Download PDF
Abstract
Social media apps such as Twitter are effective media through which to raise awareness of social justice issues, the environmental crisis and the Black Lives Matter movement providing two contemporary examples of online activism. This research paper argues that this raised awareness does not translates into real political change as Twitter et al foster ‘thin communities’ that are as easily dispersed as they are formed, and create the illusion that awareness equates to material change. Research suggests that social media still affords a type of ‘slacktivism’ which benefits platform owners and reinforces the belief that political power can be challenged through tweets and blogs. Online activism also creates opportunities for corporations to align themselves with social issues as a means of increasing profits by utilising a form of marketing known as ‘cool capitalism’ or ‘green washing’. These findings suggest that by leveraging applications that profit from advertising, online activists reduce the effectiveness of the protest as they become another outlet for neoliberal ideology of market-based solutions to all societal issues, resulting in a form of ‘commodity capitalism’ which can be used to promote individuals and products alike.
Paper
Twitter and other social media technologies provide a means for activists to form connections and groups of like-minded individuals, by bringing social justice causes into the public social consciousness in ways that were previously impossible. As Delanty rightly argues the Internet has destroyed the ‘tyranny of distance’; social media platforms such as Twitter have made forming ‘communities’ and groups online fast, efficient, and relatively cheap (Delanty, 2018, p.219). Clearly, forming groups and raising awareness of social justice issues is not the same as achieving political change. Activism that is focused entirely online is a form of protest that does not result in concrete and material changes in the offline political landscape. Online activism permits people to feel that they are affecting the political landscape and suggests that the world can be changed for the better by, for example, retweeting or sharing a meme that pokes fun at someone from the political establishment. In this essay I will make three main arguments. First, I will argue that online activism does not foster any material political changes and encourages people to believe the myth that the political status quo can be changed through tweets and memes which raise awareness of a specific cause. Second, I argue that by using online platforms such as Twitter as the locus of a political movement, online activism can be co-opted by corporations for marketing purposes, in the form of what Jeffrey Montez de Oca et al refer to as “greenwashing” or “cool capitalism” (de Oca et al., 2020). Finally, I argue that by using social media platforms, which have a business model based on selling advertising, the lines between activism and consumerism bleed together resulting in a watered-down form of ‘commodity activism’ that is rooted in a contradiction between promoting a cause and promoting a product. I will make these arguments by examining two specific political movements: the Black Lives Matter movement and online environmental activism. While online activism undertaken on social media platforms such as Twitter can raise awareness of social justice issues, by itself it does not create material political change, promotes ‘slacktivism’ and a form commodity activism which can be used by corporations to sell products and engage in ‘cool capitalism’.
Although online groups can easily form around social justice issues it does not follow that these groups are effective in achieving social change. In The Net Delusion, Evgeny Morozov argues that technology evangelists have pushed the idea that any issue can be tackled through online activism and even the most authoritarian of regimes can be overthrown by giving enough political dissidents access to blog and tweet about the evils of the regime in question (Morozov, 2011). It is true that social media platforms such as Twitter can be used to raise awareness of political and social justice issues, like the environmental crisis and the Black Lives Matter. It is also true that online activists can potentially form a ‘community’ of like-minded individuals around these issues, but it does not follow that if enough people are informed about an issue, then social changes will materialise from this consciousness. As Alison Hearn argues, there is an assumption with online activists that political change will spring from the “interactivity and social networking capabilities” of the Internet (Hearn, 2012, p.31). Furthermore, Twitter and other social media platforms create homogeneous networks of like-minded individuals, meaning that “social networks reinforce existing political dispositions” (Papacharissi, 2010, p.189). The result of a relatively closed network is that time is spent ‘preaching to the converted’ rather than challenging people and organisations that are unaware or unconvinced of the need for social and political change. In the context of social media platforms, raising awareness can mean retweeting, posting, or commenting on news articles and sharing memes that are critical of individuals, corporations, and governments. This is a form of activism that has been pejoratively labelled by scholars such as Evgeny Morozov as ‘slacktivism’ due to the lack of effort, cost and personal risk involved when liking or tweeting about a cause or issue, and more critically the lack of effectiveness in achieving political change (Morozov, 2009). An example of ‘slacktivism’ would be the ‘Blackout Tuesday’ where users on social media platforms were encouraged to post black squares on their social media feeds to show solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.
