Does online "activism" (blogging, discussion, petitions, etc.) encourage or detract from offline activism?

Encourages/Translates into activism offline
43% (13 votes)
Detracts from activism offline
27% (8 votes)
Doesn't make a difference
30% (9 votes)
Total votes: 30
0
No votes yet

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Ms Hilton's picture

  Or we can consider

 

 Or we can consider online blogging and forums such as this one motivates and guides mainline media into picking up on items of  community interest. Who wags the tail ?

Could online activism be considered a more powerful tool than offline ?

Mainstream Canadians ignore or are offended by marches,sit ins or planned protests but are quite happy to repeat or become involved with topics which are simmering and bubbling in online community forums and just happened to get picked up by the media.

Faith based education funding was the push issue in the Oct 10 event and was the issue de jour for the past year in many Canadian forums.  Why not consider that  offline isn't as effective or desirable as online ?

Trev McNaughton's picture

my vote..

I'm gonna have to go ahead and say that I feel it detracts from offline activism..

computers are addictive, we saw this with solitaire in the early days of windows 3.11.  

while on the internet, there's this strange pull to avoid proper discussion, and jump pretty quickly into harsh arguments, assuming comments one person says means this, when it meant that..this thread seems to be a good example of it.. but I only read like 2 posts..

I also think the question is a bit restrictive to its answers.. instead of saying "offline activism", it should have been "changing the world", or "changing the system of control".

part of the problem with the internet vs. real life, is that they're the same damn thing.. there's no second reality.  I don't know if we're ready to use computers to change things yet,  I think the world is still stuck somewhere between napster, and internet explorer popups.. and the evidence is in threads like this.. all arguing, nothing gets accomplished..and we're still on computers that cost the same in resources, as driving an SUV for a year...

you wanna change the world, leave the office, or living room and change it.. no one listens to computer nerds.. 

.

[#londoncommonsnet] /me is 1337
jessica l.'s picture

thoughts

 Trev, you're definitely right that the answers to the poll are restrictive -- my bad, I guess I'll learn for next time. 

I find it interesting that you're the only one to flat out say that online "activism" detracts from offline activism...  You mentioned that the answers should have been worded as "changing the world." That's part of what I'm interested in -- how much of this so-called "online activism" is really working to change the world? 

The reason why I put "activism" in quotation marks is because I'm not sure whether the term can really be used when we're talking about people sitting at their computers and typing on their keyboards. In answer to Ron's question, "What does it mean to be an online activist?" -- I'm not too sure. I'm inclined to think that the term "activism" refers to some sort of action ... does sitting at your desktop at home qualify as taking action? I don't know. Maybe it does... Maybe insofar as it's used to spread the word, make people aware, and mobilize people in "the real world" so that social action and change occur. While I appreciate the potential that the internet -- and its various technologies like discussion boards, email, blogs, hell, even facebook -- holds for social movements, I hesitate to say that online activism is equal to activism offline. I don't think anything is really as powerful as when people come together, physically, in a shared space -- real one, not virtual -- to make a stand. 

 So this kind of leads me back to the original poll question... I'm curious to see whether people equate online activism to offline activism. As I've stated above, I don't think they're necessarily equal (but they are both certainly valuable and meaningful). I think a couple others have already mentioned that the real stuff happens in "real life." My fear is that people will consider being an activist online good enough -- i.e. because they take part in social movements on the internet (whether it be through email petitions, writing letters to politicians, keeping a blog, whatever), they no longer feel the need to take part in social movements off line. 

An example: I get emails every week from various organizations and what not, asking me to sign this petition, or write this person a letter, or forward this link to all my friends, or join this facebook group because for everyone 1,000 members $1 will go towards Cause 'x'. Maybe I do all of those things and then that's it. I sign the petition and then think, "okay, I've done my part for the Cause, I am an activist." Is it possible that this sort of thing happens to people all the time? What if everyone starts to think like that -- everyone will be signing online petitions, but nobody will be showing up to rallies or protests, or whatever. 

