HOME | IMC UK | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

Oxford Indymedia

Review: Activism vs Slacktivism debate: but what happened to Hacktivism?

adelayde | 22.03.2011 10:14 | Globalisation | Technology | Oxford

I went along to St Annes College this afternoon to the debate Activism vs. Slacktivism, part of the eCampaigning Forum conference taking place on 22nd and 23rd March in Oxford. I wondered what it was all about.

Micah White
Micah White

Naomi McAuliffe
Naomi McAuliffe

Sam Smith
Sam Smith

The panel, less the teleprescencial ones
The panel, less the teleprescencial ones


So it started more or less on time, Kathryn Corrick introduced the event, the format and the speakers, then we launched into eight presentations/monlogues of around six minutes each:

First up was AdBusters guy Micah White via a pre-recorded video. More or less he thinks that clicktivism is detrimental to activism. I discovered at this point that clicktivism is basically measuring the effectively of a campaign through the use of statistics, such as the number of click-throughs. He said that focussing on stats can miss the political contact; in essence metrics takes precedence over meaning. He said that he thought that the Internet is best for meme warfare; to quickly disseminate information, whilst ignoring how many click-throughs there are. He ended by saying that clicktivism is effectively accepting consumerism and that we need to stop looking at our logs and get back to the passion of activism.

I thought he had a reasonable point there.

Next to speak was the only female panelist, Naomi McAuliffe from Amnesty International, who appeared in the flesh. It started as a bit of self-promotion for AI and their very successful, but note, very worthy, online campaigns. She said that they have many links between their online work and all the people they connect with and that Fac€book groups, and online petitions add to the noise, that digital activism shouldn't supplant normal activism. She highlighted the Eyes On Nigeria ( http://www.eyesonnigeria.org/) web site and Map Kabeira ( http://mapkibera.org/), which maps out who lives in the Nairobian shanty town and where the facilities are so that they can lobby local government. She highlighted their recent Shell campaign where they used Googl€ Map$ to locate where actions on petrol stations happened. So all in all this part was more of a showcase of what AI had been up to.

Next up was Tom Steinberg, who started by saying that although he is paid to believe that the Internet is great and that it's use is really important and epoch changing, he was going to try and temper that belief. He mentioned that a recent paper by Richard Kahn found that those who are politically active on-line were more likely to be politically active offline, those active on the net, but not politically might sign the odd petition, and everyone else was more or less just as apathetic as always. He summarised by saying that what we need to do is to provide the academic world with useful information justifying whether social media is working and that we also need to put demands on them to actually use evidence properly and produce some decent, evidence-based, studies, which they don't appear to have done to date.

Once again as a video, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen from University of Oxford said that he thought this very debate has taken up too much time ('hmm yeah', thought the reporter) He said that offline activism, such as wearing a t-shirt, displaying a bumper sticker, is just as effective as online. He said that there is activism and slacktivism both off and on line. I thought that he waffled on a lot to make the basic point that digital activism is not a panacea cure for activism, but rather a set of tools that may or may not be used in different situations. He highlighted the issues surrounding applicability of the technology in certain situations and the control of it being in the hands of self-interested third parties. If, for example, the issue is highly political, it could be that the technology is withdrawn by the powers that be: for example the recent Wikileaks funding issue.

Ending the teleprescencial presentations with another in the flesh appearance, Sam Smith talked about clicktivism and churnavism (the same story going round and round and round the web). He highlighted a Fac€book group he created to point out that there was no rush to form a new UK government back in May 2010. He said it got lots and lots of members really quickly, but I couldn't really work out whether it had achieved anything, except satisfy a lot of Fac€book users. He then went on to say that 38 Degrees take clicktivism to it's self-destructive end and his talk descended into rather a direct scathing attack on 38 Degrees, not entirely disagreed with by yours truly. He highlighted a particular activity where the success was being measured by 38 Degrees in terms of the number of people taking part, rather than the coherency and quality of the content, nor the measurable effectiveness of the overall campaign (see  http://bit.ly/38pollute). Behind the chagrin, he main point was that success isn't just about clicks, but rather the fact that it's actually useful and effective.

David Babbs from 38 Degrees was up next and chose not to directly respond to Sam's accusations, but rather stick to what he wanted to say (he saved his defence until the questions section later on) He said that 38 Degrees's definition of activism was about people coming together to change things. The tools should be judged by their impact: whether people were empowered and decided to get involved. David went on to defend 38 Degrees involvement in the campaign to stop the government selling off forestry commission land by citing the many people that had written in to say how empowered they were. He said that digital tools are allowing activists to take their campaigns beyond their own activist peers, and that they grant the ability to work fast and act quickly, to pool resources. He thought that if we can move beyond the clicktivism debate, we could move on to discuss things such as what it all means for our engagement with decision makers? How does a new digitally enabled activism digisphere interact with governments and traditional NGOs, etc?

Then Eric Lee took the stand and opened with the statement that the debate as to whether we ought to use digital technology is a sterile one: we use whatever we need to to do what we want to. He debunked the idea that individuals using technology alone are bringing down dictatorships (my own thought is that having the army on your side is somewhat useful). He said that what happened in Egypt was the culmination of years and years of struggle and political organising, culminating in the sit-in in Tahir Sq and the holding of general strikes. This was not the case for the Libyans, who did not have the social structures, and entities such as trades unions to overcome their despotic regime (oh and they didn't have the army on their side either). He cited the case of Joanne Delaney, a 22 year old shop steward who was sacked from he job at Dunnes Stores in Belfast for wearing her union pin to work. After literally months of getting nowhere they came to LabourStart ( http://www.labourstart.org/) who waged an online campaign that flooded the Net with messages. Within two weeks the online protest had triggered a wave of protest in the real world that caused the company to reconsider its policy and reinstate Ms Delaney ( http://libcom.org/news/article.php/joanne-delaney-dunnes-240206). In short: technology + solidarity can create change.

