Stop Pouring Ice on Clicktivism“冰桶”的力量：輕點(diǎn)鼠標(biāo)，拯救世界

What do Justin Timberlake2）， Oprah Winfrey， the Kennedys3） and Bill Gates all have in common？ They have all dumped a bucket of ice water over their heads this summer， to raise awareness for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis4） （ALS）， also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease.

The ice bucket challenge isn’t exactly new， according to The Wall Street Journal. It began last year on the professional golf circuit， but took off this summer when former Boston College baseball stand-out Pete Frates shared it on Facebook. Pro baseball players who knew Pete from his college days took and shared the challenge， and from there it didn’t just snowball—it became an avalanche5）.

The point of the challenge is to raise awareness through the ridiculous act of pouring ice water over your head， catching it on video， and sharing via social networks. Participants then nominate three （or more） others to take the challenge warning， “You have 24 hours to accept， or donate $100！”

If you are even mildly active on social media， posts of friends and celebrities taking the ice bucket challenge have been virtually inescapable in the past two-and-a-half weeks—you may even have taken the challenge yourself.

However， also difficult to escape has been criticism for the challenge， its flaws， and doubts about its effectiveness. Even as the evidence that it was clearly working has piled up.

Haters Gonna Hate

Even though most， if not all， who’ve taken the challenge also donated to the cause， the only mention of money in most of the videos is the $100 donation due if you stay warm and dry over the following 24 hours， which makes it seem like those taking the challenge are trying to avoid donating.

At the same time there are those who condemn the movement as a wasted effort， just another example of “clicktivism” at its finest. Clicktivism， slacktivism， hashtag activism ... whatever you want to call it， it’s meant as a derogatory6） term—though it shouldn’t be.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “clicktivism” as “the use of social media and other online methods to promote a cause.” But Clicktivist.org clarifies： “Clicktivism is not exclusively the support or promotion of a cause online. It is the use of digital media for facilitating social change and activism. More often than not this takes the form of supporting and promoting a cause on social media， but it can include a whole range of activities ...”

Yet the idea that most critics have is that clicking a button to “share” something is worthless， and people should get out from behind their screens and DO something. But what are they supposed to do？ What beyond spreading awareness and raising funds to help those who are doing the research CAN people do？

It’s a serious issue in our sector， this criticism of hashtag activism， and it needs to stop. What the ice bucket challenge is showing us is just what slacktivism/clicktivism can accomplish. When designed and harnessed correctly， these types of social media campaigns are exactly how awareness is created.

So why are we criticizing when the proof is in the numbers？

While those taking the challenge may not always state that they are donating， they clearly are. The numbers are mind-blowing： $15.6 million raised from July 29 to August 18， with $8 million raised between August 14 and 18 alone！

To put it into perspective7）， that’s 800 percent over what was raised during the same period last year. It’s hard to argue with that kind of success rate.

So what is behind all the negativity surrounding this challenge？ Is it jealousy or sour grapes because our organizations aren’t reaping the same benefits as the ALS Association？ Hopefully we’re better than that. But then why aren’t we thrilled at the potential we’re seeing unfold this season？

Isn’t Awareness Without Money Pointless？

No. Of course， we want and need funds for our causes and organizations. But consider this： Awareness is never wasted. Caitlin Dewey of The Washington Post said， “Despite the oft-repeated claim that awareness does nothing， it almost always does something—something small， perhaps， but something measurable.”

The reality is， overexposure is necessary in this day and age of constant information. It takes seven to eight exposures， on average， to motivate someone to take action. So any help with awareness is a boon8）.

The goal of clicktivism isn’t to solve problems; it’s to bring awareness to a cause that we otherwise wouldn’t know about. This is the kind of activism that got us talking about Boko Haram9） （#BringBackOurGirls）， gun violence10） （#NotOneMore）， invisible children11） （#Kony2012） and other causes.

Sometimes voicing dissent （or support） is the only power we have. To call it meaningless or lazy is just another way of keeping progress at bay12）， and to alienate potential allies.

Engagement is a living entity. Your movement may start with a simple retweet， but guided by the hands of a savvy nonprofit marketing specialist， each small next step helps to cultivate clicktivists for your cause.

Will those clicktivists produce an 800 percent increase in tangible donations？ Maybe， maybe not. But when it costs you NOTHING， isn’t it worth trying when you have a model like this to follow？

Don’t Be Silly， Just Donate

While the doubters doubt， there are others who criticize the “l(fā)ook at me” aspect of the challenge. Just donate and call it a day， is their attitude.

