Affect and Activism in Facebook Politics

So--I suggested yesterday that certain expressions of "activism," such as joining a Facebook page protesting the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill (known now as the Bahati Bill after one of its co-sponsors, David Bahati), may in fact be a form of affectivism.

That is, the urge to "do something" in the face of a shocking injustice (in this case, instituting the death penalty for homosexual acts) can in fact result in activities that do less to address the injustice itself and more to satisfy the urge to action. Clicking on a "join this group" (or "sign this petition" or "send this form e-mail") button, seeing the group's postings added to your "wall," receiving updates about the group's status--all of this can create the appearance that you have, along with 3,000+ other people, "done" something meaningful. You have the feeling--the affect--of joining a positive, activist movement.

Let me be clear: Facebook activism is about the Facebook user more than the ostensible object of activism. No Facebook page founded and populated primarily by US citizens shocked at Uganda's proposed legislation will likely do thing one to persuade Ugandans to resist passage of this bill. In terms of non-virtual effect, joining a Facebook page literally does nothing except produce a feeling of self-satisfaction.

But surely it's good for people to know about the Ugandan situation, isn't it? Surely Facebook is a good way to raise people's consciousness about this situation, yes? I mean, the more people who know about this Bill...

...um... What? What exactly follows from more US people knowing about this Bill? Suppose the Facebook group doubles, triples, increases to hundreds of thousands of people protesting the Bill. What are these groups of outraged US citizens proposing be done? Invade Uganda and make them behave? Shout the international equivalent of "shame on you"? Regardless of what you or I may personally think of US foreign policy, it is clear that in the eyes of much of the world, the US's authority to assert itself as arbiter of international morality is currently strained at best. Uganda faces a number of challenges (e.g., the threat posed by the Lord's Resistance Army) arguably much more pressing than an offensive bill. Where is the US outrage/consciousness-raising about those challenges?

Worse, the outraged cries of Western groups may play into a Ugandans-versus-the-West narrative that the bill's backers are using (at least in part) to make passing this bill a sine qua non of Ugandan identity. "See how the decadent West opposes our sovereignty?" they say, "See how the homosexuals are desperate to import their vile [colonial] behaviors into our [pristine, Godly] nation?"

I should note, again, that the situation is precisely not one of "Ugandan values versus the West." Uganda already has a robust debate about this Bill within its own borders. It doesn't exactly need the Enlightened West to Teach it what is Good and Proper.

What, then, is the good of a Facebook group if such affectivism focuses more on US citizens than on remedying the actual situation?

Let me share up front that I don't particularly see this situation as one that US citizens as such are able to change. Uganda's decision on the bill--whatever it may ultimately be--will simply be a reality the US and other Western nations have to live with. Certainly, if the Bill becomes law, that reality will have repercussions in terms of international relations, aid, travel, and so on. At that point--as the US government decides how to react to this act by Uganda--then groups like the Facebook page might exert pressure on representatives to enact material changes to US relations to Uganda. At that point, though (i.e., writing to senators, lobbying, voting), the work is plainly activism--action-focused rather than affect-focused.

Until such time, Facebook activism remains a matter of conjuring a group of people joined by the affect of outrage. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Activist community isn't a song that plays itself. Should the time come for action, it's vital that there be an activated group of people to initiate that action. Affect-focused activism like the Facebook page play a role in creating that activated community.

Moreover, the group grants a possibility for a bit of civic self-reflection, allowing members to explore the bonds and tensions between them. As I've noted, the Facebook group is not the product of the Human Rights Campaign or Amnesty International but of Warren Throckmorton, moderate-conservative Christian advocate of "ex-gay" therapies. Yet the group has attracted people from throughout the political spectrum: diehard atheist leftists, GLBT-affirmative Christians, conservative Biblical inerrantists, ex-gays, ex-ex-gays, people of other faiths, people merely interested in human rights, people who join out of peer pressure/guilt.

As these people begin to talk to each other, their discussions probe their respective political/theological boundaries. Some of the debates get quite heated about issues of whether or not homosexuality is natural/unnatural, evil/good, or curable/innate. But no matter what the differences, the conversation returns to "well, we disagree on X, but we both believe that this Bill is wrong." The group performs that communal tension I've written about before--bound together in some respects (one specific issue in this case) and fundamentally opposed to each other in another.

It's exciting to me, actually, that this group--which may or may not prove lasting--contests so many "culture war" alignments, re-orienting (if you'll pardon the pun) "left" and "right" sides in a rare moment of shared perspective. Such a for-this-issue coaliltion isn't sameness, but neither is it exactly antagonism.

Goodness. I may have just convinced myself to join. If you'd like to, the link is here.

More tomorrow,

JF