Social Media –– Revolutionary Movement or Enabler of “Slacktivism”?
Many of us enjoy a good debate, and there’s an important one playing out on our doorstep. Some people say we’re in the midst of a revolution where the new tools of social media are reinventing social activism in vital ways. Others say that social media is a fad that does little more than enable “slacktivism”—that is, engaging in activities (mostly mouse-clicking) that make you feel like you’re doing good but actually amount to very little real change.
Where do you stand?
On one end of the spectrum are Jennifer Aaker and Andy Smith, whose new book The Dragonfly Effect is a compelling testament to “the power of the new social media to do something that really matters.” The book is full of real, concrete examples where the power of social media led to changes—like 24,611 South Asians being added to the National Marrow Donor Program in 11 weeks, or $30 million in donations to worthy causes being generated through MyBarakObama.com. I attended the book launch recently and came away motivated to act.
On the other end is Malcolm Gladwell, whose recent New Yorker article argues that to take on powerful, organized establishments—as was the aim of the civil rights movement—you need hierarchical organizations, not merely “networks.” And he also makes the distinction that for people to mobilize when risks are high, it is necessary to be connected through strong ties. The instruments of social media are suited merely to making the existing social order more efficient, not to overhauling the status quo, he claims. His comments gave me pause.
How do we reconcile such different views? I suggest we focus not on debating, but on asking how we can leverage social media as a tool that truly contributes to ugly and difficult social problems over time. First and foremost, let’s not forget social change is slow, hard, complex, and, in many cases, risky. In contrast, social media is fast, easy, efficient, and not risky. Therefore, how can social media be designed to support our tenacity and patience with long-term issues? How can it be leveraged to contribute depth and understanding to our causes? I don’t think we have the answers to these questions . . . yet.
I leave you with one last example of how social media is particularly good at inspiring the unexpected. When the Center for Social Innovation created a podcast series featuring talks by a thought leader, we relinquished control over how that intellectual capital would be used. Miles away, a young academic was listening and decided to create the first ever social entrepreneurship program at a Chilean University. Unbeknown to us, the social enterprise revolution was about to start in Chile. By using social media, the Center magnified the impact of Stanford’s intellectual assets.
So in closing, is social media. . .
. . . a revolution? Not likely.
. . . a valuable tool? Most definitely.
. . . an opportunity to make a difference in the world? You decide.