Rejecting Clicktivism
The world is in desperate need of a cultural revolution. While some of us slave to produce objects we will never be able to afford, others toil to consume luxury items they do not need. Neither lives a fulfilling life, neither is happy and both play a role in the continued desecration and evisceration of the earth. Consumer society is founded in this vicious cycle that chains some to the factory workbench and others to the screens in cubicles. It is an increasingly inhumane cycle that is spiraling out of control, dragging humanity into the abyss of climate wars and cultural insanity. That much we know. But what remains unclear is how to change the situation.
One answer that has come to dominate all others is that the future of activism is online. Dazzled by the promise of reaching a million people with a single click, social change has been turned over to a technocracy of programmers and "social media experts" who build glitzy, expensive websites and viral campaigns that amass millions of email addresses. Treating email addresses as equivalent to members, these organizations boast of their large size and downplay their small impact. It is all about quantity. To continue growing, they begin consulting with marketers who assure them that "best practices" dictate crafting a message that will appeal to the greatest number of people. Thus focus groups, A/B testing and membership surveys replace a strong philosophy, vision for radical change, and cadre of diehard supporters.
It is no wonder that their campaigns soon resemble advertising: email messages are market tested and click rate metrics dominant all other considerations. In the race for quantity, passion is left behind. But with each day they find it harder to elicit a response from their "members". Soon, they hit the pitiful online-activist industry average: less than one in twenty of their members are clicking on their emails, the rest just hit delete. (It is a well-known secret within Bay Area progressive organizations that a 5% response rate is the norm.) Thus, despite their massive, gargantuan list size, they can only count on rallying a minuscule response for any of their actions. To increase click rate, they water down their messages and make their "asks" easier and "actions" simpler. Soon, the "click to sign" deception is rolled out and simply opening an email link is treated as signing a petition. And yet, while their membership list grows larger, the active portion of their base disappears. And what is worse, as well-meaning digital activists soon discover, they are being outdone by disingenuous advertising campaigns posing as true agents of change.
Thus, we find ourselves in the bizarre situation where the celebrated international climate change organization TckTckTck with 10+ million members and 350+ partner organizations – including Greenpeace, 350, WWF, OXFAM etc – is covertly run by Havas Worldwide, the world's sixth largest advertising company. Havas' clients include Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Pfizer, BP and the rest of the ones who are to blame.
By turning activism over to the technocrats, we've done a great disservice to the noble tradition of rabble rousing that has brought humanity every egalitarian development. We've exchanged the difficult process of engaging in real world struggles for the ease of sending emails and clicking links. And I say this knowing that digital-activists agree and a new generation are only too eager to offer their services, hawking themselves as the pioneers in the cutting-edge field of turning email addresses into bodies on the street. But we must resist their claims to expertise and their successes defined by quantity. The way forward will not be through the mediation of the screen.
Activism, when properly conceived, aims at revolution by striking at the root. It deploys an essential critique of society that cannot be resolved, or recuperated, without a major cultural shift. Each era must find and hone that critique and with persistence use it to repeatedly attack the prevailing social order. The essential critique of our generation is the mental environmentalist perspective which understands consumerism to be a plague upon the earth supported by pollution of our mental ecology by advertisers.
The future of activism is not online; it is a spiritual insurrection against pollution of the mind. And that begins with turning off our screens.
60 comments on the article “Rejecting Clicktivism”
Displaying 41 - 50 of 60
Page 5 of 6
Anonymous
yeah, exactly. writing an article about rejecting the electronic medium (and doing so by means of the very medium you criticize ) is very much like saying "we are sick of slavery, so lets force slaves to fight against those who we wish to rise up against, so that in doing so we will abolish slavery". I think we have all fallen into this illusion (myself included!). But how do we reconcile being realistic with being idealistic? If we use the "tools of our oppressors" to fight against our oppressors, won't we emerge out of the revolution in part thanks to these very tools? We must develop more of a Gramscian approach, I think.
Anonymous
yeah, exactly. writing an article about rejecting the electronic medium (and doing so by means of the very medium you criticize ) is very much like saying "we are sick of slavery, so lets force slaves to fight against those who we wish to rise up against, so that in doing so we will abolish slavery". I think we have all fallen into this illusion (myself included!). But how do we reconcile being realistic with being idealistic? If we use the "tools of our oppressors" to fight against our oppressors, won't we emerge out of the revolution in part thanks to these very tools? We must develop more of a Gramscian approach, I think.
Roopy
I think we can differentiate between 'clicktivism' and the propagation of information on a website.
To say that we should abandon technology because it's not where the change is going to happen, or to disregard it as a 'tool of the oppressors', is analogous to telling the revolutionaries of the enlightenment to give up printing their ideas through the written word, since sitting about reading isn't going to solve anything and print has been a tool of the church so is therefore somehow dirty.
As for 'clicktivism'
I'm also subscribed to one of these clicktivism websites, Avaaz.org, which is very literally clicktivism, sending you an email asking you to sign the latest petition. So far, they seem to be reporting a lot of success with these petitions, which they present to global leaders.
I am by no means under the impression that this is how things will change, but at least people who may not otherwise be bothered to do anything but click a link are doing something.