Even when online activism captures media attention and gets people out on the street in protest, the communities underpinning these movements are often disparate and based on, what Gerald Delanty refers to as “thin communities” or a “community of strangers” (Delanty, 2018, p.205). These ‘thin communities’ lack cohesion and a common understanding of the movement’s aims and goals; the resulting action is often directionless and can lead to a backlash that sets back the cause rather than advancing it. In May 2020, there was a surge of awareness around the Black Lives Matter movement that spread across the world as people became aware of the murder of George Floyd in the United States (BBC, 2020). In June 2020 there were demonstrations in the streets of Bristol in the UK, protesters called for the statues of historic figures from the slave trade to be pulled down, some protesters took matters into their own hands and a statue of Edward Colston was torn down and dumped in the river Avon (Grey, 2020). These protests, which forcibly removed a statue of a slave owner, and the wider Black Lives Matter movement, Kehinde Andrews argues, has not made any material difference to the lives of black people in the UK (Munir, 2021). Furthermore, there has been a counter response to the protests by the UK establishment, Amaran Uthayakumar-Cumarasamy et al argues that in response to the UK statue-removing protests the Parliament has introduced The Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 which includes draconian measures to supress all future forms of protest (Uthayakumar-Cumarasamy et al., 2021, p.90). The Black Lives Matter protests have captured media attention and led to outpouring of justifiable anger, but the aims of these movements are not articulated on social media beyond raising awareness, trending topics on Twitter quickly move-on as the new cycle switches on to another story. Additionally, using social media as tool for activism also provides opportunities for corporations to vicariously attach their products and brands to a protest movement which then becomes a form of marketing which I will discuss next.
Twitter and other social media platforms provide opportunities for corporations to align their identities with popular causes by linking their brand to specific online issues. Jeffrey Montez de Oca et al argues that businesses can easily co-opt online movements by appearing to align themselves with the social-political zeitgeist without jeopardizing profits, this has been referred to as greenwashing or ‘cool capitalism’ (de Oca et al., 2020). This process of issue-alignment, Montez de Oca et al suggests, ensures that organisations are perceived as being on the right side of social issues, they note examples of American sports teams, which are multi-billion-dollar businesses, aligning themselves with the Black Lives Matter protests by tweeting support for the movement, renaming the Washington Redskins and NASCAR banning the confederate flag from their events (de Oca et al., 2020, p.2). This alignment is calculated through the lens of profitability, as Abas Mirzaei et al argue from a business perspective being on the right side of a social issue is not just a form of cost-effective marketing it is also an effective means of building brand loyalty if the alignment is perceived by the consumer as being authentic (Mirzaei et al., 2022). It is worth noting that symbolic changes such as name changes are important but again do not affect the material conditions of the lives of black people or the continued exploitation of the environment. Critically, as Cedric Robinson notes ‘words’, however progressive, do nothing to undermine what he refers to as ‘racial capitalism’ (Robinson, 1983). There are other problems for activists using social media platforms to contend with. Essentially, Twitter and all commercial social media platforms are in the business of selling advertising, this creates a risk that online activism become another avenue for consumerism and commodification, this is particularly problematic for environmentalism, which is associated with reducing consumption, the antithesis to a consumerist society.
