Essay: "Slacktivism"

Sometimes I've got a vague concept in my mind but don't have a word to express that concept. One of my favourite feelings is when I learn the word for that concept (if it already exists) or if someone invents a new word to do the job. I've got the feeling now, with the word "slacktivism."

Of course, you know what it meant as soon as you saw it, but I'll give you the Wikipedia definition anyway: "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfaction. The acts tend to require minimal personal effort from the slacktivist.

It's worth noting, straight from the outset, that slacktivism is hard to define. Having said that, I will share with you a secret: I really, really, really dislike slacktivism. I can't precisely say why. I guess I'm forced to admit that part of my dislike is simply a reluctance to get guilted by people. And slacktivists can be awfully self-righteous, considering that they don't really do anything. Such attitudes are entirely ridiculous.

For instance, let's take the environment. Now the environment is my number one issue, as you may know, but I have to admit that if you are consuming anywhere near the average amount of resources of someone in the western world, taking minor steps like buying a different kind of fruit is basically like rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. You are using about thirty times more than the earth can support, period, and only drastic, drastic steps will change that.

And don't give me that "every little bit helps" crap either. So sorry: lots of times every little bit does not help. Imagine you and I share a camel that can carry 100 pounds. I pile on 250 pounds and you "only" throw on 245. Do you have any right to brag about how you did "your part"? Did your "little bit" help? No, it did not.

That's the real crux of the problem with slacktivism, I think. No one likes to be made to feel bad about themselves, but when it's coming from Mother Theresa we suck it up. When it's coming from someone who put on a trendy-bracelet to "raise awareness" it's insupportable.

But is that it? Is slacktivism just annoying? I actually don't think so, for two reasons.

The first is, I think, is a root problem with many kinds of slacktivism. Namely, it believes in change not from top-down intitiaves such as laws or taxes, but by people going out and making consumer choices. In otherwords, I, the slacktivist, go into the grocery store and save the world by buying certain things. The enormous problem with this is that it assumes that the consumer is equipped to make those sorts of decisions.

Let's look at local foods, for instance. The idea behind local foods is that the food isn't shipped as far and so the environmental impact is lower. That's all well, as far as it goes. But studies have apparently shown (sorry, no link!) that most of the carbon expended to get a fruit or vegetable to your table occurs when you drive to the store to pick it up. In other words, because so many fruits are shipped together to the grocery store there is relatively little pollution per fruit. But when you go pick it up in your car, you are only getting five or six apples at a time. So if you drive out of your way to go to a local market, then your "local" produce might have generated more carbon getting to your table than someone who biked to Loblaws.

This isn't intended to ignore that consumers' ethical concerns can keep companies on their toes. Far from it. It merely shows that your average "slacktivist" is not in a position to determine how his or her actions will affect the broader world. Our hypothetical local shopper, above, was hurting the environment, not helping it, despite the best of intentions. This is because instead of simply identifying the bad thing (carbon) and then regulating or taxing it, and allowing the market to work itself out, he or she sought to work it out on his or her own.  And in the case of "local food", he may have been swayed by the advertising campaigns of local farmers trying to paint themselves as a "green" alternative.

Being aware of ethical issues when shopping is good, but it's also subject to manipulation. As I said, companies are perfectly aware that consumers like ethical things. But it doesn't necessarily make them change their behaviour; they can simply change their marketing. That's the danger of leaving these decisions to individuals instead of tackling the problem head on. That's why we see bottled "Ethical Water" on store shelves now, or a million other brainless promotions. How is the consumer ever supposed to navigate through something like that?

And things brings us to the second reason. Why is it, after all, that people do want to buy "Ethical Water"? I think its because people want to do good, and often have the feeling that they aren't doing so. That feeling, of uneasiness, of guilt, is important. It's a little bit of an edge, something that might push you into doing something. What worries me about slacktivism is that it is like a palliative for this feeling. Instead of remembering that we're part of the problem, we can start to feel like the world's troubles are somebody else's fault, because of what we bought. "Sure I bought bottled water," I think, "but hey, I bought the ethical bottled water."

And that's a serious issue for me. Our consciences shouldn't be so easily silenced by something we buy or a trivial gesture we make. That little guilty voice is speaking to you for a reason. Listen to it. Don't just buy something to make it shut up.