But it’s important to recognize that it’s the zaniness13） of the videos that’s catching most people’s attention. ALS isn’t a new disease—so why is the ALS Association breaking fundraising records this year？ Because it’s worth $10， $100 or $1000 to watch your friends scream when ice water is dumped on their heads.

Not many people opt out of the video—even if they give $100 or more to the charity. Though that’s created another issue with opponents： All that water and ice seems a little “in your face14）”—a luxurious waste—when vast portions of the country are dealing with massive drought （and other areas globally don’t have clean water to speak of）. I am not a proponent of wasting water or another natural resource， but， did you know that raising a pound of beef takes 2400 gallons of water？ Are those criticizing the water wastage going without steaks or burgers？ I doubt it.

The critics have a point here， but this isn’t a challenge created by the ALS Association， who might have chosen to be more mindful about it. This was a grassroots movement that has taken on a life of its own.

Yes， This Can Be Replaced

Though those pesky15） naysayers are claiming it’s not a real success if you can’t convert these hashtag activists into taking more actions. More？ What more do you want？ An 800 percent increase in funds and 307，598 new donors isn’t enough？

Instead of nitpicking， we should be looking for opportunities to encourage the small acts of kindness that have the potential to become sweeping waves of generosity. We should be celebrating this incredible victory， and recognize that this IS capturing audience， and the only problem here is the way we’re looking at it.

I mean， how can something that inspired this kind of effort by Bill Gates be anything less than a triumph？ The ice bucket challenge is raising awareness by being inclusive， fun， humorous， and touching. It is a true viral offline/online campaign， and a great blueprint for other nonprofits to follow.

Not everyone is going to be able to give in Bill Gates fashion， which makes it even sweeter that clicktivism and the power of social can give nonprofits the same reach and potential as a multi-billion dollar corporation with a huge marketing budget.

Every little bit adds up， so if we can find ways to keep our message meaningful over a longer period of time， we allow for that momentum to happen. Maybe by engaging and using these hashtag activists to amplify our message—even if they are unable to give—we can do just that.

Remember， no matter what we do and how well we do it， there will always be those who will find fault. But if we listen to every criticism we’ll stop ourselves from taking risks and seeking innovation， and that is not the kind of society we want to become.

If we instead spend our energy looking for solutions， I guarantee we’ll find our own versions of the ice bucket challenge and its subsequent success.

1. Ritu Sharma：里圖·夏爾馬，“非營(yíng)利組織的社交媒體”（Social Media for Nonprofits）執(zhí)行董事，該組織致力于為非營(yíng)利組織提供社交媒體方面的知識(shí)。

2. Justin Timberlake：賈斯汀·汀布萊克（1981～），美國(guó)歌手、演員、音樂制作人、主持人

3. the Kennedys：肯尼迪家族，美國(guó)政治世家，家族成員曾集體接受冰桶挑戰(zhàn)，其中包括家族中最年長(zhǎng)的成員——86歲的埃塞爾·肯尼迪（Ethel Kennedy），她點(diǎn)名美國(guó)總統(tǒng)奧巴馬接受挑戰(zhàn)。

4. amyotrophic lateral sclerosis：肌萎縮側(cè)索硬化癥，俗稱為“漸凍癥”，患者由于上、下運(yùn)動(dòng)神經(jīng)元退化、死亡并停止把信息傳送到肌肉，肌肉會(huì)逐漸衰弱、萎縮，最后大腦完全喪失控制隨意運(yùn)動(dòng)的能力。

5. avalanche [??v??lɑ?nt?] n. 雪崩

6. derogatory [d??r?ɡ?t（?）ri] adj. 貶低的;誹謗的

7. put sth. into perspective：客觀地比較;客觀地審查

8. boon [bu?n] n. 恩惠;裨益，非常有益的東西

9. Boko Haram：博科圣地，尼日利亞的伊斯蘭教原教旨主義組織，反對(duì)西方教育和文化。2014年4月14日，該組織成員持槍闖入尼日利亞東北部一所中學(xué)的學(xué)校宿舍，將睡夢(mèng)中的276名女學(xué)生綁架。這一事件在社交媒體中引發(fā)了“帶回我們的女孩”（Bring Back Our Girls）運(yùn)動(dòng)，引起了國(guó)際社會(huì)的關(guān)注。

