See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https:www .researchgate.ne tpublic ation315934649 [630406]

See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https://www .researchgate.ne t/public ation/315934649
Activism or Slacktivism? The Potential and Pitfalls of Social Media in
Contemporary Student: [anonimizat] · April 2017
DOI: 10.1037/ dhe0000061
CITATIONS
10READS
6,349
3 author s, including:
Some o f the author s of this public ation ar e also w orking on these r elat ed pr ojects:
Whit eness View pr oject
Emotions of Whit e Racism View pr oject
Nolan L. Cabr era
The Univ ersity of Ariz ona
58 PUBLICA TIONS    1,083 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
Robert o Mont oya
State Univ ersity of Ne w York Upst ate Medic al Univ ersity
15 PUBLICA TIONS    247 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
All c ontent f ollo wing this p age was uplo aded b y Nolan L. Cabr era on 11 Oct ober 2017.
The user has r equest ed enhanc ement of the do wnlo aded file.

Journal of Diversity in Higher EducationActivism or Slacktivism? The Potential and Pitfalls ofSocial Media in Contemporary Student: [anonimizat], Cheryl E. Matias, and Roberto MontoyaOnline First Publication, April 3, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000061CITATIONCabrera, N. L., Matias, C. E., & Montoya, R. (2017, April 3). Activism or Slacktivism? The Potentialand Pitfalls of Social Media in Contemporary Student: [anonimizat]. Journal of Diversity in HigherEducation. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000061

Activism or Slacktivism? The Potential and Pitfalls of Social Mediain Contemporary Student: [anonimizat], DenverThe emergence of social media has greatly influenced 21st-century student: [anonimizat]. Ithas also given rise to the birth of “slacktivism,” an online form of self-aggrandizing,politically ineffective activism. This theoretical article delves into the conceptualiza-tions of what constitutes student: [anonimizat] 2, we highlight how most discussions of activismdescribe how activism is done as opposed to what it is. Within this context, we offer10 theoretical underpinnings of activism and slacktivism to serve as conceptual pointsof self-reflection that student: [anonimizat], we argue, is critically important as thedistinction between slacktivism and activism becomes increasingly muddied. Forstudent: [anonimizat], students need tobe clear about whether they are engaging in activism or slacktivism.Keywords:slacktivism, armchair activism, student: [anonimizat], power, hegemonyIn 1970, Gil Scott-Heron wrote the classicspoken-word recording, “The Revolution WillNot Be Televised.” Within it he offered,You will not be able to stay home, brotherYou will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop outYou will not be able to lose yourself on skagAnd skip out for beer during commercialsBecause the revolution will not be televisedDespite the popularity of TV, Scott-Heron(1970) thought social progress occurred in thestreets and not on the couch. Forty-five yearslater, commentators are furiously debating therole of social media in political activism. Forexample, conservative commentator AndrewSullivan (2009) proclaimed during the uprisingin Iran, “The revolution will be Twittered,” ashe saw social media playing a central role infostering social change. Conversely, MalcolmGladwell (2010) delivered a scathing critique ofInternet activism in “Small change: Why therevolution will not be tweeted.” Within hispiece, he argued social media does very little toproduce tangible social change and is becominga substitute for in-person activism. These de-bates involve the perceived importance (or lackthereof) regarding social media in contempo-rary social movements. The situation has be-come more complicated as social media is in-creasingly utilized by contemporary, grassrootsorganizers (Obar, 2014; Obar, Zube, & Lampe,2012), including college students (Biddix,2010). Yet embedded in these online activitiesare instances of lackluster support hidden underthe guise of simple “shares,” “likes,” and “fa-vorites.” Can online displays of support equateto activism or should they be seen as “slacktiv-ism”? Christensen (2011) succinctly definedslacktivism as “political activities that have noimpact on real-life political outcomes, but onlyserve to increase the feel-good factor of theparticipants” (p. 1). Thus, social media createNolan L. Cabrera, Center for the Study of Higher Edu-cation, University of Arizona; Cheryl E. Matias, UrbanCommunity Teacher Education, University of Colorado,Denver; Roberto Montoya, Urban Ecology Program, Uni-versity of Colorado, Denver.Special note to student activists: May you always allowyour heart, spirit, and intellect to guide your participation inthe struggle for a more equitable, socially just society.Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Nolan L. Cabrera, Center for the Study of HigherEducation, University of Arizona, College of Education,Room 327B, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, AZ 85721. E-mail:ncabrera@email.arizona.eduThis document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.Journal of Diversity in Higher Education © 2017 National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education2017, Vol. 1, No. 2, 0001938-8926/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000061
1

tensions for contemporary activists because itposes the central and ongoing question, “Am Iengaging in activism or slacktivism?”Historically, college student activism hasbeen at the center of higher education curricu-lar, faculty, and student body diversificationefforts—in particular along the lines of race/ethnicity (Rogers, 2012; Rojas, 2006; William-son, 2003). However, most social movement/social activism scholarship is retrospective innature and centers how activism is done asopposed to what activism is (e.g., McAdam,1986; McAdam, & Paulsen, 1993). In a digitalage, forward thinking is increasingly importantfor activists because without an understandingof what constitutes activism, it can be difficultto grapple with the aforementioned questionregarding activism/slacktivism. As Freire(2000) reminds critical self-reflection is a corecomponent to the development ofconscientiza-ção(the combination of critical consciousness,self-reflection, and engaging in antioppressive,collective action). Thus, one component of ac-tivism is self-interrogation, but how can onemeaningfully do this if they cannot define ac-tivism? Within this context, we develop andoffer 10 premises regarding the nature of activ-ism.We build the 10 premises in the followingway. First, we offer Lukes’ (2005) three di-mensions of power because competing powerdynamics are at the core of activism, yetpower is rarely defined explicitly in theseanalyses. Second, we highlight how collegestudent activism has historically been at thecenter of many higher-education diversity ef-forts. Third, we offer the empirical literatureon slacktivism, highlighting how the distinc-tion between activism and slacktivism isblurry and sometimes activism, in a digitalage, relies on the slacktivism of the masses.Finally, we offer 10 premises generally rootedin seminal scholar/activism literature that fur-ther help delineate the core of what activismand slacktivism are. We do this because stu-dent activism has been at the center of push-ing higher education to be more democraticand inclusive (Broadhurst, 2014; Pasque &Vargas, 2014), and therefore grappling withthe tensions slacktivism poses is central torealizing this potential in a digital age (Bid-dix, 2010).What Is Power and How Is It Related toStudent Activism?Within institutions of higher education, stu-dent activism has historically challenged thepower structures that exclude minoritized pop-ulations from full participation (P. Lee, 2011;S. A. Muñoz, 2015; Rogers, 2012; Rojas, 2006).To explore the nature of power we rely onSteven Lukes’s (2005) three-dimensional view.We think Lukes’s theorizing of power is themost relevant to this analysis for two reasons.First, his three-dimensional view offers a morenuanced and thorough understanding than thecolloquial X participates in decision makingthat affects Y (although this is part of his for-mulation). We detail these nuances later in thissection. Second, Lukes’s (2005) radical viewmost closely aligns with the epistemologicaland ontological perspectives that tend to guidethe type of social activism explored in this ar-ticle.Within Lukes’s (2005) three-dimensionalview of power, each additional dimension isboth a critique of the previous that also incor-porates components of the others. According toLukes, the one-dimensional view of power in-volves A exerting his will over B, making B dosomething he would not have done of his ownaccord. For example, a campus administratorcreates a “free-speech zone” making other areasof campus off limits for social protest. This is anexercise of power because the campus admin-istrator (A) compels students (B) to containtheir protest activities to a specific area whenthey