Hater/Haiti: Thoughts on “Slactivism”

I learned a new word today: slactivist. It seems to refer to people who become activists only when it’s trendy. Or, on a more mundane level, it seems to refer to people who when real tragedy strikes rise from their couches and give something or take a stand briefly in order to help. Or feel better. Or both.

My problem with the word ‘slactivist’ is that it is extraordinarily judgmental. It assumes a working knowledge of intention behind others’ acts of giving. It suggests, worse, that those who are giving under self-centered conditions (“only if it’s a tax write-off, lovey”) are to be hated and put down.

*
Even if they were to tell you exactly why they did it, it is not your business to speculate about Brad and Angela’s reasons for writing a whopping check for this cause and that. It’s none of your business how much kick-back they get and how many pictures get snapped of them in their giving moments. They are giving, and that very act needs to be respected. Altruistic giving, no matter what’s behind it, is the business between the giver and receiver.

It is none of your business if those with the biggest bucks give anything at all, or when, or why. It would be a better world those who are well off did give more, but it’s not yet the case that our greed-based capitalistic economy and superficial culture can or will give it up on a free-flowing basis to those most in need. The day will come when resources are more evenly distributed throughout the world, but dissing someone who acts only when tragedy strikes rather than, say, create a life as an agent for long-term change smacks of our greatest shortsightedness: As beings, we tend toward separation rather than unity. Would those who dislike slactivists prefer the slactivists not give, not act? I doubt it.

*
So why the label? Why judge? Are we not all trying to be more loving, giving? Are we all not here to learn how to give from the heart? Some are born knowing how to give the shirts of their backs. Many, however, have to learn it. And many never achieve giving to that degree but rather give when it’s convenient or advantageous. They are still giving. Period.

It is fine with me if slactivists are coming out of the woodwork now to help Haiti when yesterday they might not have been able to find Haiti on the map. And it is fine with me if these slactivists are suddenly moved to give some money or volunteer their time when normally they would not. There is a chance they will never give again, yes. There is that chance. But there is a chance they will.

*
Yes, these dollars and volunteer efforts to help Haiti survive this devastating earthquake are not intended for lasting, long-term change. Current conditions-—the need to rescue and provide water, shelter, comfort, and medical care-—completely trump any past lack of long-term planning and aid intended to raise Haiti from its extreme state of poverty. Save that for another, new day. Complaining that we are suddenly there for Haiti now when in the past we haven’t been is like complaining while someone is trying to keep a child, who’s had an accident, from bleeding to death that no one has given much yet toward the child’s college fund, and how dare that be the case?

Tragedy makes us humble. Tragedy can make us strong. But like anything, I learned today through this word ‘slactivism’ that tragedy can also make us bitter and smart-assy. We cannot—-should not—-strike a bitter chord when tragedy strikes. Rather, we should strike a chord of deeper compassion, deeper unity. We should not divide our ranks and waste our energies wondering who is giving, who is not, and why. We should rise together and trust that we are all doing our best, and ring the bells of unity when doing so. For now, bring on whatever help you can, for whatever reason. Help Haiti.