In Australia and many parts of the Western World, we live in a political economy that is essentially neoliberal. Ian Watson provides a clear definition of neoliberalism stating that its features include: “financialisaton, trade liberalisation, deindustrialisation, deregulation, privatisation and the privileging of market principles over activities of the state” (Watson, 2016, p.113). In a neoliberal political economy, the ‘free market’ becomes the lens through which everything is moderated and curated. Alison Hearn suggests that ‘commodity activism’ is the merging of a society founded on consumption and consumerism blended with the social justice activism causes which can then be packaged, ‘sold’ and consumed like any other commodity (Hearn, 2012). There is evidence for the assertion that the boundaries between consumerism and activism are messy when we view examples of online campaigners such as Leah Thomas aka Green Girl Leah, who walks a tightrope between promoting herself, environmental issues, and endorsing ‘green’ products (Thomas, 2022). As Hearn notes many social media sites and blogs which seek to raise awareness of environmental issues promote the idea environmental issues are resolvable through consuming the correct products (Hearn, 2012). Twitter like most social media platforms has a business model predicated on selling advertising, where the user is the product being sold to the advertiser which creates a link between social media platforms and the consumerism (Investopedia, 2014). All self-created content on social media platforms is potentially useable as the basis of serving an advert to the person viewing the post, so a trending topic related to an activist cause is arguably commodified from its inception. Under neoliberalism everyone is ultimately responsible for their own success, and as David Harvey suggests “personal failure is generally attributed to personal failings” (Harvey, 2005, p.76). The promotion of the individual has led to the current state where people are encouraged to manage their own career and ‘social capital’ through self-promotion and self-improvement. This is closely linked with the use of social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Linked-In where individuals can curate their online identity to increase their social capital and align their online identities with online campaigns. As Alison Hearn argues within neoliberal societies complex structural and societal issues are routinely reduced to problems that individuals can affect and are responsible for resolving (Hearn, 2012, p.23). The concept of personal responsibility is routinely expounded within some elements of online green activism, sometimes explicitly. As Hearn points out within the framework of ‘self-branding’ by aligning an online identity with a social cause like environmentalism there is no room for a wider discussion around how individuals might work collectively to resolve these issues (Hearn, 2012. p.33). It is difficult to imagine how retweeting a hashtag can lead to meaningful change in any social justice sphere without challenging the power of large corporations which profit from the extraction and consumption of carbon-producing, fossil fuels; without any collective action which seeks to politically challenge and agitate against corporate power. Within the realm of online activism, Hearn suggests, there is an unfounded assumption that people that are engaged with online activism are the collectives that will enable environmental change (Hearn, 2012, p.33).
In this essay I have made three main arguments in relations to social media and its relationship with online activism. Firstly, I have argued that Twitter and social media platforms make forming groups and networks around social justices causes fast and relatively cheap, enabling activists to raise awareness of social justice issues, but this does not translate into real political change due to the ‘thin communities’ which are formed by using online platforms, material change requires real communities which have an offline and online component. Secondly, I have argued that using Twitter and social media as the locus for activism, activists enable corporations to co-opt movements for their own marketing purposes in the form of ‘cool capitalism’ when corporation’s interests are often diametrically opposed to those of the activists. Finally, I have argued that online activism is often reduced to a new form of consumption which is more concerned with promoting new products than it is with achieving political goals. This suggests that social media can be useful for raising awareness of issues by leveraging ‘thin communities’ of like-minded people but without using organising people in the offline world then the political and social status quo are never challenged beyond tokenistic changes such as corporations tweeting support for the environment or Black Lives Matter without reducing pollution or improving the socioeconomic prospects of black people. I have not discussed the relationship between social media platforms and state censorship and its relationship to activism, this area would benefit from further research. Online activism can raise awareness of social issues, but as Karl Marx noted “philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it (Marx, 1969)”.
References
BBC. (2020). George Floyd: What happened in the final moments of his life – BBC News. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52861726
de Oca, J. M., Mason, S., & Ahn, S. (2020). Consuming for the Greater Good: “Woke” Commercials in Sports Media. Communication and Sport, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479520949283
Delanty, G. (2018). Virtual Community. Community, 200–224. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158259-10
Grey, J. (2020). Bristol George Floyd protest: Colston statue toppled. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-52955868
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. In A Brief History of Neoliberalism. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199283262.001.0001
Hearn, A. (2012). Brand Me “Activist” (pp. 23–38).
