Cut the slacktivism

The chilly Portland, Maine wind buffeted myface as I, along with several of my peers, canvassed hundreds of houses in order to pass a referendum that would rollback the influence of the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. While in Portland, we informed registered voters on the specifics of the referendum, asked them if they planned on voting in favor of it, and then recorded this information. In the span of 3 days, we managed to garner the support of over 17,000 people who planned to vote for the referendum at the polls. As a result, the referendum passed in a stunning 55 to 45 percent vote. After witnessing the extraordinary success of our canvassing, a perplexing thought arose: If this method of outreach is so effective in changing the political landscape, then why is canvassing almost obsolete in contemporary politics?

{mosads}Well, canvassing has taken a backseat in politics because it has been replaced by “slacktivism,” or methods of reaching an audience via minimal effort. Today, minimal effort means using popular social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter to reach an ample amount of people with a single post. Slacktivism’s inherent laziness disqualifies it as a real agent of progress because it does not possess the enthusiasm necessary for change. How can a post on Facebook inspire necessary action, especially when sitting down on a comfy computer chair? Indeed, the passion one may feel disappears, with a simple scroll or is drowned out by the other slacktivist posts. These conclusions led me to the main problem with slacktivism: it creates an environment conducive to stagnation.

The downfall of slacktivism arises with its premise; as slacktivism’s style of minimal effort and utilization of social media prioritizes the “safety” of the poster’s beliefs, or failure to expose them to proper critique. When a person posts a status on Facebook or Twitter, they are essentially reaching out to people with similar beliefs to the ones they already hold. People who agree with the post can “like” or “favorite” it, yet these functions lack comprehensive meaning.

Yes, the “liker” agrees with the post, but why? In Maine, I discovered that the truth in politics lies within complex nuances. Even though people agreed with the referendum I spoke of, many did so for different reasons: some alluded to the constitution; I agreed because I believed it was pragmatic from a moral standpoint. In fact, when I viewed the referendum from a purely constitutionalist standpoint I opposed the referendum. This problematic encounter with the unique process in which people arrive at their decisions made me ask, “What really is the best starting point?” Is it the conservative constitution, modern pragmatism, or the morality society deems correct? The thought-provoking dialogues that I engaged in with voters in Maine enabled me to begin my journey as a multi-dimensional thinker.

The talks I had in Maine became central to my political philosophy of approaching different beliefs with an open mind. Unfortunately, the growth I experienced in Maine could not have been possible on the Internet. Although slacktivists will argue that social media platforms may generate meaningful discussions, they are mostly wrong. For one, slacktivist posts strive to reach many people and, in the end, reach nearly the same audience every time, those who are their “friends” on social media. The limited audience of the slacktivist exists as one of their major downfalls. In addition, they fail to take into account that people tend to unfriend those who post statuses on social media that contradict their core political beliefs. This, therefore, promotes the idea that people manipulate their social media accounts to curate a fictitious atmosphere with homogenous political opinions.

Most importantly, a slacktivist cannot fabricate a magical post that revolutionizes a person’s ideology enough that would compel him or her to switch political affiliation. Another significant lesson, which I learned from those who held opposing political beliefs, is that it’s unrealistic to change a person’s political beliefs. The only thing one can do is carefully construct questions regarding the validity of those beliefs. A post cannot radically shift closely held values; change requires an ongoing internal conversation that you must start. People cannot hide behind the anonymity of a screen in a face-to-face conversation; their character is at stake, and consequently they are willing to listen.

Today, there is no adequate replacement for canvassing due to the level of human engagement involved in the process. In the end, slacktivism cannot compare to canvassing because it does not complete their ultimate goal: actualizing a clear political dialogue.

Taveras is a first-year student at Columbia University pursuing a degree in economics.