Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
To use Vice Principal Strickland’s language is to repeat his mistakes

To use Vice Principal Strickland’s language is to repeat his mistakes

Last updated on: December 18, 2013 at 8:27 pm by Fred Clark

To use Vice Principal Strickland’s language is to repeat his mistakes 2013-12-18T20:27:48-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Look, I get it. Gestures are no substitute for substantial action, and otherwise positive-seeming gestures may become harmful when people treat them as though they are. I agree.

Someone’s got a T-shirt that says “Work for Justice”? Cool. That’s a Good Thing. But it could become a Bad Thing if that person starts to think that buying and wearing that T-shirt is all they need to do to work for justice. Valid point.

But I don’t think the best way to make that point is by scolding anyone you see wearing such a T-shirt.

Which is why many of the people using the terms “slacktivism” and “slacktivist” probably shouldn’t be. I’m not just being proprietary here — this non-ironic, pejorative use of those words doesn’t work. It’s self-defeating. It repositions the speaker as a scold. And as a particular kind of scold — the ineffective, irrelevant grumpy old person whining about how kids these days are no damn good.

To use these words unironically as a condemnation of “slacktivism” is to accept the mantle of Vice Principal Strickland:

That’s him there, on the left, chewing out Marty McFly for being a “slacker.”

The important thing to remember about Vice Principal Strickland is that he was wrong. He was specifically wrong in dismissing Marty. And he was archetypally wrong on behalf of all grumpy old people everywhere for dismissing all young people everywhere as “slackers.”

To embrace the vocabulary of Strickland is to embrace the role of Strickland and the essential wrongness of Strickland. And that shifts the meaning of all these critiques of so-called “slacktivism.” The intended lecture on the need for substantial action beyond hollow gestures is translated into a very different lecture — one that criticizes kids these days because they’re not taking the same exact actions that we took when we were their age. (Or even, perhaps, criticizing kidsthesedays for not making the same exact hollow gestures that we made when we were their age.)

Take, for example, Evgeny Morozov’s “The brave new world of slacktivism,” in Foreign Policy. That’s from 2009, but it’s still frequently cited as some kind of seminal work on the topic. “Slacktivism is the ideal type of activism for a lazy generation,” Morozov begins, and thus concludes beforehand. He might as well have put on a bald wig and a bow tie, because he’s going full-Strickland.

Morozov’s pairing of “slacktivism” with “lazy generation” is redundant, but he’s not just repeating himself — he’s repeating centuries of equally banal “this new generation is lazy” lectures recited by every generation of old people disappointed to realize that younger people might not be able to fix all of the mistakes and injustices bequeathed to them by the aforementioned generation of old people. All you lazy kids tweetering on your FaceSpace need to just get off my lawn!

If it’s not being used ironically, then the term “slacktivism” is a one-word synonym for all such lectures. Using that word in earnest as a pejorative puts one half a step away from the Four Yorkshiremen sketch. (“Aye, you try and tell that to the young people of today. …”)

Morozov’s follow-up, “From slacktivism to activism,” is constructive in a way his earlier scolding is not, but it’s still muddled by his choice to employ that intrinsically dismissive and generational term “slacker.” Morozov argues, rightly, that “At some point one simply needs to learn how to convert awareness into action,” and that too many online campaigns “do not have clear goals or agenda items beyond awareness-raising.”

Excellent point! And his suggestions for how to address this problem seem smart and insightful:

Make it hard for your supporters to become a slacktivist: don’t give people their identity trophies until they have proved their worth. The merit badge should come as a result of their successful and effective contributions to your campaign rather than precede it. … Create diverse, distinctive, and non-trivial tasks; your supporters can do more than just click “send to all” button” all day. Since most digital activism campaigns are bound to suffer from the problem of diffusion of responsibility, make it impossible for your supporters to fade into the crowd and “free ride” on the work of other people.

But he can’t let go of that pejorative use of “slacktivist” and you can see how his unironic embrace of it Strickland-izes his view of others. The slackers of this lazy generation can’t be expected to contribute in any meaningful way for any meaningful reason. They’re not interested in changing the world like we were when we were their age — they’re only motivated by “identity trophies” and “merit badges.” (Yeah, that bit. It’d be nice, just once, to hear someone born before the Moon landing discuss the Millennial generation without sneering about “trophies,” but I suppose that clichés, like hairstyles, ossify with age.)

