HELLO.

A portmanteau of the words ‘click’ and ‘activism’, clicktivism is defined “the use of social media and other online methods to promote a cause.” Often used as a pejorative term, ‘clicktivists’ are typified as ‘armchair activists’, pledging their support to causes simply via signing an online survey or liking a Facebook page, whilst not contributing to the cause beyond their laptop or smart phone, having achieved that ‘feel-good’ rush of endorphins they were after. The term was recently legitimised by the Oxford dictionary, who announced they would be adding it to their online platform in February. 

 

The term’s popularity has been catalysed by the current wave of political activism gripping the Western world in response to highly discussed topics such as Brexit in the UK, and the Trump presidency in the US. Much of this discussion has taken place online, and naturally on social media. Social media is often responsible for giving birth to new terms, resulting in them gaining currency until they integrate into popular discourse. Another word often banded about on social media, ‘haterade’ (excessive negativity, criticism, or resentment) was also added to the Oxford dictionary at the same time as clicktivism. With every new batch of words added to the dictionary comes a reflection of the current climate; as we saw previously when many Brexit-related terms were legitimatised during the last update. 

 

“We are getting a convergence of high-level politics and online language in quite a new way,” said Oxford dictionary’s head of content development Angus Stevenson. “We had all the words around Brexit in the last update and we are now starting to see all the words around Trump coming into the dictionary.”

 

Stevenson said that new terms from Trump, his supporters and opponents were emerging more rapidly than in the past. “We have lots to add all the time. We don’t have ‘fake news’ or ‘alternative fact’ this time, because they have just started gaining currency, but I am sure they will be in the next update,” he added.

 

Clicktivism is not a new term. The number of people politically active online has been steadily on the rise since the general election in 2010. Six million people in the UK have signed or started a digital petition on Change.org, a global website with headquarters in San Francisco, which launched in April 2012. And 3 million people in the UK are members of 38 Degrees, a web-based activist organisation founded in memory of the late campaigner and founder of the Body Shop, Anita Roddick.

 

The pejorative connotations of the word are seated in the belief that those branded ‘clicktivists’ are subscribing not to the cause they pledge their support to online, but to the selfish notion of that feel-good ego boost that you feel when you like that anti-animal cruelty charities Facebook page or retweet an article decrying Theresa May and her political party. Critics have voiced their concerns that this is simply serving to satisfy the need to feel as if they’re contributing to change whilst achieving very little, in favour of taking practical action to enforce change such as attending political rallies or becoming members of action groups. It appears political engagement has been watered down to the clicking of links with very little commitment involved. And perhaps this is the case. Interest in politics appears to be at a high, with last June’s referendum seeing a national turnout of 72.2%, whilst political parties member numbers have sunk to an all time low. Less than 1% of the electorate - some 360,000 people - is a member of one of the three main political parties; a quarter of what party membership was 30 years ago. 

 

Micah White, co-creator of Occupy Wall Street and writer of Clicktivism: The Pollution of Activism with the Logic of Silicon Valley, is one such critic. He argued, “Clicktivism is to activism as McDonalds is to a slow-cooked meal. It may look like food, but the life-giving nutrients are long gone.” 

 

There are, however, many who praise the phenomenon of online activism. Clicktivism is not exclusively the act of pledging support to, or promoting a cause online. It also encompasses organising protests, facilitating boycotts, crowdfunding and keeps the public informed. Serving the higher goal of utilising digital media to raise awareness for, and to facilitate, social change and activism. Platforms such as Change.org and 38 Degrees have counted many triumphs as a result of their online campaigns. 

 

38 Degrees, for example, was behind the campaign to help stop England's publicly owned forests and woodland from being privatised. In 2011, half a million people put their name to its petition forcing the then environment secretary Caroline Spelman to do a U-turn. More recently, they launched the ‘Protect the BBC’ campaign, successfully preventing Radio 6 Music from closure, whilst campaigning heavily against political interference at the BBC, in particular, campaigning against Boris Johnson’s demand that the next director-general of the BBC be a supporter of the Conservative Party. 

 

The use of online activism as a tool for enacting change should not be dismissed as a valuable weapon in the public’s arsenal. The internet and all its respective platforms are available to anyone with access to a computer, and thus provide an outlet for those who have little or no other options in order to get their story told. They potentially reach millions of possible supporters; some of whom may possess the power, whether in numbers or professional position, to enforce tangible change. "Digital campaigning shouldn't be seen as a threat but as a challenge,” stated spokesman for the Electoral Reform Society, Will Brett. Online activism also works towards eliminating elitism and the idea that you have to ‘earn your stripes’ to become an activist. Anything which provides an opportunity to pull an individual into activism that may never have even considered it before cannot be deemed useless.

 

The use of online activism has been recognised by the House of Commons, with the Commission on Digital Democracy of 2015 recommending that by 2020; the House of Commons should ensure that everyone can understand what it does, second, that Parliament should be fully interactive and digital, and third, (arguably most importantly) that secure online voting should be an established option for all voters.

 

The convergence of politics with the online world is a natural evolutionary step; politics must reflect its electorates interests to remain relevant and effective. This is how politics must adapt in order to keep up with the modern world. Otherwise, they fail to engage the 18-24 year old demographic, and promote elitism and exclusion. Whether ‘real’ activists like it or not, the world of politics and online must unite if the former is to galvanise and engage with the ‘Gen-Z’ demographic of 18-25 year olds.