Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group's Perspective: Looking Beyond Clicktivism

TLDR

Mass email activism has been criticized as slacktivism with hidden costs, yet this article responds to prior critiques by situating the debate within the broader context of advocacy practices. The article aims to refute claims that mass emails are uniquely harmful by combining personal observations of advocacy groups with a new quantitative dataset of email activity. The authors analyze the dataset and conduct field observations to articulate three points challenging the prevailing narrative. They find that mass emails are functionally similar to offline petitions, constitute one tactic among many in advocacy strategies, and contradict the dire predictions of critics.

Abstract

Abstract Academic observers and public intellectuals frequently criticize mass email action alerts as “slacktivism” or “clicktivism,” arguing that the lowered transaction costs of the medium produce a novel form of activism that carries with it hidden costs and dangers for the public sphere. This article challenges those claims, relying on a combination of personal observation within the advocacy community and on a new quantitative dataset of advocacy group email activity to articulate three points. First, that mass emails are functionally equivalent to the photocopied and faxed petitions and postcards of “offline” activism, and represent a difference‐of‐degree rather than a difference‐in‐kind. Second, that such low‐quality, high‐volume actions are a single tactic in the strategic repertoire of advocacy groups, thus reducing cause for concern about their limited effect in isolation. Third, that the empirical reality of email activation practices has little in common with the dire predictions offered by common critiques. The article responds to a previous Policy & Internet article: “The Case Against Mass E‐mails.” 1 (1).