could, otherwise, protest throughout thecampus. The two-dimensional view additionallyargues that if B makes a plea to A for a policychange, A has the ability to enact change anddoes nothing; this is also an exercise of power.For example, if student protesters (B) demandthat a campus administrator (A) only allowsweatshop-free clothing to be sold in the studentunion, and the campus administrator ignores thepetition, this is a demonstration of power in andof itself.Then, Lukes (2005) critiqued the one- andtwo-dimensional views as being overly behav-ioristic, arguing that power can also be exer-cised through social structures which are be-yond the scope of individual decisions. Thisleads to the third dimension, which incorporateshegemonic forces. Hegemony refers to the cul-2 CABRERA, MATIAS, AND MONTOYAThis document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tural and discursive practices, which make so-cial oppression appear naturally occurring asopposed to structured (Gramsci, 1971). Thepower in this structure, according to Lukes(2005), is that it restricts the range of optionsavailable to the masses, and reflects the prefer-ences of the dominant social class. For example,institutions of higher education pursue out ofstate students to increase tuition revenue eventhough this pushes out low-income and racialminority students (Jaquette, Curs, & Posselt, inpress). Within this neoliberal paradigm, institu-tions try to maximize their individual marketshare, but the logic of capitalist production isleft unquestioned (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2000).Thus, neoliberalism limiting the range of op-tions for institutions of higher education is anexample of power. Conversely, student activistsagitating to make institutions more open andinclusive can also be an example of exercisingpower (Biddix, 2010; Pasque & Vargas, 2014).Student Activism and Campus DiversityStudent activism has been central to increas-ing campus-based diversity whether the issueinvolves affirmative action (Rhoads, Saenz, &Carducci, 2005), curricular diversity (Rhoads,1998b; Rojas, 2006; Slaughter, 1997), facultydiversity (P. Lee, 2011), or supporting undocu-mented students (Gonzalez, 2008). Across aswath of diversity-related issues, student activ-ists have been at the center of advocating forincreasing inclusion, making the college cam-pus a more democratic space (Broadhurst, 2014;Rhoads, 1998a; Rogers, 2012; Rojas, 2006;Williamson, 2003). Some have even argued thatthese forms of social protest are developmentalmechanisms for students learning and being in-volved in participatory democracy (Biddix,2010; Kezar, 2010; Rhoads, 1998b; Slocum &Rhoads, 2009).There is a small, but growing area of researchthat explores relationships between student ac-tivists and institutional agents (e.g., Gaston-Gayles, Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, Ward, &Tuttle, 2005). Frequently, student activists andrepresentatives of colleges/universities areframed as mutually antagonistic entities. AsBarnhardt (2014) argued, “[Activist] tactics op-erate as a public expression—by a group—thatchallenges the taken-for-granted authority rela-tionship” (p. 45). Kezar (2010) modified thisnotion by arguing that faculty and staff partner-ing with student activists can actually help, col-lectively, to push institutions of higher educa-tion to be more democratic, inclusive spaces.Gaston-Gayles et al. (2005) offered a similarargument specifically focusing on the history ofstudent affairs professionals. They highlighthow prior to the 1960s, student affairs profes-sionals were primarily disciplinarians. This erashifted the ethos to one where student affairsprofessionals are more mediators who, interest-ingly, are also able to promote social change oncampus.While many have written about college stu-dent activism, few have actually defined it. Forexample, Rhoads (1998a) clearly operational-ized student demonstrations as “visible publicprotests organized by students to call attentionto a particular concern or set of concerns” (p.vii, italics in original). Within this importanttext, however, Rhoads never defined studentactivism. Instead, he began with action (studentdemonstrations) and worked backward, definingthose engaged in the action (activists). This is avery common theme in the scholarly literatureas most analyses regarding campus-based stu-dent activism tends to focus on discrete histor-ical movements and instances of social protest(e.g., Biondi, 2012; Cohen & Snyder, 2013;McAdam, 1986; C. Muñoz, 1989; Rogers,2012; Williamson, 2003). Frequently rooted insocial movement theory, many of the analyseseither center the tactics/repertoires of the activ-ists (e.g., Barnhardt, 2014; McAdam & Paulsen,1993; Van Dyke, 2003) or explore the develop-mental opportunities that student activism of-fers (e.g., Biddix, 2010; Kezar, 2010; Rhoads,1998b). These scholars did not have to concernthemselves with differentiating between activ-ism and slacktivism because they focused onevents which were already deemed activism.Thus, we are left with how Justice Potter Stew-art defined pornography inJacobellis v. Ohio(1964): “I know it when I see it.”One scholarly piece that comes closest todefining activism is Urrieta’s (2009)WorkingFrom Within. His analysis focused on Chicanaand Chicano educators who work to affect so-cial change within educational institutions. Heargued traditional forms of activism (e.g.,marches and boycotts) were not the only waysthat change can occur, and sought a more ex-pansive view of activism. Despite this, he did3ACTIVISM OR SLACKTIVISM?This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

not explicitly define the underlying conceptualunderpinnings of what constitutes social activ-ism much like the rest of the scholarship in thissection. Thus, the analyses of student activismdo not offer a means to answer the centralquestion, What is student activism? We returnto this issue in our 10-premises section, but wefirst address, What is slacktivism?What Is Slacktivism and How Is It Relatedto Activism?Analyses of student activism tend to be sep-arated from analyses of slacktivism; therefore,we need to rely on nonhigher education schol-arship to frame this concept. Slacktivism hasbeen divided into five subcategories: clicktiv-ism, sympathy, political, charity (direct), andcharity (by-product of consumption), and theterm tends to be pejorative (Christensen, 2011;Morozov, 2009; Vie, 2014). Christensen furtherargued that slacktivism is not a new phenome-non. For example, the term was actually createdin 1995 as a synonym for “armchair activism”;however, contemporarily slacktivism has be-come equated with politically ineffective, on-line actions (Morozov, 2009).Although Morozov’s (2009) bookNet Delu-sionis one of the most cited pieces regardingslacktivism, he only mentioned slacktivism on 6pages of the 408-page book. The book wasactually written in opposition to Internet utopia-nism. Many social commentators, according toMorozov (2009), were quick to dub the Internetan inherently antiauthoritarian and democratiz-ing sphere, and this never materialized. Forinstance, Morozov analyzed the number of peo-ple who “liked” the “Saving the Children ofAfrica” Facebook page versus those who actu-ally donated. He argued that the 1/100 of onepenny donated (on average) by every personwho liked the page would be better served ifpeople actually had strong ties to a specificcause. That is, the cause would have been betterserved if all those people who liked the pageactually dedicated some time and resources toit. This is commonly referred to as the “replace-ment thesis,” where slacktivism takes the timeand energy of more meaningful engagement.In defining slacktivism, political ineffective-ness is a core characteristic (Christensen, 2011;Morozov, 2009), but scholars disagree abouthow to operationalize efficacy (Vie, 2014). Forexample, Vie (2014) analyzed the HumanRights Campaign’s Facebook campaign that en-couraged supporters to change their profile pic-ture to the red logo in support of gay marriage.While the individual actions of changing profilepictures could be deemed as mere slacktivism,Vie (2014) argued the massive online responsehelped the issue gain prominence in the populardiscourse. Vie (2014) furthered this discursiveshift challenged societal power dynamics, andas a whole was an effective form of onlineactivism.Furthermore, delineating between activismand slacktivism is conceptually difficult to op-erationalize because the line is very blurry (e.g.,Christensen, 2011; Jones, 2015; Hu, 2014;Y.-H. Lee & Hsieh, 2013; Obar, 2014;Segerberg & Bennett, 2011; Šteˇka & Mazák,2014). Each is a descriptor of behavior wherethe same individual can sometimes engage inactivism, other times slacktivism, and some-times participating in slacktivism is a precursorto involvement in more meaningful social pro-test (Kristofferson, White, & Peloza, 2013).Šteˇka and Mazák (2014) explored political en-gagement in the 2013 Czech parliamentaryelections, and they found that those engaged intypical forms of slacktivism were also morelikely to also participate in traditional forms ofsocial activism. Obar (2014) additionally ar-gued that slacktivist activities were central tothe strategies of larger advocacy groups; how-ever, Obar also noted smaller advocacy groupstended to focus on more traditional forms ofactivism because they could not divert theirlimited resources to risky slacktivist activities(Obar, 2014; Obar, Zube, & Lampe, 2012).Y.-H. Lee and Hsieh (2013) found that peoplewho signed a petition were significantly morelikely to give money to that particular cause.Interestingly, they also found that people whodecided not to sign the petition, were signifi-cantly more likely to donate to a completelyunrelated cause, a phenomenon the authors re-ferred to as moral balancing.Jones (2015) had similar findings when an-alyzing social video sharing. Though videosharing is often considered slacktivism, Jonesfound that these activities related to increasedactivism. In fact, Jones (2015) went as far asto specifically critique Morozov, claiming,“there is no evidence for Morozov’s substitu-tion thesis” (p. 12). Instead of activism/4 CABRERA, MATIAS, AND MONTOYAThis document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

