The Internet is taking over social life. Everything has shifted, not only to an online focus but an online dependence. Our social, political, cultural and economic lives have all come to be defined by our online presence. A business without a website is more rare than a political candidate without a Twitter account, and when somebody tells you that they don’t have a Facebook account, you can’t help but look at them like they’re cross-eyed.
Nevertheless, the question of Internet activity remains relevant as we navigate current issues. The way we use the Internet must constantly be evaluated so that it does not become a crutch for social belonging or self-esteem, but a vehicle for self-actualization. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, take a minute to Google Abraham Maslow.)
Pithy lines and academic jargon aside, there is a current Internet-related question that must be addressed in light of recent events. Modern movements like Kony 2012, Occupy Wall Street and the progression of the GOP race are all clear examples of the presence of armchair activism in our newly minted Internet age. Armchair activism existed long before the first iPhone came out, let alone when the PC was invented. But it is just now coming to see its full potential, what with the plethora of social media tools at our fingertips.
The current Urban Dictionary definition of an armchair activist (which is obviously most relevant here) is, “one who sits in their armchair or desk chair and blogs or posts activists issues … without ever really doing anything about said issues or exercising any form of activism.”
While this definition may be mostly accurate, it makes one assumption that is unfair to some social media and activists (both armchair and actual): namely, that armchair activism is not actually doing anything for the cause.
Online movements get a bad rap merely because they are online. Liking a status, sharing a video, or linking to an article is not seen as “real” action. Critics ask, “Why don’t you get out and do something?”
Sure, it’s not as physical as volunteering at a soup kitchen or signing up for Project Serve. But we cannot be so naive as to think that these actions have no effect. This assumption ignores the power that the online world has to aid a movement or help a cause. This power comes in two forms: informing individuals and spreading ideas.
Sharing the Kony video is nothing near flying to East Africa and volunteering for the Red Cross or Invisible Children. Arguing politics on Facebook with your great-uncle is not the same as attending a rally. But social media allows those who are unable or unwilling to take an active role a chance to play their part (however small that may be).
As I write this, the KONY 2012 video on YouTube now has more than 84 million hits. It may be hard to visualize just one person when faced with such a large number, but it took millions of individuals viewing, sharing and liking this video for it to reach the global significance it has achieved. Throughout this process, millions of people who as of last month were unaware of Kony’s existence are now informed of a real and relevant world issue. Regardless of criticism, it is always better to be informed than ignorant. Social media (and armchair activism, through it) allows for power to come to movements and causes through the sharing of information and the spreading of ideas.
All of that said, we must view social media as a tool, not as an end unto itself. If any goal expressed online is to be realized offline, there must be a follow through of practical efforts. Armchair activism is the key to creating social momentum by engaging and informing individuals. The key to seeing results is to use this momentum in a useful and practical way.
The long and short of modern armchair activism is that it is an opportunity for action that does not take much effort at all, but when taken collectively has the potential for large-scale influence. It’s what we have to work with, and from recent events, we know that it has the capacity to work quite well.
