Activism or Slacktivism: Are you actually making a difference?

Coined three decades ago, the term "slacktivism" sounds like a contradictio in terminis, an oxymoron, much like "living dead," "exact estimate," or "unbiased opinion".

It is the contraction of the words "activism" and "slacking" to perfectly describe the newly-formed phenomenon of engaging in social media activism, requiring minimal effort or hardly any real-world involvement.

Slacktivism involves low-cost, low-risk activities in exchange for the ideal "woke" image that is desired on social platforms in the 21st century.

Slacktivism: A deep dive 

The Urban Dictionary defines slacktivism – or "clicktivism", as it's also known less pejoratively – as "the self-deluded idea that by liking, sharing, or retweeting something you are helping out".

First coined by Dwight Ozard and Fred Clark, at the 1995 Cornerstone Festival, Slacktivism refers to activities that rarely take up time or require significant research, yet it is considered more effective in making participants feel good about themselves than to achieve the true real-world goals, says The Science Survey.

While slacktivism can take many forms, it is considered the laziest form of activism by many.

Accumulating evidence suggests that slacktivists advocate for a cause by changing a profile picture, retweeting a sentiment while deploying a trending hashtag, or sharing a grief-invoking image to bring awareness to their chosen movements.

However, there is enough evidence that also shows that online activism is more effective than many people might assume despite it being labelled as "lazy" and ineffective.

But is it making a difference where it matters most?

The Good, the bad, and the ugly

In a paper in the journal Science, experts at the University of North Carolina stated that they believed criticisms of clicktivism rested on two mistaken assumptions. "One of the biggest misconceptions is that it doesn't do anything," says Deen Freelon, one of the authors of the paper and the associate professor of the university's journalism school. "The second is that it somehow displaces or replaces offline activism. We know that both of these are not true."

Slacktivism offers a low barrier to entry, which not only allows individuals with limited time, resources, or physical ability to join hands with those who are closely connected to a cause they are passionate about, but also helps amplify marginalised voices and bring attention to important causes that may not receive mainstream coverage.

"Clicktivism has a major effect in terms of offering movements an alternative pathway to the public," adds Freelon.

Along with accessibility, the phenomenon also enables the quick dissemination of information to a large audience for calls of actions and swift mobilisation of individuals and communities.

But on the flip side, slacktivism receives criticism for a number of things such as  superficiality. Merely sharing a post with a trending hashtag often requires minimal effort or personal sacrifice can give the illusion of involvement without actually addressing the root causes or providing tangible solutions.

As one commentator put it a decade ago: "Clicktivism is to activism as McDonalds is to a slow-cooked meal. It may look like food, but the life-giving nutrients are long gone."

According to people closely connected to the world of activism, simply raising awareness alone is rarely sufficient to address complex issues, and without subsequent actions, slacktivism can be seen as performative and lacking substance.

As someone who strongly advocates for causes and often joins along in parades and other public awareness events, Tasneem Tamanna, a Bangladeshi graduate from a public ivy in Virginia says, "I do think sharing on socials always comes with good intentions and might have an extent of impact but it's often to create a show of being aware. Bringing awareness can often be enough. Small effort and impact is still something.

But I do think it can be often too surface level and often people think a share is all that could or should be done to do their part. However, there is a lot more effort and education that can go behind causes. And maybe in some ways investing in some causes and growing in those avenues could do a lot more in the long term for bringing actual changes that could help the causes."

Constantly being exposed to an overwhelming amount of issues and information can also easily  lead to desensitisation and end in a diluted impact as people may disengage or simply scroll past posts without giving them much consideration.

Slacktivism can divert attention and resources away from more impactful forms of activism. People may feel that sharing a post or signing a petition is enough, reducing the motivation to take more substantial actions or contribute resources to organisations and causes in need. 

To me, slacktivism represents the idea of talking the talk but not walking the walk. Sure, it brings in the necessary awareness that every cause needs, but it is crucial that a line must be drawn when it comes to what we consider activism.

For our efforts to have a more meaningful, long-lasting change, they should ideally be accompanied by offline actions, such as volunteering, donating, or engaging in advocacy work, to create lasting change.

While one tweet or post won't change the world, with the tools we have at our disposal today, only a few clicks or taps on online platforms allow us to contribute to causes from the comfort of our homes.

Progress has to start somewhere, and platforms like Jaago Foundation, Shakti Foundation, ShareThemeal, Bidyanondo Foundation, It's Humanity Foundation (IHF), Give Bangladesh, ActionAid, Footsteps, Bangladesh Cancer Aid Trust (BANCAT) are among many organisations that provide quick and accessible donation tools.

To put it simply, along with awareness, the key to making a true, long-lasting change is to contribute to the causes utilising the various tools that we have at our disposal in today's day and age, both online and offline.

Because the true essence of activism was never contingent upon convenience and one's public image, but rather driven by a commitment to what matters the most—showing up for what's right.