10. gun violence：此處指2014年5月在社交媒體中發(fā)起的槍支管制運(yùn)動(dòng)。2014年5月，美國(guó)加州大學(xué)圣巴巴拉分校發(fā)生槍擊案，造成包括槍擊嫌疑人在內(nèi)的七人死亡。其中一位受害者的父親在社交媒體中發(fā)起這項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)，引起廣泛關(guān)注。

11. invisible children：2012年3月，美國(guó)非政府組織“被遺忘的兒童”（Invisible Children， Inc.）發(fā)布了一部名為《科尼2012》（Kony 2012）的紀(jì)錄片。這部紀(jì)錄片控訴了烏干達(dá)反政府武裝頭目約瑟夫·科尼（Joseph Kony， 1961～）綁架、虐待兒童以及使用童子軍等罪行，在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上受到廣泛關(guān)注。

12. keep sth. at bay：阻止，遏止

13. zaniness [?ze?nin?s] n. 荒謬可笑;滑稽愚蠢

14. in your face：挑釁的;駭人的

15. pesky [?peski] adj. 惱人的;討厭的

賈斯汀·汀布萊克、奧普拉·溫弗瑞、肯尼迪家族和比爾·蓋茨有什么共同點(diǎn)？今年夏天（編注：英文原文發(fā)表于2014年8月），他們都把一桶冰水倒在了自己頭上，以提高人們對(duì)肌萎縮側(cè)索硬化癥（ALS）的認(rèn)識(shí)，該癥又名“盧·格里克癥”。

據(jù)《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》報(bào)道，冰桶挑戰(zhàn)其實(shí)并不是件新鮮事。這項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)始于去年的職業(yè)高爾夫聯(lián)賽，但是今年夏天曾是波士頓學(xué)院棒球明星的皮特·弗拉泰斯在Facebook上分享了該挑戰(zhàn)之后才真正興起。在皮特上大學(xué)時(shí)就認(rèn)識(shí)他的職業(yè)棒球運(yùn)動(dòng)員們接受并分享了這項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)，此后它不僅僅是滾雪球般地發(fā)展，而是成了一場(chǎng)雪崩式的運(yùn)動(dòng)。

這項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)的目的是通過以下荒謬行為來提高人們的認(rèn)識(shí)：把冰水澆在自己的頭上，拍成視頻，并在社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)上分享。參與者隨后點(diǎn)名其他三個(gè)（或更多）人接受挑戰(zhàn)，并警告稱：“24小時(shí)以內(nèi)，你要么接受挑戰(zhàn)，要么捐100美元！”

即便你在社交媒體上的活躍程度一般，在過去的兩周半內(nèi)，你也幾乎難以避開朋友和名人參加冰桶挑戰(zhàn)的視頻發(fā)布——甚至你自己可能也接受了這項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)。

不過，同樣讓人難以避開的是對(duì)這項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)的批評(píng)、對(duì)其缺陷的指責(zé)以及對(duì)其有效性的質(zhì)疑，盡管有大量證據(jù)表明，這項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)顯然是奏效的。

總會(huì)有人憤恨

盡管接受挑戰(zhàn)的大多數(shù)人——如果不是所有人——也給這項(xiàng)事業(yè)捐了款，但是多數(shù)視頻中唯一提及錢的地方是說如果你在接下來的24小時(shí)內(nèi)仍然保持溫暖、干燥，就要捐款100美元，這讓人覺得似乎接受挑戰(zhàn)的人是在試圖躲避捐款。

與此同時(shí)，也有一些人譴責(zé)這項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)徒勞無益，只是又一個(gè)將“點(diǎn)擊行動(dòng)主義”發(fā)揮到極致的例子。點(diǎn)擊行動(dòng)主義、懶漢行動(dòng)主義、標(biāo)簽行動(dòng)主義……無論你怎么稱呼，這些說法都是貶義——盡管不應(yīng)如此。