Investopedia. (2014). How Facebook, Twitter, Social Media Make Money From You. Investopedia Online. https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/032114/how-facebook-twitter-social-media-make-money-you-twtr-lnkd-fb-goog.aspx
Marx, K. (1969). Theses On Feuerbach. Marx/Engels Selected Works, Volume One, 13–15. marxists.org
Mirzaei, A., Wilkie, D. C., & Siuki, H. (2022). Woke brand activism authenticity or the lack of it. Journal of Business Research, 139(August 2020), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.044
Morozov, E. (2009). The brave new world of Slavtivism. Nature, 418(6894), 122–124. https://doi.org/10.1038/418122a
Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: the dark side of Internet freedom. Choice Reviews Online, 48(12), 48-7161-48–7161. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.48-7161
Munir, K. (2021). Has the Black Lives Matter movement changed anything? – Big Ideas – ABC Radio National. In ABC Australia. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/has-the-black-lives-matter-movement-changed-anything/13490568
Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A Networked Self. A Networked Self. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876527
Robinson, C. J. (1983). Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. https://doi.org/10.2307/274994
Thomas, L. (2022). Green Girl Leah. https://www.greengirlleah.com/
Uthayakumar-Cumarasamy, A., Sharman, M., & Calderwood, N. (2021). Protest, pandemics and the political determinants of health – the health risks of the UK police, crime sentencing and courts bill 2021. In Medicine, Conflict and Survival (Vol. 37, Issue 2, pp. 89–94). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/13623699.2021.1934954
Hi Philip, that was a really fascinating read and I love that we are able to debate both sides here!
To an extent, I agree that social media platforms can create these ‘thin communities’ of activists or people in support of an issue, as it is a very simple process of sharing a hashtag or posting a black square as a means of ‘activism.’ In regards to Blackout Tuesday, I think it had a much stronger impact then that. 28 MILLION users took part in sharing a square that day. That is huge. Entire feeds were black squares on Instagram and Twitter for a whole day, which is rare. That alone is proof of impact. Thin communities or not, the protest, rallies and riots that came out of this movement are still people who are desperately fighting for change. They are activists in their own right, and without these trending hashtags or ability to share information through these platforms, they may not have formed these communities. Particularly in the US, where black people are killed at the hands of police frequently, these activists would heavily rely on each other to gain traction (via social media) to form these protests. The bigger, the better and the more impact it will have on change. Take George Floyd for example. Before his murder, there have been several other murders of black people in America, by police. If you look into any of these cases, these police get a slap on at the wrist at most. Due to the virality of this murder, it also created change in other countries, such as the England and France. UK man Tyrek Morris, was inspired through the protests of Black Lives Matter to rally with 15,000 others in Bristol for #AllBlackLivesUK (a trending Twitter hashtag) back in June 2020 (which was just one protest of 160 that weekend). Morris said, “schools began to change their names, and road names changed. All that was needed was a push.”
In France, there was a huge debate as it is a country that outlawed slavery and then reinstated it. Statues were pulled down, questions of white privilege and police violence were raised.
Black Out Tuesday was a day to amplify the Black Lives Matter Movement and Black voices, so you would assume that companies would respect that and use their platforms accordingly if they truly were in support of it. It has had positive impacts in brands as well. For example, Nike has shown support in the BLM, and has since made changes to their company standards and practices to promote an anti-racist corporation. For example, they made June 19 as a day to commemorate the emancipation of enslaved peoples in America (which isn’t recognised as an official federal holiday). Nike partnered also partnered with NBA star Lebron James in donating to organisations and charities that support civil rights, social justice, and equality. I can see how it could be a marketing tactic, but they are still advocating for change, which is the whole point. If more businesses took part in this, the more impact it will have as a whole in creating social change, changing the way we communicate with one another and encouraging people to be more conscious of their actions.
Hi Kayla, thanks for taking time to read my essay, agree, it’s great to debate both sides of argument and clearly there are is no binary answer to the questions of whether online activism is good or bad. I can see there is something to the online activism argument that you are making, no doubt about it. I think you are right about BLM and the awareness it created, and the movement was able to mobilise mass numbers of people, which tells me that there is something in the power of online media to motivate people.
