Culture Jamming as Activism

If you read my last blogpost, you will see that the phenomenon of slacktivism does have merit and should not be ignored or simply dismissed as ineffective. Slacktivism, however, is one of the various methods of activism that is common among grassroots culture. Another popular tactic of activism involves the concept of culture jamming. Culture jamming refers to the utilization and appropriation of existing media products, such as billboards, to disrupt or modify the message conveyed. Culture jamming as activism can be done in a variety of ways, such as through ad parodies, sabotage, or pranking.

In her essay, Pranking Rhetoric: Culture Jamming as Media Activism, Harold discusses these forms of culture jamming, but draws particular attention to the concept of pranking. She claims that pranking is the most effective because it temporarily disables marketer’s portrayal of authority and influence, rather than simply offering an alternative interpretation of existing media messages. Although I do agree with Harold on the potential influence pranks can have, but I disagree on the extent to which she says they are effective. I think in order to recognize the true motivations and intentions behind pranks, a critical perspective is required in the approach.

In this day and age, a critical perspective is not exactly a common approach of people viewing mass media messages (I am not saying it does not happen, I am saying it is not the norm). I am a communication studies student and although I do tend to perceive mass media messages from a critical approach, there remain many instances where I am more passive than active in my interpretations. For instance, if I were to see the Cat House for Dogs advertisement that was illustrated in Harold’s article, I cannot say with certainty that I would understand the intentions behind it rather than just simply reacting with shock and disgust. There are so many appalling things in our world that it is virtually impossible not to forget the existence of the “ugly” side. So, with pranks like the Cat House for Dogs advertisement, how are we to know that it is just that – a prank? Indeed, pranks vary in their shock value and the intentions behind one prank may be far more obvious than that of another. But if the intentions behind pranks are to disrupt the role of consumerist rhetoric to represent anything at all, as Harold claims, then should they not, at the very least, be comprehensible by the audience it targets?

Is Slacktivism Synonymous with Ineffective Activism?

In my last blogpost whereby I discussed the U.S. 2016 presidential election, I associated the lost battle against Trump with the concept of slacktivism. Due to the context, I represented slacktivism exclusively under a negative light. I now want to consider the benefits of slacktivism, as it is of vital importance to look at the phenomenon from both sides in the pursuit of attaining an authentic understanding.

Despite the lack of effort, dedication, and risk that characterizes the concept of slacktivism, this form of activism has the capacity to play a substantial role in changing existing societal conditions. Online movements such as Black Lives Matter and the Ice Bucket Challenge have demonstrated this potential influence. Although slacktivism does not produce a direct, immediate effect, such as the more committed activist methods may, it can have an impact in a variety of other ways.

Nothing can be solved if nobody is aware that there is a problem. Ergo, raising awareness is a pivotal element in the process of tackling a societal issue. This is what slacktivists do best. In consideration of this, however, it is important to recognize that the measure of influence slacktivism has does not rely on the activist as an individual, but rather the sum of activists as a united whole. The more activists there are, the louder their voices will be and the more their message will be heard. This increases the impactful strength of their movement.

To say that slacktivism does not hold the capacity to have a significant impact is to undermine the power that social media has on society. Even though slacktivism may not solve the problem its participants fight to change, it can generate increased scrutiny and pressure from the public on the matter. This is a big step towards producing change. Indeed, slacktivism does have the potential to birth powerful social movements that can lead to momentous societal change. We therefore must not underestimate the influential capacity slacktivism can have over the media concentrated, digital society in which we live today. Can you think of any other benefits that can come as a result of slacktivism?

Trump’s Presidential Election, Slacktivism & the Unreliability of Social Media

The 2016 U.S. election was, to say the least, particularly divisive. A major reason for this was the vehement promotion of racism by the alt-right Trump supporters. However, the alt-rights did not make up the whole of Trump’s voters, and his rhetoric was not perceived by all as a rigorous call for violence. Nevertheless, mainstream Western media made it appear this way. Largely as a result of this, many claimed they did not understand why anyone would support Trump. Unfortunately, this was repeatedly the concluding thought for many. In many cases, people did not attempt to reach beyond this thought; they did not strive to understand why. This unwillingness to understand is deeply problematic, and is possibly the most unfortunate aspect of this years’ election.

Having said that, I want to emphasize my condemnation towards the racist, sexist, and misogynistic ways of Trump. I am still sickened by the fact that such an oppressive individual was even considered for the presidential candidacy. A presidential figure should be at the very least reputable, stable, reliable, and moral. Throughout his candidacy, Trump displayed a substantial lacking in each of these qualities. Although the list of reasons to oppose Trump is extensive, the reasons to support him outweighed those in the end. Donald Trump is now the president of the United States. How did this happen? We may consider the concept of slacktivism to answer this prevailing question.

Throughout the election, social media was concentrated with anti-Trump propaganda; it was nearly impossible to use social media without viewing this subject matter. The ubiquity of anti-Trump propaganda made it seem as though vigorous progressive social change was near. The belief was that as long as we, united social media users, continued to protest Trump and his rhetoric, we could diminish his chances of winning the election, and with that, weaken and devalue the influence of his oppressive beliefs. As we now know, this was far from the truth. Trump was a likely candidate, but the slacktivism we viewed so frequently online had many of us distracted from the reality of that. People were not searching for the reality; they were searching for validation of their opinion. People were not open to understanding the oppositional side; they were merely looking to deprecate it. The narrowness of opinion and the unwillingness to engage in open-minded discussion was possibly the biggest shortfall of this particular election. This issue was compounded by anti-Trump slacktivism, as its’ ubiquitousness had many of us in denial of the possibility that he could win.