slacktivism being an either/or, Jones found itwas more of a both/and situation. As Karpf(2012) argued in his analysis of MoveOn,“Digital activism is not a replacement for theFreedom Riders of the 1960s; it is a replace-ment for ‘armchair activism’ that arose fromthe 1970s interest group explosion” (p. 8).Karpf (2010) further clarified that, for exam-ple, signing petitions were not an end in andof themselves, but were the means to the endof gaining access to people in power.There is, however, a downside to slacktivism(Breuer & Farooq, 2012; Cornelissen, Karelaia,& Soyer, 2013; Waugh, Abdipanah, Hashemi,Rahaman, & Cook, 2013). For example, Breuerand Farooq (2012) found in a Brazilian anticor-ruption campaign, entertainment-based forms ofengagement on social networking sites didnothing to increase offline participation in thecampaign. Others claim that engaging in “click-tivism” as a public display of morality can haveimmoral consequences (Cornelissen et al.,2013). Interestingly, Cornelissen et al. (2013)found those who publicly “liked” a cause weremore likely to privately engage in immoral be-havior after their public “morality” was estab-lished.Kristofferson, White, and Peloza (2013) alsoexplored the difference between public versusprivate displays of slacktivism. Specifically, themore private the slacktivism, the greater thelikelihood of subsequent and deeper engage-ment with a cause. For those primarily engagedin public displays, the opposite was true (Krist-offerson et al., 2013). Thus, slacktivism be-comes counterproductive when it moves thefocus from the cause to the individual. Withineducational contexts, Matias (2014) argued thatnarcissism is central to White teachers who“save” urban students of color. Regardless tointent, Matias argued such “altruism” in thiscase is a narcissistic maneuver that functionallyassuages White racial guilt and is ineffective atserving students’ needs. If narcissism and inef-fectiveness are cornerstones of slacktivism,what are the foundations of activism? A consis-tent theme in the student activism scholarship isthe competing power dynamics that either fosteror inhibit social change (Barnhardt, 2014; C.Muñoz, 1989; Rhoads, 1998a, 1998b; Urrieta,2009; Van Dyke, 2003).Ten Points of Reflection: Student Activismand SlacktivismWe are centrally concerned with the question,“Am I engaging in activism or slacktivism?”This is difficult to assess because definitions ofsocial activism are scant in the scholarly litera-ture (see Student Activism and Campus Diver-sity section). Within this context, these prem-ises are intended to explore the nature of studentactivism and slacktivism, which can serve aspoints of critical self-reflection as a core com-ponent ofconscientização(Freire, 2000). Whileour primary purpose in offering these 10 prem-ises is to support student activists, they willlikely have relevance to university staff, faculty,and administrators. Kezar (2010) argued thatcampus social change is most effective whenuniversity employees partner with student ac-tivists, but frequently these relationships do notform because faculty, staff, and administratorsmisunderstand the purpose and nature of activ-ism as we later elaborate.Premise 1: Student Activism Involves anIntentional, Sustained Connection to aLarger CollectiveWhile we are proponents of individualagency development, that in and of itself isinsufficient to promote social change. As Ca-brera (2012) argued, “A social movement ofone is not a social movement at all” (p. 396).Therefore, for actions to be considered studentactivism, they must be intentionally connectedto a larger group. As Anyon (2014) offered,educational reform will not happen until activ-ists collectively work with others to “engage incontentious politics” (p.163) that go beyond theexpectations of “organiz[ing] a movementalone” (p. 163). Thus, it is important that local-ized activism (contentious politics) be contex-tualized among larger challenges to oppressivesocial structures (a movement).Defining this larger group becomes increas-ingly difficult in a digital age. For example,Waugh et al. (2013) found in the 2013 Austra-lian Federal Election that many candidates hadinflated numbers of Twitter followers becauseof fake accounts. These were then used to createa false sense of a candidate’s popularity becausetheir tweets would be favorited and retweetedextensively by automated profiles. This is one5ACTIVISM OR SLACKTIVISM?This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

example of how measuring the scope of onlinenetworks is difficult to assess; however, thisdoes not undercut the importance of virtual so-cial ties in contemporary student activism. His-torically, student activism entails organizing acollective of people toward a larger social goal(Barnhardt, 2014; Broadhurst, 2014; McAdam,1986). This collective is a means by whichstudents have exercised their power in advocat-ing for campus reform (Rojas, 2006), and com-pelling institutions to respond (i.e., the first di-mension of power; Lukes, 2005).Social networks are foundational to creatingthis collective, and in the digital age it usuallyentails developing them both online and in per-son (Biddix, 2010). The online, however, can-not be a substitute for the in person (Chris-tensen, 2011). Part of what makes slacktivismso frequently ineffective, in particular “clicktiv-ism,” is that it can remove people from thecollective (Kristofferson et al., 2013; Morozov,2009). That is, the more public the display ofslacktivism, the lower the subsequent engage-ment with a larger social movement (Kristoffer-son et al., 2013).Premise 2: Student Activism InvolvesDeveloping and Exercising PowerThe complexity and nuances of power offersa more thorough analysis of what constitutesactivism versus slacktivism. For example,Lukes (2005) argued that exercising powermeans making a group to do something theywould not otherwise. This distinction is criti-cally important in operationalizing student ac-tivism versus slacktivism. If an action does notcompel the other side to react, there has been nomeaningful demonstration of power. Thisshould not be misconstrued to imply that activ-ism necessarily results in a stated goal. Whenthere are competing power dynamics, there isno predetermined outcome, and thus, activismcannot be defined by wins and losses. Rather,when student activists do not compel their op-position to respond, their demonstration ofpower is minimal.Sometimes, the student activist strategy in-volves building awareness around an issue (Vie,2014), but this type of organizing provides ad-ditional nuance to analyses of slacktivism andpower. Awareness campaigns develop a constit-uency of empathizers focused on a specific issuesuch as breast cancer (Jacobsen & Jacobsen,2011). The actual cultivating of empathizers isnot an exercise of power per se, because it doesnot compel anyone to act (Lukes, 2005). Rather,it is more the development of potential powerthat can be later exercised in the form of directaction, lobbying, or even fund raising (Jacobsen& Jacobsen, 2011; Vie, 2014).An interesting contemporary example of ac-tivism and power dynamics comes from theOccupy movement that started as a critique ofWall Street greed and spread to dozens of col-lege campuses throughout the country (Mc-Carthy, 2012; Wollan & Harris, 2011). Manyhave declared Occupy a failure because they didnot secure any structural or policy changes interms of alleviating income inequality (e.g.,Mataconis, 2012; Weiland, Guzman, &O’Meara, 2013). Returning to Lukes’s (2005)third dimension of power, hegemonic structur-ing limits the range of acceptable options avail-able to the masses, reflecting elite interests. Dueto the efforts of Occupy, the term “The 1%” hasentered the popular lexicon and income inequal-ity is an issue open for discussion. In this sense,Occupy opened a closed discourse on incomeinequality, but it was only through exercisingtheir counterhegemonic discursive power.Some have offered a similar critique of Oc-cupy to the movements of the 1960s. Anyon(2014) acknowledged there still exists massiveracial disparities despite the efforts of 1960sactivism, but she also claimed, “[T]o argue thatthe Civil Rights Movement failed, is to trivial-ize the mass oppression that went on before” (p.149). Thus, student collective action does notrequire social transformation to be activism.Conversely, a key distinguishing feature ofslacktivism is there is no meaningful cultivationor exercise of power (Christensen, 2011; Krist-offerson et al., 2013).Premise 3: Most Contemporary StudentActivism Utilizes Social Media, but Not AllSocial Media Usage Is Activism andSlacktivism Is Contained on the Internet,but Not All Internet Activity Is SlacktivismAll too often, the use of online platforms toadvance activist goals is simply derided asslacktivism (e.g., Gladwell, 2010; Morozov,2009). We argue that it is too simplistic todefine all online activism as slacktivism, even6 CABRERA, MATIAS, AND MONTOYAThis document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