And to finish the panel, Paul Hilder took the stage and started speaking about Malcolm Gladwell, but to be honest this was a bit too in the zone for me and I didn't understand what he was on about. He said that what just happened in Egypt and that what's going on in the world at present is much more interesting that the facile debates in the West. He thinks Fac€book is a useless tool for organising social change per se, but that the role it played in Egypt was at least complementary in creating the change. He said the Internet can help, but it's not solely the answer. He directly responded to the first panelist, Micah White, saying that his anecdote about a bad clicktivist campaign didn't mean that it was all pointless: we shouldn't throw the baby out with bathwater. He said that the campaigns he'd been involved in had shown him that people have come together to change things all around the world and spread a simple contagious idea: that people all around the world want a better world. He said that clicktivism allows people to test out their theories and ideologies and allows people to become more engaged with different movements.

Then there was a short summary and we got to talk to the person next to us about what we've heard: We had a bit of a chat, generally agreeing that Eric was the most eloquent and that the whole debate about clicktivism vs rem, non-clicktivism was a bit pointless.

Then there was a few question, so of which came in via Twitter. To summarise the main points of these:

* None really knew why were the 2011 protests against Mubarak successful, when the 2005 ones weren't. Paul thought it was just a case of the time and circumstances being right for it in 2011.

* AI said that they don't take tweets as being gospel, but they do have tweets coming in from known, and trusted sources. Said that Twitt€r is helpful for getting information about what's going on on the ground.

* There was some waffling on about clicktivism and a bit of a head to head with Sam and David, with Sam criticising 38 Degrees for them not crediting other groups for the success of the forests campaign, and David defending this.

* I piped up about how the Net means that the mainstream can no longer ignore coverage of political actions when people are getting the information from direct social media sources.

* Paul thought there is both great promise and great danger in that the youth are digitalised: could it be that we unite against our despots, or do we fragment into self-interest? We shall know perhaps in 10 years time. There is a need for establishments to become more transparent and more engaged with the public in general.

* There was the warning that the cat is out of the bag. The right, e.g. the Tea Party have learnt what only 38 Degrees, MoveOn, et al, knew before.

Overall it was kind of interesting. I liked what Eric had to say the best, I think that he had the best overall understanding of both the social and digital aspects. This was probably due to him being older and more experienced than the rest. I thought that some of them were so in their zone of clicktivism that they didn't explain themselves very well, but I do admit to not really knowing anything about it until I got there.

There was no mention of hacktivism and groups like Anonymous, who are operating within the medium of cyberspace to make cyber attacks: I think that this is a good example of effective use of the net, that was perhaps missed out, but more probably not relevant to the debate.

It did seem a bit pointless really and that the overall sense I got was that the Net, email, lists, blogs, Fac€b00k groups, Twitt€r and the rest are all just tools to add to the battery of those that we have to make social change, such as mobile and terrestrial phones, text messaging, leafleting, placards, and perhaps most importantly getting out their on the streets, talking to people, making our voices heard and showing solidarity with others' social struggles, on or off the Net.

adelayde

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

'slacktivism' = 'i'm a bigger and better activist than you'. bullshit.

28.03.2011 23:34

yo. it always really pisses me off when people say that some techniques are more 'important' than others. everyone has their own way of acting and their own way of learning and it's not our position to condemn anyone's choices. social change needs a huge number and variety of factors to take place and it's difficult to say what 'works best' since the causes are always so interlinked and based on existing historical factors. In any case, the most important thing is that people feel empowered to get involved and that no one is looking down on them for being or acting a certain way. This is exactly what leads to activism sometimes becoming an insular movement that people may find it difficult to enter in to, especially people who are not able-bodied and middle class. If you aren't masking up and smashing stuff up, that doesn't mean you're somehow not a 'real activist'.

often it seems to me that social justice movements slip into being dictatorial because due to their idealistic nature they prescribe a certain way of life and behaviour over any other, not realising that different people quite simply have different ideas and that diversity and imperfection is inevitable and beautiful and that disagreements will always happen (and that's great because it means people are different!)... this is partly what contributes to these movements being either small and isolated or totalitarian.

Not to mention that glorifying 'getting out there on the streets' is completely disrespectful to people who can't physically do that.

anastasia
mail e-mail: anastasia.solopova@gmail.com


@anastasia

29.03.2011 20:10

I completely agree with your point about a diversity of tactics. Although I also read the article as a personal perspective from the writer, and not a piece saying 'everybody should think what I think.'

However, I don't agree with your final comment:
> glorifying 'getting out there on the streets'

I think you have quoted the article in a highly selective way. It said:

"... and perhaps most importantly getting out their on the streets, talking to people, making our voices heard and showing solidarity with others' social struggles, on or off the Net."

It no more glorifies getting out on the streets than it does talking, being heard, or showing solidarity (the first two of which cannot be done by everybody, I think the third can be) - and also seems to accept a diversity of tactics approach but concluding 'on or off the net.'

Lion Queen


getting out there on the streets = being at large in our community

30.03.2011 13:00

Thanks for the comments.

I wanted to clarify, and thanks for Lion Queen for highlighting this. I listed 'getting out there on the streets' (embarrassingly wrong version of their there :P) along with a load of other things, perhaps the most important of which is 'talking to people'. I didn't mean getting out there on the streets in the sense of an organised protest, in case that's what you think, I meant in the sense of getting out there in our local communities (if we have one), being involved, and talking to our neighbours; in short: being at large in our community (in whatever way we are physically and mentally capable of being).

adelayde


Publish your news
-->

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Oxford Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech