Facebook Affectivism and the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill

As Facebook groups both pro- and anti-Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill continue to grow, a question emerges: what's the use?

To dispel any suspense here, let me say I do see a value in such pages, even an activist utility. But before I get into that, I need to vent a bit about what such pages do not accomplish.

One of the issues that fascinates me about activist performance (and social-change movements in general) is how the pressure do "do something" often crowds out deep thought concerning "what is to be done." When presented with a situation that shocks the conscience, as the Ugandan bill's draconian provisions certainly do, the understandable impulse is to ask, "what can I do to help?"

Very often, however, this understandable impulse produces actions that do less to actually help the situation and more to assuage the feeling that action is necessary. Performance--in the combined sense of "a display for an audience" and "the accomplishment of an action"--is well-suited to producing and responding to emotional affects. Doing something--especially when that doing is public or spectacular--naturally produces a feeling of, well, getting something done. The problem is, producing this feeling, this affect of activism, can displace the ostensibly more vital goal of actually accomplishing something.

Consider the Facebook pages that spring up not only around this issue but around many other issues. Joining the page, perhaps even posting a supportive message, certainly creates both the appearance and feeling of having "done something" about this issue. Indeed, this feeling sometimes morphs into a sense of moral satisfaction, even superiority, regarding the act. On the anti-Ugandan bill page (i.e., the facebook page devoted to expressing protest toward the Bill's anti-homosexuality provisions), one commenter writes of how she invited all of her 500+ friends to sign on as fans/members of the page. Alas, she writes, only about 40 or so did, a fact she interprets as indicating a shameful degree of apathy on the part of said friends. How can they care so little for GLBT people as to express no opinion on this issue?

It's that kind of sentiment that presses my curmudgeonly buttons. I've mentioned before on this blog that, the more I study activist/social-change performance, the less patience I have for knee-jerk, thoughtless activism. Or--as I call it--affectivism, action whose effect is producing not actual change in material conditions or legislation but producing an affect--a feeling of "doing something"--that replaces careful consideration of the issues involved and non-virtual steps necessary to alter the situation.

It's all the more annoying when calls for such affectivism come in the form of some passive-agressive litmus test for progressives: "You'll of course do the right thing and participate in this highly visible but fairly empty gesture--or you fail the test of really caring about your fellow human being." Such coercive cheerleading has always turned me off, be it in the form of a high school pep rally, a standing ovation, or a forwarded e-mail call to (non)action. Such instances mobilize bandwagon techniques--or even plain-old guilt trips--to inspire action, which is of course base-level manipulative.

But, beyond my resentment at being manipulated into action through negative emotions (fear of being left out, fear of being blamed), I approach coercive affectivism with a skeptical mindset because it can so often produce counter-productive action. When you believe that doing something--anything--is utterly and immediately necessary, you're likely to do, well, something, anything. Coercive affectivism suspends thought, bypassing rationality. And, I will admit, at times such gut-level reactions are necessary. If a child strays into a busy street, I'd hope that my reactions would be quick rather than ratified by committee.

But the same affective imperatives that move people to stand and cheer, go out an march/protest, or even join facebook groups can also move people to form mobs, to strike out blindly, or to otherwise overreact. Action for action's sake can be deadly.

Now, no one's likely to die from Facebook affectivism. But I'm incredulous that joining a group populated by like-minded (mainly US) people most of whom (myself included) know almost nothing about Ugandan culture and politics is the be-all/end-all of positive responses to this Bill.

That said, I do think that the Facebook group does accomplish some important activist objectives.

More on those tomorrow,

JF