though many commentators have overstated theimportance of social media in contemporarysocial movements. For example, former Presi-dent George W. Bush security advisor MarkPheifle declared, “Twitter and its creators areworthy of being considered for a Nobel PeacePrize” because of its role in the civil unrest inIran (Khan, 2009). Clearly, this was a far reach,but it does not make the opposite true: thatsocial media use only represents slacktivism.One need only examine the online presenceof contemporary student organizers such asBlack Lives Matter (http://blacklivesmatter.com/),United We Dream (http://unitedwedream.org/), and theDream Defenders (http://www.dreamdefenders.org/) to understand thathaving an online presence is critically importantto 21st-century student activism. From an em-pirical perspective, Obar (2014) and Obar,Zube, and Lampe (2012) found that while thereis uncertainty about the efficacy about socialmedia usage in activist campaigns, virtually ev-ery Canadian and U.S. organization in theirsamples had an online presence. Thus, socialmedia are tools and as with any other, they canbe used effectively for social change or ineffec-tively as self-gratification. The core consider-ation is whether or not an online presence is atthe service of cultivating or exercising power(see Premise 2).The individual gratification coupled with po-litical ineffectiveness is a key defining charac-teristic of slacktivism (Cornelissen et al., 2013;Kristofferson et al., 2013). In particular, themore public a display of support for a causeonline, the more likely the action represents ofself-serving slacktivism as opposed to sociallytransformative activism. There is nothing inher-ently wrong with people in activist circles feel-ing good about their efforts. The problem ariseswhen the self-gratification becomes an end inand of itself as opposed to a byproduct of theaction.Premise 4: To Be a Student Activist Is aDescription of Behavior as Opposedto an IdentityThroughout this article, we primarily focusonactivism/slacktivismas opposed toactivists/slacktivistsbecause the former are descriptionsof behavior whereas the latter are descriptionsof identities. Focusing on whether or not a per-son is or is not an activist unintentionally un-dermines the importance of student activism. Ifactivists engage in activism, what happenswhen the activist slips into slacktivism? We arenot interested in working through the nuances ofindividual activist identity as that terminology(individual activist) is an oxymoron (Cabrera,2012). Instead, we are guided by DiAngelo’sconception of being a White person engaging inantiracist practice: “I am a white woman whoseacademic, professional, and personal commit-ment is for people of color to decide if, in anygiven moment, I am behaving in anti-racistways” (Multicultural, social justice educator,2015). Her focus is behavior and we prefer thisanalysis because action is of central importancein activism.Many think of themselves as activists justlike many think of themselves as antiracists, butconcurrently take no actions in support of thecause they support. Additionally, even thosewho engage in activism can slip into irrelevancedue to inactivity. For example, Alinsky (1989)offered,The trouble with a long jail sentence is that (a) arevolutionary is removed from action for such an ex-tended period of time that he loses touch, and (b) if youare gone long enough everybody forgets about you.Life goes on, new issues arise, and new leaders appear.(p. 156)Much like DiAngelo, Alinsky focused his anal-ysis on action/inaction. For those who are jailedfor protracted periods of time, their abilities toengage in activism are severely limited. If toomuch inactivity occurs, Alinsky argued that thegrassroots moves on as inactive people becomeirrelevant. Contemporary student activism fre-quently relies on social media as a componentof organizing (Biddix, 2010), and this begs thequestion, Does a social media hiatus also lead toactivist irrelevance in a digital age?Premise 5: Student Activism Must Entail aDegree of RiskAk e yd i s t i n c t i o nb e t w e e na c t i v i s ma n dslacktivism is the risk that each activity re-quires. “Liking” a Facebook page generallydoes not put a person in danger, but engaging inactivism does. McAdam (1986) analyzed thedifferences between those who participated in7ACTIVISM OR SLACKTIVISM?This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Freedom Summer1versus those who did not.Through his empirical work, he proposed a the-oretical distinction between “high-risk activ-ism” and “low-risk activism.” Implicit in thisformulation is that risk (at varying levels) iscore to anything under the umbrella “activism.”This makes intuitive sense given the centralityof power dynamics contextualizing social activ-ism. That is, because social activism is aboutchallenging power structures it will incur a levelof risk taking.The concept of risk adds a contextual layer tothe issue of activism. Civil disobedience as anexercise of the first dimension of power (Lukes,2005) has been a hallmark of student activismsince the 1960s (C. Muñoz, 1989; Rojas, 2006;Williamson, 2003), but not all who engage incivil disobedience incur the same level of risk.For example, U.S. citizens who conduct civildisobedience for undocumented students to re-ceive in-state tuition may receive a financialpenalty or probation for their actions, but un-documented students engaged in similar behav-ior could be deported and separated from theirfamilies (S. A. Muñoz, 2015). Even DREAMerswho disclose their undocumented status canface deportation (S. A. Muñoz, 2015), which isa more serious consequence than documentedallies face by being part of this larger move-ment. Sensitivity to risk is critical in assessingwho should be involved in separate componentsof the larger movement. If there is no risk isinvolved, however, there is no activism and itfrequently becomes a manifestation of slacktiv-ism (Gladwell, 2010; Morozov, 2009).Premise 6: Student Activism Must BeGuided by a Utopian Vision or a Vision ofWhat Social Progress Looks LikeStudent activism for the sake of activismbecomes a form of public narcissism under theguise of promoting social justice (Urrieta,2009). To combat this, localized actions have tobe contextualized within visions of social prog-ress and possibilities of a nonoppressive future.Thus, activism relies on the creative imagina-tion of activists; the imagination to envision afuture that does not currently exist and is fre-quently not even discussed due the power ofhegemonic structuring (Lukes, 2005). As Freire(2004) argued:If, in reality, I am not in the world simply to adapt toit, but rather to transform it, and it is not possible tochange the world without a certain dream or vision forit, I must make use of every possibility there is not onlyto speak about my utopia, but also to engage in prac-tices consistent with it. (p. 7)Freire did caution that this vision of futurespossible is irrelevant if it is not linked to col-lective action as an exercise of collective power(Lukes, 2005). However, in order to get to apoint of action, student activism relies on thisvision as a starting point for action.Solórzano and Delgado Bernal (2001) made asimilar argument when they examined differentforms of student educational resistance. Theyidentified four, and not all are equally effectiveat promoting equity based upon the intersectionof (a) critiques of oppression and (b) beingmotivated by social justice. If, a student has nocritique of oppression and is not motivated bysocial justice, Solórzano and Delgado Bernal(2001) argued they are engaging in reactionarybehavior. If a student critiques social oppressionand is motivated by social justice, the authorsargue this represents transformative resistanceand can actually promote social change.2Within these formulations, the critique of op-pression is important, but counterproductive ifnot complimented by a vision of social justice.They further argued that students who critiqueoppression but have no way to channel it fre-quently do self-harm (e.g., drop out of school).The distinction is critically important, butalso highlights a limitation of this article. Thereis some student activism that is at the service ofoppression instead of being a challenge to it.For example, affirmative action bake salescould be considered a form of activism, but theyexist at the service of systemic racism by bothdenying the existence of minority student op-pression but also framing White students as the“true” victims of racism (Park, 2013). There-fore, we are not dismissive of this type of stu-dent activism, and instead we want to be ex-plicit that this type of theorizing is beyond the1Freedom Summer refers to the approximately 700largely White volunteers who, in 1964, volunteered to travelthrough the South to register Black voters (McAdam, 1986).2They also exploredself-defeating resistanceandcon-formist resistance, but a description of these additionalforms is beyond the scope of this article. We exploredreactionary behavior as an example to juxtapose againsttransformative resistance.8 CABRERA, MATIAS, AND MONTOYAThis document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