Having said that I am still not seeing the connection between mobilisation / awareness and material change. Maybe when I say ‘change’, I mean addressing the structural causes of these issues in a way that creates lasting change – I see a lot of the changes made by big corporations as tokenism more than anything. Maybe change is a long-drawn-out process, and these movements are a step in the right direction, but I can’t image Castro and Guevara taking down Batista in Cuba by Tweeting and posting memes about the Batista regime. Real change, I feel, require leadership, planning and a clearly articulated goal for the movement.
Another issue with the online movements – do people understand the objectives of the movement? Did all the people sharing the black square understand what BLM was trying to achieve – it’s easy to ‘join’ a movement but with so many ‘members’ how do you organise people to target specific goals – the movements become reactionary and not targeted towards achieving a specific aim. Yes, it’s good that people come out on the streets and protest but if a movement doesn’t have any specific aims (that are communicated) then the movements become leaderless and rudderless.
Taking the example of the UK there has been a big push back since the protests and the removal of the statue in Bristol – with the UK Government pushing legislation through Parliament to make it harder for protestors to get out on the streets. Maybe if the BLM protests in UK were led better than the mobilisation could have been used more strategically to achieve specific aims?
Do you think there are any social changes that can’t be resolved through online activism?
I also think Evgeny Morozov makes a good point in the ‘The net delusion: the dark side of Internet freedom’ where he suggests that online activism might give people the wrong impression that there is a new kind of ‘digital politics’ that creates the illusion that “real world political change” can be created with “virtual campaigns, online petitions, funny Photoshopped political cartoons, and angry tweets – is not only feasible but actually preferable to the ineffective, boring, risky, and, in most cases, outdated kind of politics” (p. 201).
Hi Philip, your paper was a great read and definitely showcased the different angle you were approaching in regards to online activism within online social networks. While green or rainbow capitalism does indeed have problems, especially surrounding turning major social causes into something that is just a branding opportunity, the net positive affects of these companies in engaging in uplifting or progressive behaviour is something that can’t be simply ignored or pushed away as just “performative”. That being said, the importance of holding these companies and organisations to account in the way they react to social issues around the world is still crucial in making real world change. But I would argue strongly that creating economic incentive for these companies and organisations, whether on social media platforms to engage audiences in real world action, or alternatively creating opportunities for people to become involved online in some shape or form such as fundraising, joining their local industry union or other causes that effect people directly would be a positive if executed upon well. Offline action is still the main goal however and even before the age of the Internet and online activism, the problem with getting the average engaged with their local political scene, industry union or community was already difficult. Like I said in my reply to your comment on my paper, it’s about creating a reasonable click through rate or in this case “offline participation conversion” of people who engage with online activism is ultimately the end goal and I think we both agree that just getting more people involved and organised is the most important.
Hey Jack, thanks for reading and commenting on my paper. I agree with your comments about the ‘click through’ rate – if some of these awareness raised by online activism gets people engaged in offline action then that would be a net benefit and a positive. I’m not sure if this does happen in the real world as I feel that there is a perception amongst some participants on social media, that clicking or retweeting is the beginning and end of their participation in the political process. I think part of the problem is that in society as we have become more engaged online – and connected with people all over the world that share similar views, we have become less engaged offline. I do think this comes back to capitalism and specifically the neoliberal form of capitalism which elevates individualism with an almost religious zeal, as the main component of society – i.e. we are a collection of individuals; we have no understanding of collectivism as it’s been removed from society with the decline of unions and the promotion of the nonsense idea that we are all responsible for our success and failures. This kind of individualism is enhanced by the internet which I feel has atomised people even more. We need to get back that sense of collectivism, which could lead to offline – grass roots activism, of the type that was seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
Hi Philip,
Intriguing paper, left me with a lot to think about. Thanks for the excellent work.
