ONLINE ACTIVISM

RMIT Politics Economies Communication

 

Cathy Greenfield, Associate Professor, Tuesday 27th May 2014

 

If you were to compare the ways in which political and social issues are dealt with today and prior to the introduction of widespread social media, how has activism changed with the advent of Web 2.0?

 

Well, I'm sure you'll already have some description of this in terms of easier, faster networking, use of FB. Ability to address and summon up more dispersed communities of interest around issues.  GetUp!, eg. Less reliance on existing organisations. But, along with these developments, you'd probably want to check out counter-intuitive evidence around the initiation of activism still stemming from organizations with a base that may have some embedded, offline element too. In other words, the danger is in just reading off the patterns of social use of dcts from their formal properties, rather than looking at empirical evidence of actual use.

 

How are involvement and attitudes toward political/social issues impacted by social media?

 

How about trying 'uses of social media'? rather than allocating too much agency to social media per se? For me, the question is, have social media been used in ways that have led to innovative, and/or more effective means of activism? By the way, what are you defining as 'activism'?  (Is it only 'progressive' political work?)

 

What processes are vital when raising awareness for a political/social campaign?

 

Does social media feed into this?  Do you mean knowledge like - what's your audience? what's the issue? what form of address will you use? will those audiences be on social media (and which one's) or not?  (Maybe there's a problem with 'social media' having a talismanic unity?)

 

How do you determine the line between social media being an instigator for change rather than a tool to promote change that was already brewing?

 

I'd pretty much discount social media being an instigator for change.  It's always about the uses to which it's put by particular actors.  

 

How does participation in an online campaign relate to an individual’s participation in offline social action (involvement in an activity that may cost them money and time)?  

 

Doesn't participation in an online campaign cost money and time? Oh, you mean less money and time? Less investment?  Perhaps this is why Shorten wants ALP membership to be possible online?...

 

What advice would you give to someone trying to get their political campaign noticed by the government/people who matter?

 

Work out whether 'the government' are interchangeable with the 'people who matter'.  I don't mean that lightly: a political campaign is about forming a constituency for your arguments, one that has longevity around the issue.  It's this constituency that is then going to be what is of interest to the other authority you're trying to influence.  If you've got a large constituency, that they can calculate might be a boon, or a problem to them and their designs on maintaining or expanding their constituency, then they're going to sit up and take notice ...

So, think about what kind of 'proof' of constituency you'll be able to muster.  Will it be numbers of respondents/amt of donated funds (GetUp! model ---- sure there must be articles on the GetUp! model and its US precursor...) or will it be responses on other media (Twitter -- can be written off as twitterati; or talkback radio) or will it be by polling evidence...   

 

I have discovered that online campaigns are a tool for raising awareness, but are not the key to creating tangible social and political change, it is what the public do with their new found knowledge offline that makes a difference. What are some suggestions you would give online campaigners trying to get their supporters to move away from slacktivism and get involved offline?

 

Maybe don't think online/offline but about what the issue is... So maybe defining yourself as 'online campaigners' is already a false start?