I’m afraid the rest of Morozov’s paper hasn’t aged very well. “I’ve grown increasingly skeptical of numerous digital activism campaigns that attempt to change the world through Facebook and Twitter,” he wrote, in Foreign Policy, in 2009, and mentioning Egyptian and Tunisian online campaigns as examples confirming that skepticism. Zine el Abidine Ben Ali probably wishes he’d been right about that.

Yet, aside from the sneering at “slackers,” Morozov’s insight there about engaging people by asking them to make substantial contributions before receiving any kind of public affirmation still seems sound. And it’s recently been sort-of confirmed by a fascinating bit of research.

Kirk Kristofferson, Katherine White and John Peloza set out to explore “How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action.” Unfortunately, however, they chose to publish the results of this exploration in a paper titled, “The Nature of Slacktivism: How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action” (.pdf from the Journal of Consumer Research, Sept. 11, 2013).

Science Daily summarizes their findings:

The study results add fuel to recent assertions that social media platforms are turning people into “slacktivists” by making it easy for them to associate with a cause without committing resources to support it.

In a series of studies, researchers invited participants to engage in an initial act of free support for a cause — joining a Facebook group, accepting a poppy, pin or magnet, or signing a petition. Participants were then asked to donate money or volunteer.

They found that the more public the token show of endorsement, the less likely participants are to provide meaningful support later. If participants were provided with the chance to express token support more privately, such as confidentially signing a petition, they were more likely to give later.

The researchers suggest this occurs because giving public endorsement satisfies the desire to look good to others, reducing the urgency to give later. Providing token support in private leads people to perceive their values are aligned with the cause without the payoff of having people witness it.

As I said, this is fascinating. It’s probably also provides some useful advice, even if I’m not yet wholly convinced that it means what the researchers think.

Some participants, for example, may accept the initial “token show of endorsement” and perceive this as evidence that this group isn’t doing much more than just handing out such tokens and is not itself capable of more substantial “prosocial action.” When later asked to donate money or to stuff envelopes on behalf of the group, those participants may then decline — not because they’ve already received their public affirmation, but because the initial gesture left them unimpressed with this particular group.

The study, in other words, presumes and asserts the worthiness and effectiveness of the hypothetical group endorsing the cause in the study, but participants have no reason to share this presumption or to accept this assertion — and the experiment itself suggests one reason not to.

At the same time, participants in the study are presumed to be slackers until they demonstrate otherwise — but they only way the study recognizes for them to do so is according to the terms of the study itself. Anyone who fails to conform to that form of “prosocial action” is presumed to be not engaged in prosocial action — a slacker and “slacktivist,” rather than a legitimate activist.

And yet again we come to that inescapable generational aspect lurking in every criticism of “slackers” and every non-ironic condemnation of those young slackers’ “slacktivism.” When the most meaningful or substantial invitation to a young person is a request for a financial donation, that young person will often have two thoughts: 1) “I haven’t got much money;” and 2) “This outfit doesn’t have much use for people like me, so I’ll smile and nod, exchange token gestures with them, and then keep looking for a group that needs the kind of contribution I am able to provide.” And when the most meaningful invitation involves stuffing envelopes, a younger person may think “Really? In 2013 people are still doing direct mail?”

If we define “prosocial action” as a specific set of acts and forms, frozen in time, unchanging and inalterable since the 1960s, then we’ve already predetermined that future generations will fail our little test for them. They’re not going to do exactly what we did in exactly the same way we did it.

If we expect them to, then all we’ll ever see when we look at them is a bunch of slackers. And no matter what those slackers do, or why, we’ll have already dismissed it as a “costless, token display.”

Uncategorized

Previous Post

December 18, 2013

Postcards from the Culture Wars (12.18)

Next Post

December 19, 2013 1 year ago: Soul freedom, Baptist baptism, and the knowledge of good and evil

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who built the ark?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Moses Noah Solomon