The point is, maybe new internet technologies hold loads of great possibilities for social movements... but maybe because they make being an 'activist' so easy (with the click of a mouse anyone can call themselves an activist) that it discourages people from actually going out there and taking some real social action, because they feel so satisfied with the small part they've done that they don't need to do any more. 

Of course, we can always argue that "anything is better than nothing," which is true...

I don't know. These are all just random thoughts; maybe they don't make sense and maybe it's a little cynical and non-sensical.

 

Oh, and just to be clear: I'm not saying there is anything wrong with online activism or that it's not legitimate or valuable... It certainly is, I just don't think it should be a replacement for activism that takes place on the streets. My fear is that maybe it does, a little. And I wonder if anyone else felt the same way.

 

 

 

Sean H's picture

Why Internet "activism" matters

To begin, I would like to acknowledge the points made by Amelia. We are all very privileged in many ways. I have said at times that political activism is a luxury of the rich and by that I mean our lives are not consmumed with basic survival. We have the time and opportunity to discover areas of interest and become involved in matters not of an immediate nature.

I think part of what is missing is what is "actvism"? The definition will change from person-to-person and some will see organizing as integral to activism, others will say education, everyone might agree it is consciousness raising, and some might argue activism must include a component of direct action while others will argue, no, activism, to have value, must be pacifist.

For me, I would reduce activism to a very simple definition: active dissent. And in that sense, activism becomes the act of speaking out whether it be on-line or in person or merely placing a sign in one's front window.

The reason on-line activism is critical is because it makes alternative voices available in a way that otherwise has never been possible. Your voice, my voice, your neighbour's voice, is seldom reflected in the mainstream media other than when there is tragedy or crime or a human interest that enables others to glimpse behind the social fences if only for a moment.

Blogging, alternative on-line media, sites like this, give everyone an opportunity to contribute to the dialogue and to read and recognize their own voices, or voices like theirs, saying the things we believe or feel or expressing the ideas that receive no play or no acknowledgement within the mainstream media. All of that is critical to knowing we are not alone.

But how does that translate into real and meaningful change in the real world? It doesn't. Not at all if we don't speak the truth loudly and without fear in public.

There is a sense among many that radical politics cannot succeed within mainstream institutions. But I believe radical politics cannot succeed unless it is injected into mainstream institutions.

Today, in your city, they are debating urban growth and sprawl. The proponents of continued growth cite jobs and the economy and denigrate those opposed as "socialists" and "anti-growth". On the otherside the argument centers around managing and paying for growth while protecting woodlands and other natural features.

What is missing from the debate are simple truths and radical ideas.

One simple truth is that the subdivisions being built today will not be sustainable tomorrow and they rob all of us of precious resources that could be used to fund a radical idea: rebuilding our inner-cities and transportation systems  on a human scale and with an eye to an uncertain future in a changing world and with simple principles at the heart of every plan -- everyone needs a home and everyone needs food.

On-line activism is the sharing of voices but it must be met with activism in the places where activism is least welcome.

 

Ron Logan's picture

thanks for the thoughts

This is a great topic: thanks for starting it jessica l!

As I stated eariler this got me thinking on the term online activism and broadening beyond the definition of it being issue oriented campaigning.

The Wiki definition describes this type well:

"Internet activism (also known as electronic advocacy, cyberactivism, and online organizing) is the use of communication technologies such as e-mail, web sites, and podcasts for various forms of activism to enable faster communications by citizen movements and deliver a message to a large audience. These Internet technologies are used for cause-related fundraising, lobbying, volunteering, community building, and organizing."

Here's a great read on the power online organizing has for activists:

 Online Activism 2.0: Movement Building from ZNet

 

But the concept of cyber space being the new public space intrigued my thoughts on pushing this definition to individual and collective activism in online 'communities' such as the LC.  But I really don't feel talking about the nature of this site is very welcomed so I'll just leave it there.

