Slacktivism Theory
If you're on Facebook or another social networking site, you've presumably seen what is popularly called 'slacktivism': people reblogging or 'liking' posts about issues in order to appear engaged.
Lucian Clark of GenderTerror wrote a very thoughtful essay on why labling all online activism, 'awareness' activities, and general discussion as slacktivism dismisses a large chunk of the population and their valuable contributions to public discourse and activism. It's been proven time and time again that online petitions and the like can be highly effective, as can crowdfunding of lesser-known charity projects. There are also circumstances where 'raising awareness' is a positive goal in and of itself.
I often see similar arguments applied to fiction, especially when readers and writers are discussing whether or not elements in a story are problematic. Much like the commentary on 'slactivism', there seems to be a notion that the ideas shared in non-physical spaces such books and websites don't have an impact on the 'real world'. Why should we care when it's 'just a story'?
I'd argue that fiction shares some important characteristics with 'virtual' activism. Most obviously, it's a way we share messages and ideas in a medium somewhat detached from 'real life' context. Potentially, our audience is scattered around the globe, but all occupying the same intellectual space for the time we're studying a petition or reading a story or watching a movie. Second, there is an ease involved. Regardless of what the end result is, it is physically easier and faster to email a petition to all of your interested friends than it is to go door-to-door canvasing; in the same way, enjoying fiction is a leisure activity, and it's easier to initiate a deep discussion about a fictional story (and keep said discussion civil) than it is to start a similar discussion about a 'real world' issue covered by the story (or shown as an allegory).
There are many, many ways to spread ideas, and there's no reason to feel that one tool is inherently superior to another.
Lucian Clark of GenderTerror wrote a very thoughtful essay on why labling all online activism, 'awareness' activities, and general discussion as slacktivism dismisses a large chunk of the population and their valuable contributions to public discourse and activism. It's been proven time and time again that online petitions and the like can be highly effective, as can crowdfunding of lesser-known charity projects. There are also circumstances where 'raising awareness' is a positive goal in and of itself.
I often see similar arguments applied to fiction, especially when readers and writers are discussing whether or not elements in a story are problematic. Much like the commentary on 'slactivism', there seems to be a notion that the ideas shared in non-physical spaces such books and websites don't have an impact on the 'real world'. Why should we care when it's 'just a story'?
I'd argue that fiction shares some important characteristics with 'virtual' activism. Most obviously, it's a way we share messages and ideas in a medium somewhat detached from 'real life' context. Potentially, our audience is scattered around the globe, but all occupying the same intellectual space for the time we're studying a petition or reading a story or watching a movie. Second, there is an ease involved. Regardless of what the end result is, it is physically easier and faster to email a petition to all of your interested friends than it is to go door-to-door canvasing; in the same way, enjoying fiction is a leisure activity, and it's easier to initiate a deep discussion about a fictional story (and keep said discussion civil) than it is to start a similar discussion about a 'real world' issue covered by the story (or shown as an allegory).
There are many, many ways to spread ideas, and there's no reason to feel that one tool is inherently superior to another.
No comments have been added yet.
