the region, social media and digital tools spread the success stories of the revolution, while also serving as means for organizing large scale collective action, connecting more and more people with shared interests and complaints, and helped to distribute materials such as pdf documents that were designed to give information on how to successfully protest (Howard & Hussain, 2011). In the end, several leaders who had been in power for decades were thrust out of power by frustrated citizens, united through the use of social media and digital tools. It is said by Howard and Hussain that popular protest is not ignited solely through an act of violence perpetrated by the state, but rather “the diffusion of news about the outrage by networks of family, friends, and then strangers who step in when the state-run media ignore the story” (Howard & Hussain, 2011 page 43). As well, there was some speculation that because of the widespread occurrence of cell phone photos and videos, the army may have been hesitant to take action against protesters, as they were aware that they were very likely to be on camera at any given time (Howard & Hussain, 2011). Some of the distinguishing factors of the Arab Spring movement were large-scale communication via social networks, a widely distributed and de-centralized idea of leadership, and shared experiences and grievances through a many sided conversation that was facilitated by the use of social media. The authors end with a quote that sums up the idea of the use of social media quite nicely:
“They were not inspired by Facebook; they were inspired by the real tragedies documented on Facebook. Social media have become the scaffolding upon which civil society can build, and new information technologies give activists things that they did not have before: information networks not easily controlled by the state and coordination tools that are already embedded in trusted networks of family and friends” (Howard & Hussain, 2011 page 48).
Idle No More originated in Canada with four women from Saskatchewan realizing a need for action and voices of opposition against the introduced Bill C 45. The movement began with a focus on grassroots voices through the use of social media engagement (The Official Idle No More Website, 2012). The movement itself is based around what was seen as an attack on First Nations rights as well as environmental issues surrounding water protection and land rights that were introduced as legislative changes within Bill C 45 (The Official Idle No More Website, 2012). When First Nations leaders were turned away from the House of Commons on the date that Bill C 45 was to be voted on, there was a much larger-scale mobilization of First Nations people across Canada (The Official Idle No More Website, 2012). The movement became a strong issue and utilized social media both as a story telling medium for individuals to make their voice heard, as well as an organizational tool for flash mobs across Canada. While there was some apprehension on the part of some people outside of the movement regarding the sheer number of people who attended some of the flash mobs, the events occurred peacefully and respectfully in the planned locations. The liquid hunger strike of Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence was also engaged in in support of the Idle No More movement. The movement became a source of strength for many First Nations people who had felt taken advantage of by many governments in the past, and served as a rally point for many individuals who were willing and ready to stand up for the inclusion of First Nations people and their voices in decision making in parliament that would affect them. Social media was utilized throughout the movement as both a narrative tool and a means for collective social organization in the form of flash mobs. The Idle No More movement is ongoing and continuing to focus on its goals of “increased education and the revitalization of Indigenous peoples through awareness and empowerment” (The Official Idle No More Website, 2012).
Both social movements involved the use of social media as a grassroots narrative tool as well as a tool for collective organization. Both movements were preceded by social conditions within which people saw a need for social action, and utilized social media effectively as a way to engage more people with their cause. The movements moved far beyond any concept of slacktivism, and utilized social media in ways that empowered people in real world situations to engage in social activism and achieve real change.
It is impossible to ignore the infiltration and integration of social media into our everyday life. Social media has the potential to subvert some of the main social control functions of traditional mass media, and through that subversion, may be the optimal vehicle for instigating social change that opposes hegemonic ideals and the status quo. At the same time, the idea of slacktivism is often referenced by those who discredit the notion that social media could be utilized to create social change. While some of the critiques of slacktivism may be plausible, they can not discredit the power that social media wields when combined with real world activism through the use of documentation, collective organization and instant global communication. The power of social media as a tool for social change is well documented in both the Arab Spring and Idle No More movements, and will likely be utilized in future social movements. The combination of social media for communication and extensive collective organization with real world activism is a powerful tool in the social activist’s toolbox. The divide between activism and the concept of slacktivism and social media should be narrowing as more people see the benefit to utilizing social media to instigate social change. “Indeed, the best practical reason to think that social media can help bring political change is that both dissidents and governments think they can” (Shirky, 2011).
Works Cited
Bereska, T. (2011). Deviance, Conformity, and Social Control in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Pearson Canada Inc.
Conroy, M., Feezell, J., & Guerrero, M. (2012). Facebook and political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1535-1546.
Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary activism. London: Pluto Press.
Goldsmith, B. (2008, September 16). Porn passed over as Web users become social: author. Reuters [Canberra].
Howard, P. N., & Hussain, M. M. (2011). The Role of Digital Media. Journal of Democracy, 22(3), 35-48.
Hwang, H., Schmierbach, M., Paek, H. J., Gil de Zuniga, H., & Shah, D. (2006). Media
Dissociation, Internet Use, and Antiwar Political Participation: A Case Study of Political Dissent and Action Against the War in Iraq. Mass Communication & Society, 9(4), 461-483.
King, S.J. (2003) “Doing Good by Running Well: Breast Cancer, the Race for the Cure, and the New Technologies of Ethical Citizenship.” Foucault, Cultural Studies, and Governmentality. Eds. Jack Z. Bratich, et al. © State University of New York Press, 2003. 295-316.
McCafferty, D. (2011, December). Activism Vs. Slacktivism. Communications of the ACM, 54(12), 17-19. Retrieved from http://mags.acm.org/communications/201112/?pg=19#pg19
Merriam Webster Online (n.d.). Social media - Definition. In Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20media
Merriam Webster Online (n.d.). Activism - Definition. In Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/activism?show=0&t=1366075792
Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide & The Center for Social Impact Communication (2011). Dynamics of Cause Engagement. Retrieved from Georgetown University website: http://csic.georgetown.edu/research/215767.html
O'Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J. (2008). Media & society. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.
Shirky, C. (2011). The Political Power of Social Media. Foreign Affairs, 90(1). Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.cyber.usask.ca/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA250886159&v=2.1&u=usaskmain&it=r&p=EAIM&sw=w
The Official Idle No More Website (2012, December). History of Idle No More Grassroots Movement. Retrieved March 15, 2013, from http://idlenomore.ca/about-us/item/1-history-of-idle-no-more-grassroots-movement
UNAIDS (2010, July 13). @AIDS How social media is shaping the way we communicate and what it means for the global AIDS movement. Outlook, 140-143. Retrieved from http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2010/july/20100713outlooklaunch/
Yamamoto, M. (2011). Mass Media as a Macrolevel Source of Social Control: A New Direction in the Community Structure Model. Mass Communication and Society, 14(6), 820-837.