《牛津英語詞典》對(duì)“clicktivism”（點(diǎn)擊行動(dòng)主義）的定義是“利用社交媒體和其他網(wǎng)絡(luò)方法來促進(jìn)某項(xiàng)事業(yè)”。但Clicktivist.org網(wǎng)站澄清道：“點(diǎn)擊行動(dòng)主義并不單純是對(duì)某項(xiàng)事業(yè)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)支持或推廣，而是利用數(shù)字媒體來促進(jìn)社會(huì)變革和積極行動(dòng)。多數(shù)情況下，點(diǎn)擊行動(dòng)主義采取在社交媒體上支持和推廣某項(xiàng)事業(yè)的形式，但也可以包含各種各樣的活動(dòng)……”

不過，大多數(shù)批評(píng)者的看法是，點(diǎn)擊按鈕來“分享”東西是毫無價(jià)值的，人們應(yīng)該從屏幕后面走出來“做”些事情。但是他們應(yīng)該做些什么呢？除了傳播認(rèn)識(shí)和籌集資金來幫助那些從事研究的人，人們還能做些什么呢？

對(duì)標(biāo)簽行動(dòng)主義的批評(píng)是我們這個(gè)領(lǐng)域（編注：指非營(yíng)利組織領(lǐng)域）的一個(gè)嚴(yán)重問題，這種批評(píng)應(yīng)該停止。冰桶挑戰(zhàn)向我們展示的正是懶漢行動(dòng)主義或點(diǎn)擊行動(dòng)主義所能取得的成就。只要正確地加以設(shè)計(jì)和利用，此類社交媒體運(yùn)動(dòng)恰能使人們產(chǎn)生認(rèn)識(shí)。

那么，為什么明明有數(shù)字為證，我們卻在批評(píng)？

盡管接受挑戰(zhàn)的人可能并未全都表示他們要捐款，但是他們顯然捐了。數(shù)據(jù)相當(dāng)令人震撼：在7月29日至8月18日期間募集了1560萬美元，僅在8月14日至18日期間就募集了800萬美元！

客觀比較來看，這一數(shù)字與去年同期相比高出了800%。面對(duì)這種成功率就沒什么好爭(zhēng)辯的了。

那么，為何這項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)遭到了那么多負(fù)面評(píng)價(jià)？是因?yàn)槲覀兊母黝惤M織沒有像肌萎縮側(cè)索硬化癥協(xié)會(huì)那樣收益頗豐，從而感到嫉妒，吃不到葡萄說葡萄酸？希望我們不至于如此。但是為什么這個(gè)夏天我們親眼目睹這種潛力展現(xiàn)，卻沒有感到興奮呢？

光有認(rèn)識(shí)沒有錢不也沒意義嗎？

有意義。當(dāng)然，我們想要并需要資金來支持我們的事業(yè)和組織，但是要考慮這一點(diǎn)：認(rèn)識(shí)絕不會(huì)白白浪費(fèi)。《華盛頓郵報(bào)》的凱特琳·杜威曾說：“盡管有人再三聲稱，認(rèn)識(shí)起不到任何作用，但是認(rèn)識(shí)幾乎總是起到某種作用——作用也許不大，但也是可以覺察到的。”

現(xiàn)實(shí)情況是，在當(dāng)今這個(gè)信息不斷涌現(xiàn)的時(shí)代，過度曝光是必要的。激勵(lì)一個(gè)人采取行動(dòng)需要平均七到八次的曝光，所以任何有助于提高認(rèn)識(shí)之舉都大有裨益。

點(diǎn)擊行動(dòng)主義的目標(biāo)并不是解決問題，而是讓我們認(rèn)識(shí)一項(xiàng)我們?cè)静粫?huì)了解的事業(yè)。正是這種行動(dòng)主義讓我們開始談?wù)摬┛剖サ兀?帶回我們的女孩）、槍支暴力（#不要再有下一個(gè)）、被遺忘的兒童（#科尼2012）以及其他事業(yè)。

有時(shí)，表達(dá)異見（或支持）是我們僅有的力量。將其稱為毫無意義或懶惰只是阻礙進(jìn)步、疏遠(yuǎn)潛在盟友的另一種方式。

參與是一種具有生命力的事物。你倡導(dǎo)的運(yùn)動(dòng)可能從一次簡(jiǎn)單的轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)開始，但是在精明能干的非營(yíng)利營(yíng)銷專家的引導(dǎo)下，每邁出小小的下一步，都有助于為你的事業(yè)培養(yǎng)點(diǎn)擊行動(dòng)主義者。

這些點(diǎn)擊行動(dòng)主義者會(huì)使有形的捐款增長(zhǎng)800%嗎？也許會(huì)，也許不會(huì)。但是你不用花一分錢，而且有“冰桶”的榜樣可以學(xué)習(xí)，這難道不值得嘗試嗎？