 

jessica l.'s picture

please add your thoughts

I recently sat in on a panel discussion about “digital dissent” (including blogging and other forms of online “resistance”). One of the speakers said that when interviewing political bloggers, most of them claimed that their online activist work did not detract from their activism offline (in the “real” world).

I know that the LondonCommons isn’t a “political” site per se (i.e. not necessarily dedicated to “digital dissent” or “online resistance”), but I gather that a lot of the LC members are activists, both online and offline.

I wonder whether people find that forms of online activism encourages social action offline, or whether it in fact detracts from it – either because of lack of time, or because people might get the feeling that being an activist online is “good enough” to replace “real life” action.

 

...thoughts?

Matti Paquiz's picture

hmmm...thanks for asking.

my opinion: 'internet activism' is just a small part of a well rounded strategy of facilitating soc'l change/justice. the questions i try and ask myself, when helping to 'organize' have been concerned with access. and at this time , the interweb is not the most accessible thing out there for organizing.

 for instance, i believe some activists and organizations would benefit from workshops on 'manipulating media' - ie. the big media: news outlets. these are still the people who get the most viewers and readers. their circulation hits people of all political stripes - not just the progresseives and converted. it is accessible (not necessarily fair, but definitely accessible).

my perception on a lot of lefty' sites is a movement towards stagnation. that is, a narrowing of discussion and points of view and a lack of content. in short, lack of diversity and creativity.

 the internet is a tool to promote ideas, issues, and events. the real stuff happens away from it.

again... my opinion.

 

and welcome to the LC. 

PEACEonTHEstreetsOFoldEAST... -mp

amelia does's picture

ps community is political

If my last post to this thread seemed like I wasn't addressing the question...

the site networks like-minded individuals in activism and community events/activities and discussion. what aids the the creation of community where people are engaged with eachother and not walmart for example is political. therefore, online "activism" as we are calling it is progressive to me. As I stated earlier, the forum is a privilegde. having an opinion is not a priviledge, having a forum for discussion, computer access and the freedom to express yourself (for the mostpart in Canada compared to other countries) is priviledge. We don't have to necessarily work 50 hrs a week, live in squalor or live in a warzone. can we recognize that? we are working on making the site a place where people feel respected. this is a time of general confusion, anxiety, "terror" and mass-manipulation. We are all responsible to civilize ourselves, and I am sorry that we don't yet all feel respected on this site. For the mostpart i feel that many of us are working on this common goal.  

   

Ron Logan's picture

beating a dead horse

I agree with your opinion that online activism should not be more importaint that the real in the street activism and access is an importaint issue however if 'activist' or 'lefty' sites were open to things other than their focus what would be the point? 

Should an ARA website be open to anyone?  Is such a site stagnet for their movement? 

Lack of diversity in what manner?  If there is no respect for diversity on a website than how does one expect to feel safe and welcomed?  This site, for example, is full of users who consider themselfs activists yet see nothing wrong with using and/or justifing others using sexist and homophobic langauge (ie. arguing that calling somthing gay in a negative is not homophobic).   In most cases the users who argue such language is not exclusive are people not affected by the words themself.

Personally I would not consider the vast majority of what I have read on this site as activist or social justice minded at all in comparisson to activist circles I have been invloved with.  Sorry if that offends anyone but that's the way I see it.

Online activism needs to complemente the real in the street activism.

Nothing more - nothing less. 

 

  

Matti Paquiz's picture

hi ron... i think...

hi ron... i answered the question that jessica posted to readers here.

if you would like my opinion/answers to your questions, specifically regarding lefty/ activist sites we can start a new thread. unless you insist on an answer or answers on this one.

and finally, the LC is not just for activist/ lefty types. just to remnd you. however i do understand a lot of activist/ lefty's are here. that said...

mad love to all my activist and lefty brethren and sistren!!!! 

 

PEACEonTHEstreetsOFoldEAST... -mp

Mike McGregor's picture

new threads

please please please don't go spinning off new threads for every aspect of the conversation... it gets really messy, really quick. 