Social media networks have come to play a substantial role in the diversion of attention and the shaping of public opinion. The 2016 U.S. presidential election has exemplified this on a large-scale. With the consideration of events such as this, why is it that people continue to equate what is portrayed through social media with reality? If the outcome of this election has not adequately proven the unreliability of social media and its portrayal of reality to its followers, what will?

Internet as a Public Sphere or a Political Tool?

The Internet implies the democratization of communication as it encompasses many democratic characteristics. As indicated by Henry Jenkins, the Internet provides the public with the capacity to produce and share media on a large platform, which has led to many social changes, practices and movements that have bolstered grassroots culture. However, there are also ideas, such as those posed by Evgency Morozov, that highlight the ineffectiveness that is so common among many online grassroots campaigns, which are are largely a result of ideologies surrounding the platform. This is one of the many ways that the Internet’s systematic representation as a public sphere conceals the reality of the capitalist and profit-driven structures that have significant power and influence over the online world. Yet, due to the public’s lack of awareness concerning the infrastructures of the Internet, people continue to contribute to this capitalist system through their participation online. John Foster and Robert McChesney suggest there are various reasons for this lack of conversation regarding the inaccuracy of the ideologies surrounding the Internet that implicate it as an authentic public sphere.

The Internet has developed into a domain concentrated by large corporations due to its deregulation and privatization, which has paved the way for such corporations to dominate attention and visibility. Anderson and Wolff demonstrate this corporate domination through a variety of both historical and present examples. As a result of this domination, the Internet functions largely as a political and economic tool, one in which diverts user attention away from information that may threaten the power of the elite and other influential political structures. This is exemplified in the case of Bradley Manning’s release of classified documents onto WikiLeaks.

The deception that is so interwoven within the online world bolsters the unjustness and immorality that surrounds corporate ideology and practice. The widely known event of the collaborative workings of AT&T and the National Security Agency illustrate the power and influence that political and economic structures have over the digital sphere and the deception that encloses such practices.

Pierre Bourdieu argues that without the cooperation of the online audience, the capitalist nature of the Internet would not exist. The term prosumer, taken from Alvin Toffler, can help to illustrate the ways in which online users bolster their own exploitation as they contribute to the accumulation of capital through their participation within the capitalist system of the Internet.

Greg Goldberg claims that although online participation has become a fundamental resource in political and economic relations, the Internet still carries the potential for a public sphere. However, it is important to be aware of the reality that this potential cannot be reached unless individuals recognize the power relations involved within the digital world and are more aware of the ways in which their participation online is mediated and conditioned to favour the capitalist system.

Citizen Media and the Public Sphere

The digital public sphere and participatory media have become a large part of today’s society, therefore its examination is crucial in understanding the influences and consequences it has within communities, and our world at large.

The Internet and Citizen Media: Changing Perceptions of Success

The society in which we live today is vastly different from the society that existed only a few decades ago. The development of the Internet and the rise of citizen media platforms have resulted in a transformation in the production and distribution of media. The transformation lies not only in the way media is produced and distributed, but rather in the addition of an entirely new team of producers and distributors. Historically, large corporations and institutions controlled the means of production and distribution while the public was merely their audience. Today, the public plays a much larger, more powerful role. With a rapid rise in technological affordances, individual citizens are able to become producers and distributors. With the affordances of the Internet and the rise of citizen media, ordinary people that would otherwise have no means of cultivating an audience or disseminating a production have virtually everything they need to do so at their fingertips. Ready for these new producers is a vast audience that continues to grow each day. Essentially, the notion is if you have enough dedication and determination to rise to fame, the online world will assist you in doing so. Beckett and Flinders acknowledged this notion and tried it for themselves. Refer to Elana Cresi’s article, Lonelygirl15: How One Mysterious Vlogger Changed the Internet, to see the story behind how Beckett and Flinders fooled millions with their production of a YouTube channel character, Lonelygirl15, that of which quickly went viral.

Grassroots productions offer a sense of authenticity that is unique from what is offered by mass media, and as a result many people search for these sorts of productions. In a world where YouTube vloggers have the potential to develop into celebrities, the public’s definition and perception of success has had to undergo some drastic changes. This has of course provided many benefits to society, but what about the consequences? What negatives may come from this recent transformation in the production and distribution of media?

Social Media Networks as Platforms for Empowerment

Of the 7.4 billion people living in the world today (Population Reference Bureau), 3.5 billion are internet users (Statistica), and of this, 2.34 billion are users of social media networking sites (Statistica). As participatory social media networks become increasingly widespread and the population of users expand, participation in this domain grows increasingly necessary. Inclusion within this sphere has become the norm, and the lack of can therefore result in one’s isolation from modern society.

We know that social media networks are commonly used as a means to: stay in touch and share content with friends; express ideas and opinions; stay updated on current events, news and trends; network; and find outlets for entertainment. The power social media networks has given individuals to carry out these tasks is phenomenal. In regards to the sharing of ideas and opinions, this digital domain has not only allowed for immediacy in the distribution of content, but has also provided the potential for such content to become widespread. This immediacy and potential to reach larger audiences have empowered people as individuals, groups, communities and cultures, to share their ideas and opinions. Since participatory social media networks provide individuals with a platform, what is frequently seen in this sphere is people advocating for change, whether that be social, political, environmental, etc.

A prominent method of advocacy is via hashtags. Hashtags allow users to find and tap into a particular audience by simply hashtagging the primary message expressed by such audiences. For example, #LoveWins is a well-known online social movement that began on Twitter and addresses marriage equality. This hashtag was shared and discussed by millions, and prompted the creation of various additional advocacy strategies, such as Snapchat and Facebook with their rainbow-picture filters. The impact of online social movements such as that of #LoveWins is evidence of the power and influence people can have on participatory social media networks.