Social movements highlight the contradiction of forming close but distant communities. We now how access to a global community to discuss global problems, but we have no global government or global authority to enact anything. We have national governments, with a variety of existing laws and social conventions. Developing a focused goal seems impossible without splitting the community at which point we are giving up possibly our greatest asset; our numbers. I think the reason goals are kept vague is to keep the movement relatable, it passes responsibility to the individual to decide on what actions best suit the community they live in.
I am torn on the subject of “çool capitalism” and whether this constitutes material change or not. Yes, it is not for the reasons we would like, but I think pretending to care is a significant step. Prior to movements many corporations had zero presence in areas such as the environmentalism, ticking that over to having some presence is huge. It opens the door for corporate level support in these areas and industries to develop around these ideologies. Change will come, it might take decades but this problem has had centuries to fester, quick solutions are probably a pipe dream.
I guess the question is what you think material change is. You mention structural changes, I was curious if you had specifics? Changes in the law? How much value do you put a change that affects only a few individual lives?
Looking over this again I feel like it looks like I am disagreeing with you, yet I agree with nearly all of your points. I think for a lot of people this is the best they can hope for in terms of attempting to make material change. The issues you have highlighted the divide between the population and those who represent them. The system is designed to not give power to individuals, we have representatives who collect and wield power on our behalf. When they don’t act in our interests we have relatively few tools to enact change, especially short-term change when election cycles are over four years.
I discuss similar issues in my own paper, with a focus on Reddit. I would love to hear your thoughts:
https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2022/onsc/357/the-burden-of-reddits-architecture-on-social-movements/
Hi Raymond, thanks for taking time to read and comment on my paper. I like the point you make about the contradiction and tension between “close but distant communities” and the point that the goals of the activism are left up to the individual to assess for themselves. I think this is kind of what happens at the moment where lots of people are aware of social justice issues but then without clearly communicated goals I think the issue becomes subject to virtue signalling add a block dot here and rainbow flag there and suddenly a corporation is ‘woke’ and on the right side of an issue without any substantive changes being made other than updating a bit of HTML / image on their website.
I agree with your point about environmental change and the fact that these problems have been created over a long period of time, maybe this corporate awareness is a step in the right direction – but it seems like tokenism to me if the same corporations continue to spew out tonnes of carbon in pursuit of profits. This is not a problem we can take our time with according to scientists, time is running out to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees, if not gone already. I don’t think radical change is a pipe dream but understand the sentiment – it doesn’t seem like a possibility in the current environment, and it’s probably not using Twitter and Facebook to make changes. Radical changes probably require radical action – I think in the history of the world no one has given up power voluntarily – take the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution, or a more recent example with South Africa and the Apartheid regime or take the movement for the eight-hour working day – there was always an element of struggle and a lot of it was violent. I think if a corporation is on board with a movement, then I’m deeply suspicious of the goals of the movement. Epically when it’s a company that profits from fossil fuels, like Exxon, but attempts to align its image with green capitalism. Looking at the evidence – it seems apparent that this sort of activism is not changing things fast enough with carbon emissions still increasing each year – this is without considering the totality of the carbon that’s already in the atmosphere (https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/). Also change does take time but sometimes it happens quickly – “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” So, I don’t agree that things can’t change very quickly given the right conditions – we are already seeing the political landscape change in Australia and no one would have predicted President Trump or Brexit ten years ago.
Material change would mean changes that were quantifiable and qualitative – for black lives matter it might mean fewer black people incarcerated, or increased wages and / or better access to health care. I mean this would matter to me, if I were a black person, more than someone Tweeting their support from BLM. Or for environmentalism, we would see a reduction in C02 emissions, and companies that pollute the atmosphere being held to account.
Structural change would mean changes in the way society is configured and moving away from capitalism which is riddled with many contradictions and so crisis prone that it is long past its sell-by date, not to mention that it appears to be unsustainable (a system based on continuous compounding expansion is, by definition, unsustainable). I believe most of the world’s problems can be attributed to capitalism and specifically the neoliberal form which has crushed labour movements in many countries like the UK and US and led to the rise of a new gilded age where we have a few billionaires owning most of the wealth distorts democracy and is ethically unjustifiable when some people don’t have enough to eat or sleep on the streets.