-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos

amelia does's picture

bitchy us

I am personally greatful for this site BECAUSE it leads me not only to know what is going on in london (activism etc) but to meeting people who are like-minded, and learning about their thoughts and pursuits. Some of us took the time to address issues raised by ron, although he was not satisfied with that. I do not always expect people to respond to my concerns. But this site is a FREE service run by (and used by many) leftists who give their time for our community: not perfect human beings. I wish we'd all wake the hell up and realize the priviledge that we have. Half of the world's population wakes up starving on a dirt floor. We have to realize (mysef too) that our community is not perfect but will improve if we can all try a little bit.    

ron says:

"Personally I would not consider the vast majority of what I have read on this site as activist or social justice minded at all in comparisson to activist circles I have been invloved with.  Sorry if that offends anyone but that's the way I see it."

I don't find this to be true, and I don't see the necessity for this site to be all activism 24-7. The point is we are -- or we are trying to create -- a Community here.  A goal of that being inclusiveness and of course respect for diversity. There are things to be worked on but why do we have to take shots at a free resource like this? 

Ron Logan's picture

Activist offline but not online (part time activists?)

Let me clarify something right up front: I am not attacking this site unless questions and opinions are considered an attack.  

I believe I am responding to the question (which as I read it is about activist sites and their effectiveness) put forth here and the conversation that has started around it.

You put forth that “my perception on a lot of lefty' sites is a movement towards stagnation. That is, a narrowing of discussion and points of view and a lack of content. In short, lack of diversity and creativity.”  Yet didn’t feel the need to start another thread but I guess I should for some reason.

To me your sentence touched to a sentiment by some users (I refuse to use members since it is becoming increasingly meaningless to me here) of this website who identify themselves as activists. Do I really need to give examples? Because I will if required.

This touchs on points I have raised in the past and will continue to do so as long as I feel it is important (is a person’s opinion a privilege?) but was not the point of posting to this thread which in the context of this discussion is an present example of where does online activism begin/end?

This is a clear example of what I’m taking about.  Would you as an activist except it when the government has said “we listened to you…we don’t agree…please be quite now...we’re working hard for you”. Thankfully a bunch of 'uppity women' didn’t buy this notion and now women can actually have a voice in public realms.

Is this website (and the identity it ensues for some users) above criticism?

But until the mandate of this site reads “We the few pay, make, and run this site for you to enjoy” I will use my ‘privilege’ in voicing my opinion.  (*I have seriously considered coming to a meeting as has been suggested by some yet when is that going to be?)

Sorry if I have offended any part time activists. 

Back to the topic and my unanswered questions within the topic direction:

Clearly OCAP, ARA, Feminist blogs, ECT. as activists have a narrow discussion focus in order to unite and organize change.  Is that limiting diversity by shutting out white supremacists?

Does diversity of opinion include all views including hateful ones?

What is online activism? Am we not engaging in it by the very questions we raise? What gives any activists the right to go tell society we won’t except intolerance but then can’t challenge ourselves? After all you’re right: none of us is perfect. 

I’m just asking questions and if you are taking it personally (which I feel by the avoidace in your responses) there’s not much I can do although this little discussion has made me decide my vote in this poll: Detracts from activism offline.

*To jessica l: it was not, nor is, my intent to get your topic off track.  Sorry if this has happened. 

 

Matti Paquiz's picture

whoah there!

 hey ron;

didn't mean to offend, if i did. and i said "WE", as in you (ron) and i (matti), can start a discussion on why i (matti) think what i think. unless you (ron) thought it better to discuss it in this thread. never meant to stifle your opinions and viewpoints.

firstly, i beieve we have common ground as evidenced in our posts: 

me: "the internet is a tool to promote ideas, issues, and events. the real stuff happens away from it."

ron: "I agree with your opinion that online activism should not be more importaint that the real in the street activism and access is an importaint issue..." , and, "Online activism needs to complemente the real, in the street activism."