scope of the current article. Instead, we under-stand social progress in the Freirian (2000)sense where oppression is the antithesis of hu-manity, and therefore, antioppressive collectivepraxis allows all to become more fully human.While a central component of Freirian peda-gogy is a strong criticism of oppression, critiquewithout a vision of social progress can fosternihilism (West, 2005). To combat nihilism hopeis necessary (Freire, 2004).Premise 7: Hope Is Foundational forStudent ActivismFreire (2008) referred to hope as “an onto-logical need” (p. 2), but too often hope is con-fused with optimism. West (2005) offered animportant distinction:This hope is not the same as optimism. Optimismadopts the role of the spectator who surveys the evi-dence in order to infer that things are going to getbetter. Yet we know that the evidence does not lookgood. . . . Hope enacts the stance of the participant whoactively struggles against the evidence in order tochange the deadly tides of wealth inequality, groupxenophobia, and personal despair.Within this formulation, hope is a foundationfor creating the vision of social progress (Prem-ise 6), and therefore, it is also a core componentof student activism. However, the relationshipbetween hope and slacktivism is not as clearbecause it is not simply the polar opposite ofactivism. For example, a person could be hope-ful, take action, have no connection to a largercollective (Premise 1), and might be engagingin slacktivism. Thus, the presence of hope doesnot necessarily mean the presence of activism,but in the absence of hope there is no activism.Specific to educational space, Duncan-Andrade (2009) agreed that hope is founda-tional to addressing inequality, but he did notfind all manifestations of hope equally effective.He argued that hokey hope, mythical hope, andhope deferred all represent “false hope” in thatthey do nothing actually support the progressiveeducational social change. For example, he de-finedhokey hopeas at the belief that hard workallows minortized youth to overcome oppres-sive circumstances (p. 182). He then describedmythical hopeas believing that social progresswill naturally occur over time with no critiqueof the social structures that perpetuate inequal-ity. Finally, he definedhope deferredas thosewho are aware of social oppression, but areoverwhelmed by the odds stacked against themand they do not act (p. 184). Instead, Duncan-Andrade (2009) argued that onlycritical hopeeffectively addresses inequality.Critical hope is a multifaceted approach toeducational practice in that it involves (a) ad-dressing the material conditions of the urbanyouth; (b) critical self-examination that engagesyouth pain in a method of illuminating sharedexperience and fostering a sense of sharedstruggle; and (c) breaking down barriers be-tween advantaged and disadvantaged communi-ties as a means of fostering radical healing (p.187). Freire (2004) offered a similar sentimentby claiming, “After all, without hope there islittle we can do” (p. 9). Plainly, hope becomesan essential element needed to undergird socialactivism; however, both Freire and Duncan-Andrade acknowledged that hope by itself isinsufficient. Rather, hope is a necessary attri-bute that fuels the struggle whether manifest inperson or online. Essentially, hope is the onto-logical need of student activism (Freire, 2008).Premise 8: Even Though Student ActivismSeeks to Change the Political Landscape, ItIs Not the Same as Political Governance(or Campaigning)During the 2016 U.S. Presidential primarycampaigns, there was considerable misunder-standing about why Black Lives Matters (BLM)interrupted self-described socialist Bernie Sand-ers’s speech. Many commentators viewed theBLM interruptions as alienating potential allies,and several expressed disdain for their tactics(Carson, 2015; Forgue, 2015). These criticisms,however, were predicated on confusing socialactivism for political campaigning. Politicalcampaigns require candidates to secure thehighest percentage of votes to win office, andthey frequently become popularity contests. Wedo acknowledge, however, that they are notpurely popularity contests as evidenced by the45th president being elected despite losing thepopular vote by approximately 3 million votes(Krieg, 2016).By contrast, the function of activism is tofoster social change, frequently through creat-ing social tension, and popularity is not theprimary concern. For example, in 1966 Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr., had a 72% negative9ACTIVISM OR SLACKTIVISM?This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

rating according to a Gallup poll (Appleton,1995). Contemporarily, there is almost univer-sal approval of Dr. King’s life work, and Apple-ton (1995) argued, “The overwhelming ap-proval which Dr. King is remembered todaystands in ironic contrast to the way he wasperceived by White Americans while he wasalive” (p. 11). Some reasons for his unpopular-ity included Dr. King’s scathing critique ofU.S.-based imperial violence in Vietnam andhis use of direct action as a form of agitation(Branch, 2013).Agitation is a key component to student ac-tivism, but this term frequently has a negativeconnotation. W. E. B. DuBois, however, offereda different interpretation:They say: “Do not agitate—do not make a noise;work.” They add, “Agitation is destructive or at bestnegative—what is wanted is positive constructivework.” Such honest critics mistake the function ofagitation. A toothache is agitation. Is a toothache agood thing? No. Is it therefore useless? No. It is su-premely useful, for it tells the body of decay, dyspepsiaand death. Without it the body would suffer unknow-ingly. It would think: All is well, when lo! dangerlurks. The same is true of the Social Body. Agitation isa necessary evil to tell of the ills of the Suffering.Without it many a nation has been lulled to falsesecurity and preened itself with virtues it did not pos-sess. (DuBois, 1971, p. 4)Within this formulation, agitation functions as asocial conscience that awakens the masses tothe suffering they have ignored. This is not apleasant process because, as the cliché goes,ignorance is bliss, and the predictable response,to use another cliché, is to shoot the messenger.Social media, however, offer new avenues forcollectives to foster this type of agitation viacyberspace, and effective agitation provokes aresponse and is therefore an exercise of power(Lukes, 2005). One need only examine the im-pacts of “Black Twitter” to understand this po-tential (Clark, 2014). While there is the possi-bility to create agitation via social media,slacktivism is largely defined as being politi-cally ineffective which also means it is definedas being unable to cause the social disruptionactivism seeks to create (Christensen, 2011).Fundamentally, the agitation is both a necessaryand unpleasant component of student activism,but this is also part of the reason activists arefrequently unpopular (Bashir, Lockwood, Chas-teen, Nadolny, & Noyes, 2013).Premise 9: Very Few People ActuallyEngage in Student ActivismOne of the biggest points of contention in theactivism/slacktivism debate surrounds a mis-identification of activism within a larger, inten-tional, collective effort. For example, peoplewho “like” a cause on Facebook, are frequentlyaccused of engaging in slacktivism (Gladwell,2010; Morozov, 2009). While the lines betweenactivism and slacktivism are blurry where onecan frequently lead to the other (Y.