One of the most marvelously contemptuous coinages of recent times, slacktivism means exactly what it sounds like: a “slack” (i.e., ineffective) form of “activism,” as epitomized by the activities of net-savvy western youngsters perpetually willing to click on Facebook petitions, but almost pathologically unable to get out of their seats and take part in authentic political activity. That, at least, is the thesis behind slacktivism—a polar opposite to activism, typically used today as a stick for beating those who believe that new media alone can save the world.
The term itself was first used around 2001, with the excellent website Word Spy citing an article in Newsday in February that year as the term’s first outing in print. Unlike some other digital terms, slacktivism is a word born specifically to describe online phenomena and to contrast these to “real” actions. Newsday cited the example of campaigning emails which include the plea “Forward this to everyone you know,” but slacktivism’s true home today is social media.58
By contrast, another wonderful recent word describes those whose online actions more usually take the form of blog posts and extended investigations, and who may well have a real impact on their field. These are the pajamahadeen: a punning combination of pajamas and Mujahadeen that conjures a vivid image (at least for me) of a fanatical campaigner clad only in their sleepwear.
The term’s origin is a classic tale of one man’s insult becoming another’s badge of pride. In 2004 America was in the throes of a controversy over whether George W. Bush—running for reelection as president that year—had completed National Guard service as he claimed. That September, the television show 60 Minutes presented four documents that were critical of Bush’s service. 60 Minutes claimed the documents were authentic, but soon came under extensive criticism from bloggers and discussion forums—criticism that was then picked up by the mainstream media.
Defending 60 Minutes, a network executive witheringly contrasted the professional journalists involved in making the program with “a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing” online. It was a comparison his opponents leapt upon—not least because many of the points the bloggers raised proved to be valid—and adapted into a new word extolling the new political power of people simply sitting at home behind their computer screens.59