I agree that representative democracy has lots of flaws and I would argue that this has been co-opted by big-business who have access to ministers and lobbyist to change the laws as they see fit. Look at the US and gun-control or Australia and the manufactured ‘Climate Wars’.
Highly recommend this book
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. In A Brief History of Neoliberalism. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199283262.001.0001
Cheers, Phil
Hi Phillip,
Thanks for the reply.
I still think there is an element of “fake it until you make it”to activism, if everyone in a community puts on the same front, new members just assume its how things normally are. They seem insignificant now, but long-term I think there is value in these actions.
Of course that leaves the issue of time, which you accurately point out we do not have much of. Unfortunately I have no solution to offer, but will point out that it is fairly understandable that people would be unwilling to go to lengths you have listed at the current stage. As deadlines approach though, we may need to consider all the options available. If that day does come, I believe social media will play a critical role as a communications medium, its simply too big to not be. I guess to your overall point its not that social media cannot lead to material change, but perhaps it has yet to be put into a situation in which it could be.
Your point about the potential for rapid change makes sense, although I will note that people have a direct link to the political system, whereas I feel there is a greater gulf between individuals and corporations. People seem to bring up boycotts a lot, I wonder how practical they actually are.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I’ll check it out and thanks again for your thoughts.
Hi Phillip,
Thanks so much for linking your paper on the other comment thread we were on. This paper is excellent and produces a clear and convincing argument. I agree that the Black Out Tuesday was generally performative and indicative of a centering of the ‘self’ which to me, seems out of place when advocating for social change, specifically about a group you’re not a part of. Again I feel this ties back to the need for tangible action. Yes, millions of people posted in solidarity with Black folks, but did this actually achieve anything tangible for the lives of Black people, who continue to be Black regardless of the social movement which is popular at the time? If every single person who posted a black square donated a dollar to an organisation or even just a Black person they knew who would appreciate it, there would be far more positive change in my opinion. I also loved the way you looked at this argument and spoke on how neoliberalism affects the way we engage in activism. I’ve noticed particularly as a queer person, that many companies today engage in a practice called ‘rainbow capitalism’, a phenomenon in which large corporations pander to their queer audiences by slapping a rainbow or symbol emblematic of queer culture onto their product just to sell us more shit we don’t need. I feel like this is a manifestation of both capitalism and the need for us to be SEEN as doing activism.
If you have a chance to read my paper I would appreciate your thoughts!
https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2022/csm/943/the-queerification-of-the-internet-why-queer-youth-need-online-communities/
Cheers,
G
Hi Grace, thanks for reading my paper and commenting – appreciate that you took the time to do this.
I think you’re right that some of these movements are popular for a period and then the trending issue moves on to something else, one day’s it’s George Floyd the next day it’s Kim Kardashian – as far as Twitter is concerned, they are the same as they both generate online activity which creates profit for the company. I think activists should be aware that these online spaces are first and foremost about making money. This is before we even think about the opaque, privately owned algorithms which determine which issues trend, and which don’t – who gets heard and who doesn’t.
Yeah – you’re right about Greenwashing and Rainbow capitalism, I think it’s easy for these companies to chase profits by being perceived to be woke on certain issues. Capitalism is very flexible and able to pivot to whatever is profitable form one day to the next, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves into thinking that this means real progress is being made. I would argue that people see this kind of tokenism and sit back and think that the world is moving in the right direction – meanwhile we have things like the religious freedom bill which seeks to enshrine some forms of discrimination into law – are the same companies putting up a rainbow flag on their website and then donating to a party that pushes legislation like The Religious Freedom Bill? It’s hard to tell without taking the time and effort to dig into this – and we don’t have lots of space time as a rule.