-H. Lee &Hsieh, 2013), specific instances can be identi-fied as activism or slacktivism. Within this con-text, we offer a slightly different interpretationof the dynamics that Gladwell (2010) and Mo-rozov (2009) critique.We begin with the premise that only a smallproportion of those involved in movement-based politics can be considered activists. Forexample, organizers of the 1968 grape boycottwent to major cities to convince consumers tostop purchasing table grapes from Californiaand support farmworker union organizing (Da-vis, 2008). College students were also recruitedto push their campuses to participate in theboycott (Weiland, Guzman, & O’Meara, 2013).The activists convinced enough consumers toboycott grapes that growers were compelled tonegotiate (Chavez, 1976; Davis, 2008). While ittook thousands of people to effectively makethisdemand on the growers, not everybody whoparticipated should be considered an activist.Those who only boycotted grapes were part of theactivist strategy, but they were not necessarilyengaging in activism. Their level of risk was min-imal (Premise 5), they did not have to be hopeful(Premise 7), and they did not have to be guided byutopian visions (Premise 6) to participate.This is analogous to the issue of slacktivismand online organizing. The biggest critics ofslacktivism argue that people who like a Face-book page or simply donate $1 are limiting theiractivist potential (Gladwell, 2010; Morozov,2009). The problem with this formulation is thatthe critiques are being lodged against peoplewho should not be considered activists in thefirst place. They are part of the activist strategyof cultivating and exercising power (Premise 2),but their actions should not be considered ac-tivism. It is akin to criticizing those whostopped buying grapes in 1968 because they didnot fully realize their potential for promoting10 CABRERA, MATIAS, AND MONTOYAThis document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

social change. They were largely uninterested inbeing labor activists, but they were willing tosupport activist strategies. This dynamic onlybecomes problematic when people click a page,boycott a product, or make a nominal donation,and convince themselves that they are activists.In the absence of this dynamic, critiques ofslacktivism rest on confusing those who areengaging in activism with those participating instrategies of activism. Social responsibility isnot the same as social activism, and many slack-tivism critics confounded the two.Premise 10: Social Media Are More(Although not Entirely) Democratic Spacesfor Organic IntellectualsDespite the changing terrain of contemporaryactivism and the incorporation of social media,organic intellectualism continues to play an im-portant role in agitating for social progress(Cammarota & Romero, 2014). Gramsci (1971)argued that intellectuals are central in both themaintenance and disruption of inequality. Hefamously pronounced, “All men are intellectu-als, one could therefore say: but not all menhave in society the function of intellectuals” (p.115). Gramsci further argued the solution totransforming the hegemony of the bourgeoisiewas creating the hegemony of the proletariat.To create the alternative hegemony, Gramsci’stheorized that social progress required a newform of intellectual. He critiqued the traditionalintellectual who, with a disinterested eye, en-gaged in scholarly activities without concern fortheir relevance. Instead, Gramsci (1971) argued,The mode of being of the new intellectual can nolonger consist of eloquence, which is an exterior andmomentary mover of feelings and passions, but inactive participation in practical life, as constructor,organizer, ‘permanent persuader’ and not just simpleorator. (p. 116)To be the permanent persuader, however, theorganic intellectual needs a platform. Whilesocial media are not entirely democratizedspaces as some proponents argue (Dahlberg &Siapera, 2007), there are more opportunitieson the Internet than from mainstream mediaoutlets (Biddix, 2010).According to Herman and Chomsky (1988),the conservative/liberal media bias debate isirrelevant. Instead, the corporate-controlled me-dia, “are effective and powerful ideological in-stitutions that carry out a system-supportivepropaganda function by reliance on marketforces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion” (p.306). Due to the internal logic of capitalistproduction, the mass media reflected the biasesof its corporate sponsors, which returns to theconcept of hegemony (Gramsci, 1971; Lukes,2005). If the masses have their options limitedbut they are concurrently unaware that theselimitations are being imposed upon them, theypacify themselves. Therefore, there is no needto rely on coercion because this corporate biasexcludes the voices of social equity from massmedia outlets. Thus, social media have helpedto partially circumvent this dynamic, allowingmore opportunities for the voices of buddingstudent organic intellectuals to reach the masses(Kahn & Kellner, 2004).ConclusionThe recent rise in contemporary studentactivism (Pasque & Vargas, 2014) in a digitalage has opened new possibilities for promot-ing social justice on campus and beyond (Bid-dix, 2010). Campus activism is ripe with po-tential for creating democratic space andengagement (Biddix, 2010; Pasque & Vargas,2014), is an untapped arena for student devel-opment (Kezar, 2010), while sometimes of-fering the possibility of activists and institu-tional actors working together to promoteprogressive social change (Rhoads, Saénz, &Carducci, 2005; Weiland, Guzman, &O’Meara, 2013). This is particularly impor-tant for diversity efforts as student activismhas played, and continues to play, a centralrole in agitating to this end (Broadhurst,2014; Gonzales, 2008; P. Lee, 2011; Rhoads,1998a; Rhoads, 1998b; Rhoads, Saenz, &Carducci, 2005; Rojas, 2006; Rogers, 2012;Slaughter, 1997; Williamson, 2003). Digitalengagement is increasingly becoming part ofthe campus activist toolbox (Biddix, 2010;Tatarchevskiy, 2011); however, not all formsof online participation are equally effective atunlocking the potential of student activismand some nuance is needed in these discus-sions.The pronouncements that social media aresimply arenas for people to delude themselvesinto thinking they are being part of progres-11ACTIVISM OR SLACKTIVISM?This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

sive social change (e.g., Gladwell, 2010; Mo-rozov, 2009) are largely overblown. Theseauthors specifically critique the utopian prom-ises of the Internet that have not materialized,but they also tend to conflate social movementparticipation with social activism. Therefore,it is presumptuous to assume that social me-dia are inherently ineffective platforms forchallenging and transforming oppressive so-cial conditions. Instead, they are tools thathave the potential to bring together a collec-tive that can be used to apply pressure whennecessary (Kahn & Kellner, 2004; Karpf,2010, 2012). The difficulty of contemporarystudent activism, however, is that it almostrequires an online presence, but an onlinepresence without a connection to actual grass-roots organizing slips into slacktivism (Chris-tensen, 2011). This is a blurry line becauseslacktivism can sometimes lead to subsequentactivism (Jones, 2015; Y.-H. Lee & Hsieh,2013; Šteˇka & Mazák, 2014).With this context in mind, we did not offerthe list of activism/slacktivism premises as 10essential components, but rather a guidelineto support student activists self-reflect givenfrequent uncertainty. We argue that this iscritically important because too often studentactivism focuses on highlighting socialwrongs and too little on critical self-examination (Urrieta, 2009). This was onecore component of Freire’s (2000)conscien-tização,a n do n et h a ti sa l s od i f fi c u l tt oa p p l y .Additionally, these premises can help guidefaculty, staff, and administrators, as they engagewith contemporary student activists. Kezar(2010) argued that it is substantially more ef-fective for university employees to work withstudent activists instead of against them fromboth institutional progress and developmentalstandpoints. In particular, it is critically impor-tant for campus administrators, faculty, andstaff, to understand student activism in its ownterms. For example, campus administrators fre-quently misunderstand the point of student ac-tivism and confuse it for governance (see Prem-ise 8). This is, in part, because they areresponsible for running institutions of highereducation. Therefore, they frequently offer thebenevolently patronizing advice, “Aren’t youalienating your allies?” forgetting that studentactivism is about creating tension and not pop-ularity.In addition, understanding the complexitiesand commitments required to engage in studentactivism challenges university employees to re-spect the commitment of activists even if theydisagree with the activists’ stated goals. That is,activism requires a coordinated collective(Premise 1), hope despite massive structuralbarriers (Premise 7), strategic leveraging ofpower despite students having little (Premise 2),while students putting themselves at risk (Prem-ise 5). This is why Weiland, Guzman, andO’Meara (2013) argued,Through protest, students not only learn about suchissues but also discern ways to exert their will