secondly, DO NOT PUT WORDS iN MY MOUTH! when i say "a lack of diversity and creativity", it can mean anything... don't go straight to the paranoid-knee-jerk reaction of invoking infiltration by boneheads. i have much respect for OCAP, ARA, and Feminist Blogs.

thirdly, i (matti) did not accuse you of attacking this site i believe that was another poster. i (matti) just reminded you that the site is not just for those who style themselves as lefties. 

and lastly, who are you calling out to when you say "part time activists". that's pretty presumptuous considering you don't know all the folks on this site, no? 

ron. jessica. amelia. mike. anyone and everyone gimme' a ring. we'll have coffee and discuss my thoughts and yours on 'activism' in london. i'd really like that.

 

PEACEonTHEstreetsOFoldEAST... -mp

Ron Logan's picture

questioning online activism

I did not put words in your mouth - that's why I asked the questions.

I agree we have much common ground or I would not engage in this discussion though do feel that I have been no less or no more 'knee jerking' then either yourself or amelia.  I understand the the defensiveness by some users around this website but don't want to 'censor' myself because of that.

I do find the topic and others views very interesting.

My first reply to you perhaps would have avoided the confusion if I had asked it in the following manner: Please elaborate with examples on your words 'lack of diversity on leftist sites'. 

Don't be surpirsed when somebody like myself questions what I consider a bizzare definition of tolerance by many users who call themselfs activists on a particular website.

Your sentance touched (reminded me of) that sentiment I have read by some on this website.

The part time activist comment is facisous to amelia's comment of 'the site not being activist 24/7': the topic is online & offline activism and activist websites.  She wrote that 'this site is a FREE service run by (and used by many) leftists who give their time for our community': if the people running this site believe they are leftists but allow for oppressive language to be used under the banner of free speech than I challenge their 'leftist' beliefs.  And from poking around in the website's history I see I'm not the first. This is what I am citing as a present working example of 'online activism.'

I want to make something clear: I am not commenting on this site in this thread at all but some of the users who define themselfs as activists in context to this website which is the topic and a working example. 

I think I ask a very litgitmant question: why is certain language exceptable by activists within their own circle (or online community as it is cited here) but not in the outside community? If one supports the ARA then one cannot logically support the right for neo-nazi's (or anyone for that matter) to spread hate or oppressive language in the public sphere. 

I have been consitant in this point and I see relavence to this topic which has made me think even more: what does it mean to be an online activist?

Cyberspace is a new form of public space.  Activists use and defend the public space to create a more just world by challenging unjust practices and habits of the norm.

Is an online activist exstending their worldview online in public fourms or is online activism just building webpages dedicated to social justice issues.

As for a coffee: thanks - we're having one right now. In public.

(Yummy fair trade coffee in my tummy.)

Here are my questions to further the topic discussion:

1) Matti: Please elaborate with examples on your words 'lack of diversity on leftist sites'. 

2) Everyone: What does it mean to be an online activist? Can a line be drawn and where is the line drawn?

 

 

Matti Paquiz's picture

thanks for clarifying.

thanks ron.

ummm. click my pic. and gimme' a ring. honestly, i find your posts intriguing and would like to speak about this face to face. words on a screen pale in comparison. 

PEACEonTHEstreetsOFoldEAST... -mp

Ron Logan's picture

communication always worth the time & patience

your welcome.

It is all too easy for any of us to misread intent at first and I agree fully that words on a screen pale in comparison to face to face interaction.

For my own reasons it is unlikely that I will call you (thanks for the offer) but perhaps we will meet at an event in London sometime soon although most of my 'real life' activism takes place back in Toronto.   As I said earlier I find the conversation interesting and does have productive elements but as we all agree fail to compare to real life action.

 

 

 

Mike McGregor's picture

The K may have insights...

 I think Kamilla may have written a whole thesis on this, or a similar subject. A quick Search turned up this: 

-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos

2008 LondonCommons.net / About / Terms & Policies