Why are we so focused on labeling people’s online activism as performative? How does this criticism overlook the fact that we are constantly performing socially, both in person and online?
In today’s digital world, conversations about activism are often accompanied by accusations of performativity. Whether it’s a celebrity posting a statement, a corporation changing its logo for a cause, or an individual sharing an infographic, there’s a tendency to question whether these acts are genuine or simply for show. But activism, like all social behavior, is inherently performative. We are always presenting ourselves in ways that align with social expectations, values, and the audiences we engage with. The problem isn’t necessarily that activism is performative, but rather how we judge the performances of others while ignoring our own. By exploring the ways we socially perform, why we call others performative, and how digital spaces have reshaped activism, we can rethink the performativity critique and focus on what truly matters—whether activism leads to meaningful change.
We Are Always Socially Performing
Sociologists like Erving Goffman argue that social life is inherently performative. In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, he describes how we all engage in “impression management,” adjusting how we present ourselves based on the social context, audience, and setting, like actors on a stage. In-person interactions, we change how we speak, dress, and behave based on whether we’re with family, friends, professors, or coworkers. On social media presence, whether we carefully curate posts, choose what parts of our life to share, or decide when to engage in activism, we are always presenting a version of ourselves. Few of us post selfies when we pick our noses, but we are more likely to post posed in makeup!
This means activism, like any social behavior, is also a performance. When people march at a protest, make speeches, or organize rallies, they are performing in a way that is meant to persuade, inspire, and mobilize others. Even in private, we “perform” activism, choosing how we talk about issues, who we donate to, and what we value.
Why We Call Others “Performative” (and What That Says About Us)
Labeling someone’s activism as “performative” is often a way to discredit them, elevate ourselves, or manage our own discomfort with participation. If we see someone engaging in activism that we think is shallow, we might call them out to undermine their credibility. It’s a way of controlling the “authenticity” of activism and deciding who gets to be taken seriously. Sometimes, calling out performativity is a defense mechanism. If we feel like we’re not doing enough, we might critique others as a way to avoid questioning our own actions. It’s easier to dismiss activism as fake than to confront our own level of engagement.
- Social movements often have “gatekeepers” who decide what activism is valid or not. This creates tension for the movement. Should activism be open to all, or only to those who are deeply informed and committed? Does it matter the positionality of the person participating in this activism? Does it maybe differ from movement to movement?
How the Digital Space Has Shaped Activism
The internet has transformed activism in ways that make it both more accessible and more vulnerable to criticism:
- Speed & Accessibility: Social media allows activism to spread rapidly. Hashtags, infographics, and viral campaigns increase awareness, giving people easy entry points into activism.
- Surveillance & Scrutiny: Because activism is so visible online, it’s subject to intense scrutiny. Every action or lack of action, is seen, analyzed, and judged in ways that weren’t as possible before the digital age.
- Low-Effort Engagement: The ease of online activism means that people can show support without deep engagement. This has led to valid critiques of “hashtag activism” that doesn’t translate into real-world change.
- Call-Out Culture & Virtue Signaling: Social media has created pressure to appear engaged, which can sometimes lead to performativity in a shallow sense.
Rethinking the Performativity Critique
If activism is always, to some degree, performative, then maybe the question shouldn’t be “Is this performative?” but rather “What does this performance achieve?” Instead of dismissing online activism outright, we should ask:
- Does this action mobilize people?
- Does it raise awareness in a way that leads to real-world change?
- Does it provide resources or shift conversations?
Online activism, like any form of activism, is imperfect. But just because something is visible and performative doesn’t mean it’s useless. The key is ensuring that performance isn’t empty is that it connects to action, solidarity, and long-term change.