Hi Phillip,
Great paper so far. It’s true how businesses and celebrities were using BLM as a form of advertising to bait those who believe they’re being allied with a cause for the sake of profits. And you even address echo-chambers that develop and end up twisting their own agenda to the point it ignore why the issue was presented in the first place. This is a tedious subject to talk about now that fence-sitting is considered a stigma lately, even when the argument is presented as neutral as possible. Though considering the other feedback pointing out certain events that did achieve awareness of certain social issues, mostly by celebrities and businesses who profit off it by legitimate participation or to keep their reputation clean after backlash. Not many considered the aftermath nor the attempts of counter-culture will occur when any social issue is mentioned. After all, Twitter is notorious for being a cesspool to begin with, yet a good catalyst for anything aside from social issues.
Aside from the short-lived nature of addressing issues and then moving onto something else, I also believe that one of the many factors why true actions sometimes never happens are some Twitter users deliberately trolling activists by using their motives against them to even promoting counter-culture unironically. The latter having an increase lately due to how easily users fall for bait, as the majority of activists are observed to be casual internet users, and not take any of it lightly. As a result, all just ends up in a repetitive circle of anything not being done.
On the topic of ‘Offline Action’, I’m assuming you meant protocols put in place for various sectors. Like for social issues, implementing anti-racism policies in workplaces and online platforms. Which I addressed earlier, there will be at least some counter-culture attempt for the sake of offending someone or ‘for the lulz’. Or for the environmental issues example, replacing plastic straws and disposable bags with sustainable and reusable materials to counter pollution and to keep a positive reputation for businesses. Putting in that perspective would make it easier to understand the disagreements observed here, but some of these protocols put in place are just band-aids to hide bigger issues.
Cheers,
Stacey
Hi Stacey, thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my paper, appreciate it. I think you’re right that online people can easily be trolled by people that want to act in bad faith and I think there is a whole alt-right movement that seeks to discredit social justice advocates by branding them as ‘snowflakes’ or social ‘justice warriors’, I imagine that part of this is questioning the authenticity of some of the advocates for causes which are promoted online.
I also think you’re right about the band-aids put in place – which I would classify as low-cost / free tokenism in the worst instances. Essentially, corporations don’t consider changes that would actually reduce profits – because they can’t – the essence of capitalism is competition and if one company does something ‘nice’ that is socially aware they will soon be swallowed up by a more ruthless competitor.
Hi Phillip,
Really interesting paper and left me with a lot to think about. It’s very true from a marketing perspective to see trending activism such as BLM as a great opportunity to further their business advertising and awareness in order to gain more revenue. I remember from the hight of the BLM movement during 2020 many Influencers and Celebrities followed on the trend like businesses did and condoned in fake activism in order to gain popularity without pursing anything further to make structural change. Such as Blackout Tuesdays which you discussed in your paper. This topic debates me as it has positives and negatives from both sides, as Blackout Tuesday did create a great sense of online community for 28 Million users to come together to support BLM has not been done before. It did create as you discussed a ‘thin community’ as most of those users, Influencers and celebrities did not take any further measures to support the cause and majority only participated during the hight of it’s popularity.
What do you think needs to be done in online activism to make structural change for movements like BLM and not fall into slacktivism ?
Cheers,
Lorena
Hi Lorena, thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I think that’s an interesting point about the numbers of people that ‘came together’ to show solidarity with BLM so I don’t think there is any argument from me that social media is a powerful force for influencing society, we already see lots of evidence how Facebook is being used to influence democracy – unfortunately not in very positive ways as people with the most money can buy the most influence and in lots of countries like the Philippines people can be persuaded to vote for the most unpalatable of candidates. Or in the UK shadowy figures bought fake ads to persuade people that Brexit was a good idea.
For Black Lives Matter I think it was more successful when it had clear goals – which it could then communicate to people that wanted to get involved. At a minimum they could have suggested that people give their vote to more progressive parties – make some connections between the real world and the online movement.
Hi Phillip,
You raise some solid points. I agree that activism needs to have more substance than just what is posted online. Something to think about is stating that the online forum does not have any impact on political change at all as it does have some impact. When you state that online activism has no power, you are implying that society as whole does not have power. In your paper, there is a tendency to explain these issues very black or white whereas it is more of a grey scale as these issues go beyond just two sides. All together a great paper, well done!
-Hoofi