In reading about the quandary whether journalists should be restrained by their employers from being involved in politically-charged causes, I happened upon one of the best new words I've seen in a while.
"Slacktivism" refers to the all-too-common modern meaningless gestures undertaken by people intended to align them with a cause, but where the actions have no meaningful impact. The word itself, which apparently has been around for years, combines "slacker" and "activism". It would appear to be an oxymoron, reflecting at least in part how potentially good intentions miss their marks.
For years, I've pondered why people post angry bumper stickers communicating negative or even hateful messages that they might otherwise be unwilling to communicate when they are not sheltered by the armor of their automobile. In many cases, the communication fails to persuade or invite sympathy. Instead, it infuriates and often fails to illuminate. That's not to say that expressing anger doesn't also have a place.
More common in recent times has been the Facebook post where someone urges others to repost a message under the guise that there's some real outcome other than the appearance of the post itself. How in the world does that help someone suffering a devastating illness or having served in the military. I would suggest it does nothing to help. In fact, it might do damage, by giving cover to someone who might otherwise be poised to take actual action, but otherwise believes wrongly that they are assisting a potentially valid cause by posting a status update. Most common seem to be political issue postings, followed by those concerned with medical or health challenges. Just like the bumper sticker behavior, the social media iteration of "slacktivism" can risk alienating people. That would seem to be the opposite of what was intended.
Between the Occupy and Tea Party movements, or the fallout surrounding the Susan G. Komen controversy funding of Planned Parenthood, there are plenty of instances where people are trying to gauge appropriate levels of activism. In a vibrant democracy, and in an increasingly connected world, that would seem to be necessary.
There is much to be said for being truly invested in a cause, whether it is enlisting, joining a revolution, working on the ground in a developing country, all at one extreme, volunteering at a nursing home, being a discerning philanthropist, or donating blood. As for hope for the future, it is heartening to see the high level of involvement among many of today's college students, whether they are required to perform community service, or choose to jump in because their hearts tell them to.
Something quite encouraging happened just today. I had two young people knock on my door to stump for their respective candidates for the U.S. Congress. Kudos to them for working on a cause they believe in.
In a perfect world, which we don't have, we would engage others in an actual conversation about a would-be call to action. Unfortunately, the less we converse in a constructive fashion, the more likely we are to lose the ability to achieve positive outcomes.
Check out the Wikipedia entry on "slacktivism". Thanks to Poynter.org for shedding some light on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/167970/live-chat-wednesday-should-journalists-show-support-for-trayvon-martin-ask-for-scott-walkers-recall/
"Slacktivism" refers to the all-too-common modern meaningless gestures undertaken by people intended to align them with a cause, but where the actions have no meaningful impact. The word itself, which apparently has been around for years, combines "slacker" and "activism". It would appear to be an oxymoron, reflecting at least in part how potentially good intentions miss their marks.
For years, I've pondered why people post angry bumper stickers communicating negative or even hateful messages that they might otherwise be unwilling to communicate when they are not sheltered by the armor of their automobile. In many cases, the communication fails to persuade or invite sympathy. Instead, it infuriates and often fails to illuminate. That's not to say that expressing anger doesn't also have a place.
More common in recent times has been the Facebook post where someone urges others to repost a message under the guise that there's some real outcome other than the appearance of the post itself. How in the world does that help someone suffering a devastating illness or having served in the military. I would suggest it does nothing to help. In fact, it might do damage, by giving cover to someone who might otherwise be poised to take actual action, but otherwise believes wrongly that they are assisting a potentially valid cause by posting a status update. Most common seem to be political issue postings, followed by those concerned with medical or health challenges. Just like the bumper sticker behavior, the social media iteration of "slacktivism" can risk alienating people. That would seem to be the opposite of what was intended.
Between the Occupy and Tea Party movements, or the fallout surrounding the Susan G. Komen controversy funding of Planned Parenthood, there are plenty of instances where people are trying to gauge appropriate levels of activism. In a vibrant democracy, and in an increasingly connected world, that would seem to be necessary.
There is much to be said for being truly invested in a cause, whether it is enlisting, joining a revolution, working on the ground in a developing country, all at one extreme, volunteering at a nursing home, being a discerning philanthropist, or donating blood. As for hope for the future, it is heartening to see the high level of involvement among many of today's college students, whether they are required to perform community service, or choose to jump in because their hearts tell them to.
Something quite encouraging happened just today. I had two young people knock on my door to stump for their respective candidates for the U.S. Congress. Kudos to them for working on a cause they believe in.
In a perfect world, which we don't have, we would engage others in an actual conversation about a would-be call to action. Unfortunately, the less we converse in a constructive fashion, the more likely we are to lose the ability to achieve positive outcomes.
Check out the Wikipedia entry on "slacktivism". Thanks to Poynter.org for shedding some light on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/167970/live-chat-wednesday-should-journalists-show-support-for-trayvon-martin-ask-for-scott-walkers-recall/
