Performative activism in the age of convenience
Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, Martin Luther King Jr. marched on Washington, Mahatma Gandhi went on a hunger strike, and Americans spilled tea into the Boston Harbor. Activism and boycotting are not foreign concepts and have proven effective in achieving equality and creating a voice for marginalized communities. Yet somehow, telling people to abstain from drinking Starbucks coffee, eating McDonald’s, or watching Disney causes discourse and discomfort surrounding its political context. How is it that despite the discourse and public opposition, there is a blanket of solidarity through activism? And why has this “solidarity” seemingly died out in a digital age of interconnectedness?
Newspapers and print are the oldest forms of written communication. I mean, it is 2024, and that is probably how most of you are reading this article. Despite its ability to inform audiences at moderate prices, it was slower, and many controversial topics were heavily censored or shunned within these spaces. Society was also heavily divided at this time, either by racial segregation, war, sexism, or homophobia, but people still managed to rally together in solidarity. By building community, protestors and activists brought media attention and public awareness to their issues, which fostered legislative and policy change. In the eye of political hurricanes, Civil Rights, Women’s suffrage, and Gay Rights movements found their way out of the storm and into the board rooms of policymakers. So why has the activism of today become so performative?
We were watching this phenomenon unfold before our eyes and are barely halfway through the decade. The beginning of 2020 catalyzed this online activism through social media outlets for numerous reasons. The global pandemic created a technological dependency on connecting with others, which is quick, reliable, and convenient, as we were all trapped inside our houses for the unseeable future. Simultaneously, The Black Lives Matter and MeToo movement began to catch the media’s attention, and naturally, it started to create a buzz on social media. Regardless, many people did not understand the complexity of the issues and were either using the hashtags for clicks and rage bait, lazily reposting a tweet to show their “solidarity” to avoid being canceled, or making no statement until their favorite celebrity did.
This creates a spectacle out of equality and transforms it into a disingenuous game of politically correct ping pong. People rely on celebrities and social media to form their opinions and expect more accountability from them than their local and national legislators. Rather than finding educated and reputable sources for others to learn more about these social media campaigns, misinformation and “slacktivism” are deemed more important.
So many celebrities and social media influencers “liberalize” themselves to maintain popularity but do not believe in the messages they send to their followers, which distracts attention from social movements and harms the support they receive. Celebrities are not the only ones to blame; social media algorithms play a major role in shaping activist narratives. The means and credibility of news distributed through these channels gravely impact how information is perceived. Misinformation is just as dangerous as complacency, as both of them ignore the marginalized communities that are being impacted.
In a landscape where digital connections create echo chambers and bias, it is important to understand these movements’ depth and cultural impacts. Authenticity in a world full of performance and lacking accountability can be hard to find. Remember to stay well-educated, turn your online outrage into real-world impacts, and amplify voices that the static may drown out. What may be a hashtag for you are words that inflict pain and struggle that others can not utter.