onoutcomes. They move from simply knowing aboutinjustice to doing something about it. Educators have arole in helping students through this progression. (p. 8)That is, many universities shy away from stu-dent activists because campus unrest can beunsettling. Rather, Weiland et al. (2013) chal-lenged this tendency and argued that it is actu-ally a privilege to work with student activists. Abrief word of caution is warranted here. Itwould be inappropriate for a faculty memberwhen dialoguing with campus activists to offerone of the premises to argue, “See, you’re noteven engaging in activism.” Rather, these aremeant as points of engagement, dialogue, andself-reflection.Ultimately, we have to grapple with the ten-sion that true social progress will not occur onsocial media alone. As Gil Scott-Heron (1970)continued:The revolution will not be televised, will not be tele-visedWill not be televised, will not be televisedThe revolution will be no rerun brothersThe revolution will be liveThere is no substitute for in-person social ac-tivism to create the “tensions” described by Dr.King (1964); however, this does not precludeonline space from being able to generate newtensions (Karpf, 2010, 2012). If social justice isthe overall goal, then online activity can andneeds to be one component of this strategy. Yes,Scott-Heron was correct that the revolution willbe live, but online engagement can be con-ducted in real time. Struggling with the tensionbetween in-person and online engagement de-fines this generation of student activists, as both12 CABRERA, MATIAS, AND MONTOYAThis document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

are integral components of realizing the possi-bility of more inclusive colleges and universi-ties (Barnhardt, 2014; Biddix, 2010).ReferencesAlinsky, S. D. (1989).Rules for radicals: A prag-matic primer for realistic radicals. New York,NY: Vintage.Anyon, J. (2014).Radical possibilities: Public pol-icy, urban education, and a new social movement(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Appleton, S. (1995, February/March). Martin LutherKing in life . . . andmemory.The Public Perspec-tive,11–13, 47–48.Barnhardt, C. L. (2014). Campus-based organizing:Tactical repertoires of contemporary studentmovements.New Directions for Higher Education,2014,43–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/he.20104Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A. L., Na-dolny, D., & Noyes, I. (2013). The ironic impact ofactivists: Negative stereotypes reduce socialchange influence.European Journal of Social Psy-chology, 43,614–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1983Biddix, J. P. (2010). Technology uses in campusactivism from 2000 to 2008: Implications for civiclearning.Journal of College Student Development,51,679–693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0019Biondi, M. (2012).The black revolution on campus.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Branch, T. (2013).The King years: Historic momentsin the Civil Rights Movement. New York, NY:Simon & Schuster.Breuer, A., & Farooq, B. (2012, November 23). On-line political participation: Slacktivism or effi-ciency increased activism? Evidence from the Bra-zilian Ficha Limpa campaign. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract/H110052179035Broadhurst, C. J. (2014). Campus activism in the 21stcentury: A historical framing.New Directions forHigher Education, 2014,3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/he.20101Cabrera, N. L. (2012). Working through Whiteness:White male college students challenging racism.Review of Higher Education, 35,375–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0020Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. F. (Eds.). (2014).Razastudies: The public option for educational revolu-tion. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Carson, B. (2015, September 3). #BlackLivesMatter mis-fire.USA Today.R e t r i e v e df r o mh t t p : / / w w w . u s a t o d a y.com/story/opinion/2015/08/24/blacklivesmatter-sanders-clinton-anger-column/32055507/Chavez, C. (1976). The California farm workers’struggle.Black Scholar, 7,16–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00064246.1976.11413833Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political activities on theinternet: Slacktivism or political participation byanother means?First Monday, 16,1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i2.3336Clark, M. D. (2014).To tweet our own cause: Amixed-methods study of the online phenomenon“Black Twitter”. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,Chapel Hill, NC.Cohen, R., & Snyder, D. J. (Eds.). (2013).Rebellionin black and white: Southern student activism inthe 1960s. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer-sity Press.Cornelissen, G., Karelaia, N., & Soyer, E. (2013).Clicktivism or slacktivism? Impression manage-ment and moral licensing. Paper presented at LaLonde Conference on Marketing Communicationsand Consumer Behavior, La Londe les Maures,France.Dahlberg, L., & Siapera, E. (Eds.). (2007).Radicaldemocracy and the internet: Interrogating theoryand practice.N e wY o r k ,N Y 😛 a l g r a v eM a c -millan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230592469Davis, B. J. (2008).The national grape boycott: Avictory for farmworkers. Minneapolis, MN: Com-pass Point Books.DuBois, W. E. B. (1971).The seventh son: Thethought and writings of W. E. B. DuBois(Vol.2; J.Lester, Ed.). New York, NY: Vintage Books.Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2009). Note to educators:Hope required when growing roses from concrete.Harvard Educational Review, 79,181–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.2.nu3436017730384wForgue, A. (2015, August 9). Black Lives Matterprotesters who interrupted Bernie Sanders hurttheir movement.Daily Kos. Retrieved from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/09/1410175/-The-Black-Lives-Matter-Protesters-Who-Inter-rupted-Bernie-Sanders-Hurt-Their-Movement#Freire, P. (2000).Pedagogy of the oppressed(30thAnniversary ed.). New York, NY: Herder andHerder.Freire, P. (2004).Pedagogy of indignation. Boulder,CO: Paradigm.Freire, P. (2008).Pedagogy of hope. New York, NY:Continuum.Gaston-Gayles, J. L., Wolf-Wendel, L. E., Tuttle,K. N., Twombly, S. B., & Ward, K. (2005). Fromdisciplinarian to change agent: How the CivilRights era changed he roles of student affairs pro-fessionals.NASPA Journal, 42,263–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1508Gitlin, T. (2009).Letters to a young activist. NewYork, NY: Basic Books.13ACTIVISM OR SLACKTIVISM?This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Gladwell, M. (2010, October 4). Small change: Whythe revolution will not be tweeted.The New York-er. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwellGonzales, R. G. (2008). Left out but not shut down:Political activism and the undocumented studentmovement.Northwestern Journal of Law and So-cial Policy, 3,219–239.Gramsci, A. (1971).Selections from the prison note-books of Antonio Gramsci(Q. Hoare & G. N.Smith, Trans. & Eds.). New York, NY: Interna-tional.Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988).Manufactur-ing consent: The political economy of the massmedia. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Hu, C.-W. (2014). Health slacktivism on social me-dia: Predictors and effects. In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.),Social computing and social media(pp. 354–364).Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Retrievedfrom http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07632-4_34Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 192–193 (1964).Jacobsen, G. D., & Jacobsen, K. H. (2011). Healthawareness campaigns and diagnosis rates: Evi-dence from National Breast Cancer AwarenessMonth.Journal of Health Economics, 30,55–61.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.11.005Jaquette, O., Curs, B. R., & Posselt, J. R. (in press).Tuition rich, mission poor: Nonresident enrollmentgrowth and the socioeconomic and racial compo-sition of public research universities.Journal ofHigher Education.Jones, C. (2015). Slacktivism and the social benefitsof social video: Sharing a video to ‘help’ a cause.First Monday. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i5.5855Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2004). New media andinternet activism: From the ‘Battle of Seattle’ toblogging.New Media & Society, 6,87–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444804039908Karpf, D. (2010). Online political mobilization fromthe advocacy group’s perspective: Looking beyondclicktivism.Policy & Internet, 2,7–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1098Karpf, D. (2012).The MoveOn effect: The unex-pected transformation of American political advo-cacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199898367.001.0001Kezar, A. (2010). Faculty and staff partnering withstudent activists: Unexplored terrains of interac-tion and development.Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 51,451–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0001Khan, U. (2009, July 7). Twitter should win NobelPeace Prize, says former US security adviser.TheTelegraph. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/5768159/Twitter-should-win-Nobel-Peace-Prize-says-former-US-security-adviser.htmlKing, M. L., Jr. (1964).Why we can’t wait. NewYork, NY: Signet.Krieg, G. (2016, December 22). It’s official: Clintonswamps Trump in popular vote.CNN Politics.Retrieved January 31, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/Kristofferson, K., White, K., & Peloza, J. (2013). Thenature of slacktivism: How the social observabilityof an initial act of token support affects subsequentprosocial action.Journal of Consumer Research,40,1149–1166.Lee, P. (2011). The Griswold 9 and student activismfor faculty diversity at Harvard Law School in theearly 1990s.Harvard Journal on Racial & EthnicJustice, 27,49–96.Lee, Y.-H., & Hsieh, G. (2013).Does slacktivismhurt activism? The effects of moral balancing andconsistency in online activism. InConference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems—Proceed-ings(pp. 811–820). New York, NY: ACM Press.Lukes, S. (2005).Power: A radical view(2nd ed.).New York, NY: Palgrave. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-80257-5Mataconis, D. (2012, September 17). One year later,the failure of Occupy Wall Street is apparent.Outside the Beltway. Retrieved September 9, 2015,from http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/one-year-later-the-failure-of-occupy-wall-street-is-apparent/Matias, C. E. (2014). White skin, Black friend: AFanonian application to theorize racial fetish inteacher education.Educational Philosophy andTheory. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.989952McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activ-ism: The case of Freedom Summer.AmericanJournal of Sociology, 92,64–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228463McAdam, D., & Paulsen, R. (1993). Specifying therelationship between social ties and activism.American Journal of Sociology, 99,640–667.http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230319McCarthy, M. A. (2012). Occupying higher educa-tion: The revival of the student movement.NewLabor Forum, 21,50–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.4179/NLF.212.0000008Morozov, E. (2009).The net delusion: The dark sideof internet freedom. New York, NY: Public Af-fairs.Multicultural, social justice educator to speak at Mi-sericordia University. (2015, September 16).Dal-las Post. Retrieved from http://mydallaspost.com/news/local/12126/multicultural-social-justice-educator-to-speak-at-misericordia-university14 CABRERA, MATIAS, AND MONTOYAThis document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Muñoz, C., Jr. (1989).Youth, identity, and power:The Chicano movement. New York, NY: Verso.Muñoz, S. A. (2015).Identity, social activism, andthe pursuit of higher education: The journey sto-ries of undocumented and unafraid community ac-tivists. New York, NY: Peter Lang. http://dx.doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1533-2Obar, J. A. (2014). Adding activism to the activist’stoolkit: Advocacy group perceptions of the bene-fits and drawbacks of slacktivism.Social ScienceResearch Network. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract/H110052387805Obar, J. A. (2014). Canadian advocacy 2.0: An anal-ysis of social media adoption and perceived affor-dances by advocacy groups looking to advanceactivism in Canada.Canadian Journal of Commu-nication, 39,211–233.Obar, J. A., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in theUnited States perceive and use social media astools for facilitating civic engagement and collec-tive action.Journal of Information Policy, 2,1–25.http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.2.2012.0001Park, J. J. (2013).When diversity drops: Race, reli-gion, and affirmative action in higher education.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Pasque, P., & Vargas, J. G. (2014). Performances ofstudent activism: Sound, silence, gender, and dis/ability.New Directions for Higher Education,2014,59–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/he.20105Rhoads, R. A. (1998a).Freedom’s web: Student ac-tivism in an age of cultural diversity. Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Rhoads, R. A. (1998b). Student protest and multicul-tural reform: Making sense of campus unrest in the1990s.Journal of Higher Education, 69,621–646.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2649211Rhoads, R. A., Saénz, V. B., & Carducci, R. (2005).Higher education reform as a movement: The caseof affirmative action.Review of Higher Education,28,191–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0039Rogers, I. H. (2012).The Black campus movement:Black students and the racial reconstruction ofhigher education, 1965–1972.N e wY o r k ,N Y :Palgrave. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137016508Rojas, F. (2006). Social movement tactics, organiza-tional change and the spread of African-Americanstudies.Social Forces, 84,2147–2166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0107Scott-Heron, G. (1970).The revolution will not betelevised. OnSmall Talk at 125th & Lennox[Au-dio CD]. New York, NY: Flying Dutchman.Segerberg, A., & Bennett, W. L. (2011). Social mediaand the organization of collective action: UsingTwitter to explore the ecologies of two climatechange protests.Communication Review, 14,197–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597250Slaughter, S. (1997). Class, race, gender and theconstruction of post-secondary curricula in theUnited States: Social movement, professionaliza-tion and political economic theories of curricularchange.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29,1–30.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002202797184170Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2000). The neo-liberaluniversity.New Labor Forum, 6,73–79.Slocum, J., & Rhoads, R. A. (2009). Faculty andstudent engagement in the Argentine grassrootsrebellion: Toward a democratic and emancipatoryvision of the university.Higher Education, 57,85–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9134-4Solórzano, D. G., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2001).Examining transformational resistance through aCritical Race and LatCrit theory framework: Chi-cana and Chicano students in an urban context.Urban Education, 36,308–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085901363002Šteˇka, V., & Mazák, J. (2014). Whither slacktivism?Political engagement and social media use in the2013 Czech parliamentary elections.Journal ofPsychosocial Research on Cyberspace. Advanceonline publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-3-7Sullivan, A. (2009, June 13). The revolution will beTwittered.The Atlantic.Retrieved fromhttp://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/06/the-revolution-will-be-twittered/200478/Tatarchevskiy, T. (2011). The “popular” culture ofinternet activism.new media & society, 13,297–313.Urrieta, L., Jr. (2009).Working from within: Chicanoand Chicano activist educators in whitestreamschools. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Van Dyke, N. (2003). Crossing movement boundar-ies: Factors that facilitate coalition protest byAmerican college students, 1930–1990.SocialProblems, 50,226–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.226Vie, S. (2014). In defense of “slacktivism”: TheHuman Rights Campaign Facebook logo as digitalactivism.First Monday. Advance online publica-tion. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i4.4961Waugh, B., Abdipanah, M., Hashemi, O., Rahaman,S. A., & Cook, D. M. (2013, December).Theinfluence and deception of Twitter: The authentic-ity of the narrative and slacktivism in the Austra-lian electoral process. Paper presented at the Aus-tralian Information Warfare and SecurityConference, Perth, Western Australia.Weiland, K. L., Guzman, A., & O’Meara, K. A.(2013). Politics, identity, and college protest: Thenand now.About Campus: Enriching the Student15ACTIVISM OR SLACKTIVISM?This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Learning Experience, 18,2–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/abc.21114West, C. (2005, January 13). Prisoners of hope.Al-ternet. Retrieved September 1, 2015, from http://www.alternet.org/story/20982/prisoners_of_hopeWilliamson, J. A. (2003).Black power on campus:The University of Illinois, 1965–75. Chicago, IL:University of Illinois Press.Wollan, M., & Harris, E. (2011, November 13). Oc-cupy Wall Street protesters shifting to collegecampuses.New York Times. Retrieved January 31,2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/occupy-wall-street-protests-shifting-to-college-campuses.htmlReceived September 30, 2015Revision received February 10, 2017Accepted February 23, 2017/H1854616 CABRERA, MATIAS, AND MONTOYAThis document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
View publication statsView publication stats