別犯傻，直接捐款

質(zhì)疑者提出質(zhì)疑，還有些人則批評(píng)這項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)中的“看看我”因素。他們的態(tài)度是：直接捐款就完事了。

但正是這些視頻的滑稽可笑之處才引起了大多數(shù)人的關(guān)注——認(rèn)識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)很重要。肌萎縮側(cè)索硬化癥并非一種新的疾病，那為什么肌萎縮側(cè)索硬化癥協(xié)會(huì)在今年打破了籌款紀(jì)錄？因?yàn)橛^看冰水澆在你朋友頭上時(shí)他們尖叫的樣子值10美元、100美元或1000美元。

選擇不拍視頻的人不多——即使他們向慈善機(jī)構(gòu)捐贈(zèng)了100美元或更多錢。可是這讓反對(duì)者提出了另一個(gè)問題：這么多水和冰似乎有點(diǎn)“跟人對(duì)著干”——是一種奢侈的浪費(fèi)——而全國(guó)很多地方正在應(yīng)對(duì)大規(guī)模的干旱（全球范圍內(nèi)的其他一些地區(qū)則沒有清潔水可言）。我并不支持浪費(fèi)水或其他自然資源，但是你可知道，長(zhǎng)出一斤牛肉需要2400加侖的水？那些批評(píng)浪費(fèi)水資源的人不吃牛排或漢堡嗎？我對(duì)此表示懷疑。

批評(píng)者這么說有道理，但這項(xiàng)挑戰(zhàn)并不是由肌萎縮側(cè)索硬化癥協(xié)會(huì)發(fā)起的，否則對(duì)此活動(dòng)他們可能會(huì)選擇更加謹(jǐn)慎。這是一項(xiàng)草根運(yùn)動(dòng)，自身已經(jīng)具有了生命力。

是的，可以取而代之

盡管那些討厭的反對(duì)者聲稱，如果你無法讓這些標(biāo)簽行動(dòng)主義者采取更多行動(dòng)，那就不算真正的成功。更多？你還想要更多什么？800%的資金增長(zhǎng)、307，598名新的捐助者，這還不夠嗎？

我們不應(yīng)吹毛求疵，而是應(yīng)當(dāng)尋找機(jī)會(huì)，鼓勵(lì)這些小小的善舉，它們可能會(huì)成為勢(shì)不可擋的慷慨浪潮。我們應(yīng)該慶祝這場(chǎng)不可思議的勝利，并承認(rèn)此事的確吸引了觀眾，唯一的問題是我們?nèi)绾慰创耸隆?/p>

我的意思是，促使比爾·蓋茨做出如此善舉的一件事，怎能不被稱為一場(chǎng)勝利？憑借著包容、歡樂、幽默和感人的精神，冰桶挑戰(zhàn)提高了人們的認(rèn)識(shí)。這是一場(chǎng)真正線上和線下共同參與的像病毒一樣傳播的活動(dòng)，也是其他非營(yíng)利組織可以效仿的宏偉藍(lán)圖。

不是每個(gè)人都有能力像比爾·蓋茨那樣捐助，這就讓以下事實(shí)顯得更令人欣喜：點(diǎn)擊行動(dòng)主義和社交的力量使非營(yíng)利組織能夠像營(yíng)銷預(yù)算龐大、資產(chǎn)數(shù)十億美元的大公司那樣擁有巨大的影響力和潛力。

積沙成塔，因此，如果我們能找到辦法，讓我們發(fā)出的信息在一段較長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間內(nèi)不失去意義，我們就能促成這種發(fā)展勢(shì)頭。也許通過吸引和利用這些標(biāo)簽行動(dòng)主義者來放大我們的信息，我們就能做到這一點(diǎn)，即使他們無法捐款。

記住，無論我們做什么，無論我們做得多么好，總是會(huì)有人來挑刺。但如果我們聽取每一條批評(píng)意見，我們就會(huì)停止冒險(xiǎn)，不再尋求創(chuàng)新，而我們不想讓社會(huì)成為那個(gè)樣子。

如果我們轉(zhuǎn)而把精力用在尋找解決方案上，我保證我們會(huì)找到自己版本的冰桶挑戰(zhàn)，也會(huì)收獲隨之而來的成功。