One of the newest social media trends is the facebook profile picture filter. When there is a prominent social issue, facebook might come up with a filter that you can put over your profile picture. They first introduced the concept when same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide and they had a rainbow flag filter. It has been used a few times since then, but most notably, facebook created a filter to show solidarity with Paris after the terrorist attacks on Friday. While these filters have good intentions towards solidarity, these filters often both obscure the message of the movement they are trying to represent and discourage further social action by letting people think changing their profile picture is enough.
In 2014, Kirk Kristofferson, a doctoral student at the Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia in Vancouver did a study of the effect that doing a public or private token support action (such as a facebook post or a solidarity pin) has on a person’s likelihood to make a future significant contribution (time or money) to that cause. This study was very thorough and gives a lot of telling information about the ways people deal with altruism. The main thing that he found was that a public token support action does not increase the probability of a significant contribution, while a private token support action does. The reasoning behind this is that, when the main motive behind an action is the way it will look to others, we are not truly connected to the cause, whatever it is. When a person opts for private support, they will decide if the movement truly aligns with their values, and, if so, be more inclined to contribute to the movement in the future (Kristofferson 3). Because the key motivators for changed profile pictures are actually the social support that they get for being considered a socially conscious and active person, they decide to stop there. Having received approval from their peers, they need not plan future action or deeply consider if this is a movement they want to commit more than a few mouse clicks to.
The way that Harel Shapira explains a similar phenomenon for the Minutemen is a new way of looking at motives that focuses on the journey, not the end. Many of the Minutemen are looking for camaraderie and a sense of duty to their country that they can’t get anymore at their age. The decision to add a facebook filter, like the Minutemen's decisions to serve, is not motivated by the end goal of a movement (whether it’s an end to illegal immigration or queer equality), but by the social standing received with participation in that movement. Other than showing a group of people who already agree with you that you do, in fact, still agree with that thing, these actions make minimal progress towards the end goal.
The growing trend of “Slacktivism” in our culture can be seen as another way of “doing self”. If we return to Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis of people’s actions, we can see these posts as a performance. Their front stage shows a socially active individual, eager to show support for a struggle, while it’s possible that their back stage does not really understand what they’re fighting for. Their performance of cultural sensitivity is essential to be accepted within their group, and because social media has created such a low-effort, widely seen form of “activism” they use that. They never have to think more deeply or put more effort into the issue, because that box has been checked.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/02/why-you-should-stop-waving-the-rainbow-flag-on-facebook/
- http://www.jcr-admin.org/files/pressPDFs/110613150600_KristoffersonArticle.pdf
- Waiting For Jose by Harel Shapira
- Presentation of Self in Society by Erving Goffman
I find your post very interesting and I agree with you wholeheartedly!
ReplyDeleteWhile reading it I couldn't help but think of the Ice Bucket Challenge that was going on last summer. People of all backgrounds, but mostly of young college and highschool age, were posting videos to social media of their challenge acceptance and nominating their friends, then proceeded to dump a bucket of ice water on their heads. To me, it seemed just as a way to gain social approval and to show one supports the cause (but probably did not do anything past this point). However, after some research, I was surprised to find that the challenge raised over $220 million towards ALS research. So even though I saw it as a form of "slacktivism," it did have beneficial outcomes.
So, although these social media fueled campaigns and support may appear just to show oneself off to one's friends, is that always a bad thing? Should support be accepted even if people's motivations behind it aren't necessarily because they are 100% behind it?
I would argue that media though people may be doing it for individual reasons, it still brings the issue to light and shows those with the power to help that people back it.
I thought this idea of slacktivism was very related to the concept of dramaturgical analysis and "doing self". Unlike real life, I would argue that social media is entirely expressions given, rather than given off, because we are in intentional and conscious control of what we post on our social media (and everyone else knows this). When we post something about a social issue, we are "doing self" in a way that portrays us as caring, informed, and active citizens. Thus, the need may not be felt to follow up these expressions with more difficult, real-life actions.
ReplyDeleteWe talked about something very similar recently in my E&D class. We looked at Malcolm Gladwell's article "Small Change" which talked about how people use social media as a way to create social change but it really just makes weak connections between people and whatever charitable cause is trending, which doesn't actually create much change. He compared it to the sit ins of the civil rights movements and how activism back then was much more personable and therefore more effective. I'm not sure to what extent I agree with him, but I recognize how much people do really show social media support to jump on the bandwagon. It goes to show how social media really is just people presenting only what they want others to see of themselves. It also raises interesting questions as to what extent can social media actually be beneficial and at what point can it actually hurt a movement?
ReplyDelete