Activism After Clicktivism

by Micah White

For over a decade, revolutionaries and culture jammers have been paralyzed by the computer screen. Trusting the promises of technocrats and digital visionaries, dazzled by the viral hype surrounding MoveOn and the like, we've come to rely far too heavily on a particular form of internet organizing. Believing that clicktivism could spark social change, we deployed market-tested messaging, glitzy AJAX websites and social networking apps. We entrusted our revolution to San Francisco techies and put our faith in the methods of advertising. But we have become so dependent on digital gimmicks that our revolutionary potential is now constrained.

Clicktivism is the pollution of activism with the logic of consumerism. Activism is debased with advertising and computer science. What defines clicktivism is an obsession with metrics. Each link clicked and email opened is meticulously monitored. Subject lines are A/B tested and talking points focus grouped. Clicktivists dilute their messages for mass appeal and make calls to action that are easy, insignificant and impotent. Their sole campaign objective is to inflate participation percentages, not to overthrow the status quo. In the end, social change is marketed like a brand of toilet paper.

[See Gabe Lyons' interview with Micah at the Q gathering in Austin.]

The fundamental problem with this technocratic approach is that metrics only value what is measurable. Clicktivism neglects the vital, immeasurable inner-events and personal epiphanies that great social ruptures are actually made of. The history of revolutions attests that upheaval is always improbable, unpredictable and risky. A few banal pronouncements about "democracy in action" coupled with an online petition will not usher in social transformation. As Malcolm Gladwell put it recently, "activism that challenges the status quo--that attacks deeply rooted problems--is not for the faint of heart." Clicktivism reinforces the fear of standing out from the crowd and taking a strong position. It discourages calling for drastic action. And as such, clicktivism will never breed social revolution.

[Another perspective: Read "Digital Activism" from Orion Magazine.]

The demise of clicktivism is rebooting activism. It is setting off a paradigm shift in social change that opens the door to a new generation of activists. This rejuvenation is emboldened by three tactical insights: revolutions spring from epiphanies; the internet is best suited for meme-war; and daring real-world actions are the indispensable foundation of social change.

Gone is trust in watered down talking points and the "best practices" of keyboard-messiahs. Metrics are being forgotten, website logs deleted, analytics ignored. Instead, passionate poetry is regaining precedence. The challenge of sparking epiphanies is the new revolutionary priority. But this does not mean we shut our eyes entirely to the potential of technology.

On the contrary, the next generation of activists will readily acknowledge that the internet plays a crucial tactical role. In the battle for the mind, the speedy dissemination of brain-bombs, image-ambushes and thought-viruses is strategically essential. This is meme-war, after all, and the web levels the battlefield against the propagandists of consumerism. Still, real world action is the only way to achieve social revolution. Clicking a link can never replace taking the streets. Nor can we rely on digital technologies to get people off the screens.

Activism is scary, social change is initially unpopular and insurrection always starts with disobedience. Trepidation is, therefore, the healthy response to the realities of culture jamming. Moments before victory, every revolutionary has felt the gut-pang of anxiety. But clicktivism encourages us to shirk away from these emotions, to hide behind the mouse, to embrace the inaction of passive clicking. Against this tendency, let us welcome butterflies back into our bellies.

Activism will be reborn when culture jammers find strength in the exhilaration of resistance, the intensity of protest and the emotions unleashed by taking part in upheaval.

-----
In your opinion, does Micah overstate the demise of clicktivism? Is there still a place for internet organizing? What is the best way to inspire people to "real world action?"

-----
Editor's Notes: The article above appeared in Adbusters issue #93, and was printed here by permission. The photograph featured above is "Twirling Wires" (2001) by Roger Ballen from his Shadow Chamber series.

Comments

Justin Salters

Thank you for this! I just posted to Facebook last night and challenged people who change their avatars or statuses to "support a cause" to consider getting out and doing something to change the world. The mass availability and lack of effort required to "support" things these days is an indicator that those of us who really want to bring social change have to overcome the obstacle of clicktivism. I do not know if clicktivism is necessarily going to go away as soon as you predict; I think most people prefer to be active from the comfort of their offices and dens. However, I do think the internet plays a role in uniting people from diverse backgrounds and locales who might not otherwise be able to communicate and collaborate. I think Jon Acuff at StuffChristiansLike.net is a good example of turning clicktivism into activism. He has twice challenged his readers to complete projects for orphans in SE Asia, and the turnout has been amazing. If we are going to inspire people to "real world action" we need to be encourage people to use their web identities as a mirror of their physical identity. Let what you post online mirror your actions and pursuits online as we continue to challenge people to do something about today's social evils. Also, those of us who value true activism must take steps to lead the charge in overcoming clicktivism. We can work to organize people in our neighborhoods and cities to get work done.

@justinsalters

Scott C Todd

Yes, overstated but brilliant. Correctives usually need to overstate their case to be effective. Micah's use of language is fantastic and these ideas are a rich extension of Gladwell's recent contributions. The claim I would most challenge is that "Metrics are being forgotten, website logs deleted, analytics ignored". Metrics matter and tell us if our efforts to communicate are reaching people or if they are narcissistic echos. Without them we are flying blind and might be wasting money. Of course they only tell us what they measure and it is absolutely true that genuine change requires authentic action - usually away from the computer and much harder to measure. I'm sure Micah recognizes the irony of using a web log to announce the demise of web logs. In my view the critical question is how to translate epiphanies (which typically are insufficient to change behavior) into new cultural norms - that happens when we see the epiphany being lived out by others close to us.

John Trombley

We have this nutritive in the American culture that we can do grate things with out doing work. No sacrifice needed.

We can end global worming by changing a few light bulbs. We can save the lost by inviting someone to church every decade or two. Text "aid" to some number to end some catastrophe. We can save the world by clicking a button.

All this things are good but wont make a dent. They are the first step in a thousand mile journey and we stop after the first step, a thousand miles away from our destination. We as Christians can be the worst since we can invoke the power of God to justify our laziness.

We have bought into Madison avenue and believe that "all we need to do is ...."

Arthur Davis

Avaaz and GetUp! (in Australia) are running hugely successful digital petitions through social media. It's plain that you're doing no more (and no less) than adding your name, but these petitions are very big and very fast. I wonder if that's as far as clicktivism can go?

TC Epperson

I agree with one of the posts above, that the first step in subjugating technology to social action is practicing and preaching that the internet is a tool inside reality, not an alternate reality. If it is an alternate reality, I can remake myself there and will eventually habituate myself to the idea that virtual activism is actual activism. But, if I understand the internet as a tool of reality, then I see the virtual for what it is: the not-real. And I can accurately assess that 1000 names means only one 1000 names, not 1000 activists. The 1000 names suggest potential, but they are unrealized potential until 1000 people show up on the street.

Comments are now closed

ALSO BY MICAH WHITE

ALSO IN SOCIAL SECTOR