Sophie Kohn: Disliking Slacktivism

The other morning, I opened my inbox to find identical messages from three different Facebook friends. Each explained to me, using a truly unnecessary number of exclamation marks, that today was Breast Cancer Awareness Day, and I should participate in the "I Like It" Facebook campaign.

It would involve changing my Facebook status to read, "I Like It..." and then stating the location of my purse. Ideally, from this intellectual ninja of an idea, statuses would spring forth that read, "I like it on the couch," or "I like it on the kitchen floor." I inferred that the more these statements evoked the act of sexual intercourse, the better. Of course! I mean, let's be serious: What's sexier than breast cancer? And really, what better way to help cancer research progress than to broadcast an opaque Facebook statement about a completely unrelated issue?

This ridiculous campaign is only the latest example of "slacktivism," and frankly I find it to be one of the most irritating things since the word "LOL" or the incessant "Like" button that seems to be underneath everything from YouTube kitten videos to obituaries.

Real activism used to involve getting your hands dirty; now it seems we happily wash our hands of an issue once we've clicked "follow" on the latest Twitition to Free Tibet. A few months ago, there was a campaign to condemn child abuse by pasting a pre-written statement into your Facebook status. "To whom would I even be talking to?" I wondered, as I continued definitely not participating. I'm fairly confident that none of my Facebook friends are child abusers, nor are they for child abuse, so I'm not sure exactly who is meant to be on the receiving end of my piercing wake-up call.

The problem with slacktivism is it makes people feel they've made a difference to a cause, in turn, making them less likely to actually go out and volunteer time, or donate money, or call their MPs. While social media is great for spreading the word about an upcoming protest, people still need to go one step further and actually physically attend that protest. It's is not a substitute, though all too often, we treat it as such.

In his recent New Yorker essay, Small Change, The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted, Malcolm Gladwell rightly observes, "Boycotts and sit-ins and nonviolent confrontations--which were the weapons of choice for the civil-rights movement--are high-risk strategies." And that's the thing - bravery is exactly what's required for real societal change to be brought about. How does a person define what really matters to her? She asks herself, "For which cause would I be willing to really risk my own security?" And her answer makes it clear.

Where is the risk in sitting comfortably at a computer, miles and miles away from the victims, lawmakers and leaders who need to hear our concerns? How is there any real consequence in clicking?