Changing the world takes more than mouse clicks

Mobilization for social, humanitarian or ecological causes often takes the form of events involving thousands or even millions of people. We all remember the anti-globalization demonstrations against the WTO summits, the workers' protests against the closure of their companies, the five million people who demonstrated in 100 cities around the world against FARC in Colombia. These monster demonstrations are an organizational challenge, and the number of demonstrators is in itself a measure of their success. By analogy with the world of the Internet, they are part of what we might call "activism 1.0", that which is visible, noisy, spectacular and sometimes dangerous for its participants.

In recent years, with the advent of the Internet and social networks in particular, support for major causes has taken on a different face. "Activism 2.0" is characterized by the presence of militant groups on the web, seeking to recruit support online and organizing large-scale real or virtual actions. Examples include petitions gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures, fund-raising events organized simultaneously in several countries, and coordinated individual actions such as the famous " hour without light" organized by WWF to raise awareness of excessive energy consumption.

But these new forms of collective action are currently giving rise to a major debate echoed on the web. What is the value of these mobilizations? Aren't they just the work of people who don't have the energy, the courage or, sometimes, the conviction to engage in genuine militant action? In short, a cushy kind of commitment that can be carried out from the comfort of one's office, without changing one's habits. The phenomenon of "online activism" has become so widespread that English-speakers have given it a name: slacktivism, a neologism merging the term "slack" (not serious, careless...) with "activism". Some highly critical observers go so far as to say that slacktivists are a nuisance: they are numerous but do nothing significant for the causes they claim to defend, while occupying the field. But the real problem, according to Evgeny Morozov, who recently spoke on the subject, lies in the fact that people who "militate" via Facebook and other social networks run the risk of considering that they've finished the job once they've signed the petition or added their name to the list of fans. This is obviously untrue, and in fact extremely naive. For example, the Facebook group "Save the Children in Africa", with 1.3 million members, only managed to raise 7,500 USD, i.e. less than one cent per member... Nothing to be proud of.

The solution to lazy activism: realism and action

So are we to conclude that social media is bad for causes? Without going that far, it's essential to come back down to earth, and add a healthy dose of realism to the utopia of the click that changes the world. Ivan Boothe, director of Rootwork, a strategic consultancy for NGOs and other citizen movements [now closed], points out that not-for-profit organizations are sometimes totally focused on recruiting new members and supporters, even if it means forgetting their primary mission, which is to act on a situation deemed intolerable. Social media can be invaluable tools for organizing mass movements and publicizing just causes, but they are no substitute for concrete action.

So how do you turn a "slacktivist" into an active campaigner? Evgeny Morozov seems to have some ideas on the subject. For, in his view, the question of numbers is irrelevant: in a very large group, each individual puts in less effort than he or she would in a small group. Morozov uses an amusing analogy to illustrate this point: if you sing "happy birthday" in a group of 50 people, you'll probably shout less loudly than if there are only 5 or 6 of you singing the song... So, how do we combat lazy activism? According to Morozov, members of a virtual movement should not be given certificates, trophies, virtual badges and other proof of membership until they have demonstrated their capacity for concrete action. On the contrary, we need to hand out tasks that are clearly linked to the cause in question, that are genuinely useful (and not just symbolic or occupational), and ask for feedback on the action taken. Morozov suggests developing tools to track the activities of supporters of great causes on Facebook and other social networks.

One click = one donation

There are already sites that enable their visitors to take concrete action. For example, the Free Rice site of the World Food Programme (WFP) allows Internet users to learn while doing humanitarian work: visitors answer questions on various subjects (art, English, French, chemistry, mathematics, etc.) and with each correct answer, the WFP's partner organizations (whose names appear on the site) pledge to finance the equivalent of 10 grains of rice. This is just another way of increasing the food stocks distributed to food-insecure populations.

This kind of initiative doesn't require any particular effort, but it does have concrete repercussions. Perhaps we should duplicate this model of action, so that Internet users can participate, click by click, in improving the planet.