@ 'The Wrench in the Machine' -
"1) You believe idea that technology is a neutral tool. This notion is false. Technology is not a tool, it is a way of revealing the world that carries within it an ideology. Therefore, to argue that open source software is a neutral, benign tool and that it is the user, whether it be an evil corporation or a radical organization, which defines the tool as good or evil is to put it plainly naive."
I'm not quite sure if I can make heads or tails of that argument. Technology is a way of revealing the world, and it has an ideology? Does that ideology prevent this blog from sharing this article? Does the ideology change or colour the information conveyed in this article? I don't follow your point.
2) You believe that if radical politics is "far more accessible" then it is "far more likely to succeed". Again, this idea is false and relies on a watered down form of democratic thinking.
How else are people expected to understand or even support a belief, if they have never even been given the chance to learn about it?
Unless you expect that a group of 'radicals' are going to change the world on their own, while the current establishment and the population that currently rationalises it will just allow the radicals to do their thing, even when from their point of view, the action and ideology of those radicals is incomprehensible ?
The point is to change the idea from being radical and shocking to being comprehensible to most people, i.e. mainstream.
The truth is in fact far starker -- the most radical politics is the least accessible and the least likely to succeed... it is its improbability of success that makes radical politics worth striving for.
Are you saying you are only supporting radical ideas because their one redeemable quality is that they are radical? If you are around when our world finally wakes up and changes, so that say, world peace, respect for the biosphere and a new, fair political system (or lack thereof) transpires throughout the world, you will then change your politics to something more radical, like say, neo-conservative, highfalutin, highly polluting... fascism ?
By throwing your weight behind only the politics that is accessible or likely to succeed you will only get the recuperated, co-opted form of politics we have today.
While I can agree with that statement, I don't see how it has any bearing on the article or the ideas proposed by 'The Ghost in the Machine'.
Roopy
I think we can differentiate between 'clicktivism' and the propagation of information on a website.
To say that we should abandon technology because it's not where the change is going to happen, or to disregard it as a 'tool of the oppressors', is analogous to telling the revolutionaries of the enlightenment to give up printing their ideas through the written word, since sitting about reading isn't going to solve anything and print has been a tool of the church so is therefore somehow dirty.
As for 'clicktivism'
I'm also subscribed to one of these clicktivism websites, Avaaz.org, which is very literally clicktivism, sending you an email asking you to sign the latest petition. So far, they seem to be reporting a lot of success with these petitions, which they present to global leaders.
I am by no means under the impression that this is how things will change, but at least people who may not otherwise be bothered to do anything but click a link are doing something.
@ 'The Wrench in the Machine' -
"1) You believe idea that technology is a neutral tool. This notion is false. Technology is not a tool, it is a way of revealing the world that carries within it an ideology. Therefore, to argue that open source software is a neutral, benign tool and that it is the user, whether it be an evil corporation or a radical organization, which defines the tool as good or evil is to put it plainly naive."
I'm not quite sure if I can make heads or tails of that argument. Technology is a way of revealing the world, and it has an ideology? Does that ideology prevent this blog from sharing this article? Does the ideology change or colour the information conveyed in this article? I don't follow your point.
2) You believe that if radical politics is "far more accessible" then it is "far more likely to succeed". Again, this idea is false and relies on a watered down form of democratic thinking.
How else are people expected to understand or even support a belief, if they have never even been given the chance to learn about it?
Unless you expect that a group of 'radicals' are going to change the world on their own, while the current establishment and the population that currently rationalises it will just allow the radicals to do their thing, even when from their point of view, the action and ideology of those radicals is incomprehensible ?
The point is to change the idea from being radical and shocking to being comprehensible to most people, i.e. mainstream.
The truth is in fact far starker -- the most radical politics is the least accessible and the least likely to succeed... it is its improbability of success that makes radical politics worth striving for.
Are you saying you are only supporting radical ideas because their one redeemable quality is that they are radical? If you are around when our world finally wakes up and changes, so that say, world peace, respect for the biosphere and a new, fair political system (or lack thereof) transpires throughout the world, you will then change your politics to something more radical, like say, neo-conservative, highfalutin, highly polluting... fascism ?
By throwing your weight behind only the politics that is accessible or likely to succeed you will only get the recuperated, co-opted form of politics we have today.
While I can agree with that statement, I don't see how it has any bearing on the article or the ideas proposed by 'The Ghost in the Machine'.
H.E. Whitney, Jr.
Articles touching on similar themes:
"Can't See Life Through the Empty Screen"
http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0101011
"Techspeak And The Abuse Of Language"
http://swans.com/library/art16/hewhit05.html
H.E. Whitney, Jr.
Articles touching on similar themes:
"Can't See Life Through the Empty Screen"
http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0101011
"Techspeak And The Abuse Of Language"
http://swans.com/library/art16/hewhit05.html
Micah White
FYI, I re-wrote this article for the Guardian website:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-ruining-leftist-activism
Micah White
FYI, I re-wrote this article for the Guardian website:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-ruining-leftist-activism
Anonymous
Click Click is an extension of the petition, but smart techies are hacktivists.
Anonymous
Click Click is an extension of the petition, but smart techies are hacktivists.
Pages
Add a new comment