Allison Fine

Last month Allison Fine started an interesting discussion on her blog about women, social media and influence. Allison wondered if social media might be the X factor that would help women make real strides in closing the leadership gap. Among commenters, there seemed to be a general consensus that women, as well as other groups, have been able to circumvent, at least in some instances, the glass ceiling and constraints placed on them by the traditional business world. Women have been able to use social media to get their thoughts out to the marketplace without having to get permission or backing from an organization.

The Women of the Year list by She Takes on the World is full of women who have used social media to champion all manner of causes from the global water crisis and microcredit to idea-sharing and motivating young people to succeed. While all of these women would probably be making a difference without laptops and iPhones, they have been able to multiply their efforts with creative social media use.

Organizations like Blogher work to help women online by create opportunities for exposure, education, community and economic empowerment. A 2009 Blogher study reported that 42 million American women are using social media regularly both to share and find information and advice. The survey also found that more than 60 percent of these women use blogs and social networks to find information about social activism.

A recent Vanity Fair article, America's Tweethearts, discusses how previously unknown women representing different sectors and interests have been able to use social media to gain a unique kind of fame on Twitter. In the article (whose author doesn't seem to be entirely sold on with Twitter) one of the "twilebrities" featured, Felicia Day, points out: “Doors were closed to us before. Now the tools for success have been democratized. It’s just me and whoever wants to talk to me, wherever they are in the world.”

It doesn't take a celebrity spokesperson or even a twilebrity spokesperson to leverage social media for wide reach. Like an online flashmob, scores of women (and oddly, some men) began posting one-word status messages yesterday. "Black," "lavender," and "red" were littered among our news feeds, and quickly people began asking, explaining and commenting over the colorful posts, not only on Facebook, but on Twitter and other social media platforms. The Case Foundation's Allie Burns wrote a post discussing both the buzz and the criticism around the campaign. Whether a quietly orchestrated awareness by a breast cancer organization or a prank by a group of young women, it has created a discussion carried on by common women which has permeated the social media world.

It's exciting to see that social citizen gals are using social media to share their ideas and passions and to advocate for the causes that are important to them. And since Millennials may be the most active and engaged online, Millennial women - as individuals and as groups - may have a greater opportunity to be heard and wield influence at a younger age than the women before us. I hope, and trust, that we will continue to take advantage of this opportunity - not to grab self-serving fame for it's own sake, but to change the world with our creative approaches, open and transparent conversations and inspirational acts.

For better or for worse, globalization and innovations in technology continue to make the world smaller all the time. As we grow more connected, our issues and causes are less defined by our physical neighborhoods, cities and countries. Millennials are more globally aware and invested than were our parents' generation and we have already mobilized to fight genocide, malaria, human trafficking, climate change, water shortage and other global issues for people they have never met and may never meet.

We are reading the Economist along with the Washington Post, moving around every couple of years, and using social media which enables us to take part in global communities with people who care about the same causes we do – whether it’s Israeli-Palestinian peace, technology for good, empowering women in developing nations or supporting our alma maters.

As demonstrated by tools like peace.facebook.com, social media has the power to connect  people with very different backgrounds, religions and political beliefs to allow them to work toward solutions in global communities. Some of our community members we have met in person, some we have not, but we interact with them, collaborate with them and support them all the same. And as a result, Millennials increasingly see ourselves as citizens of the world, rather than just citizens of our local communities, and future generations are only going to move further in that direction.

With this changing definition of community and our concern for global issues, the definition of civic engagement and participation can also be more broadly defined. Most people say you have to move online activity to offline action to have real value and impact. I've said it myself. But are we moving toward a time when our goal, instead, will be to keep people online, but move them up the online scale of engagement? Civic participation basically includes efforts to work with a community to solve a problem – like volunteering, donating money, discussing community issues, staying informed and connecting with civic or religious groups. All of those things can happen online, and as the communities of Millennials and generations after us are decreasingly defined by location, much of our civic participation in those communities may have to be online.

What if these one-click actions like greening an avatar, adding a twibbon, voting or buying a virtual gift are embraced as low-level civic participation in global communities, rather than condemned as slacktivism? Does that change the way we think about their legitimacy as awareness techniques and moving these people up the scale of participation? I don’t hear people criticize efforts to raise awareness offline – like passing out flyers, putting campaign signs in yards, or wearing Livestrong bracelets – in the same way, but is it really different?

We now can volunteer online, donate money online, participate in online discussions and forums, ask questions in livestreamed events, shop online and therefore boycotts online, and soon we could be voting online. Obviously people still want offline interaction and opportunities, but it might not always be that way. Just as we are phasing out snail mail a few decades after email first became popular, many offline opportunities may be eventually phased out as well. Meaningful action is already taking place online, so instead of putting our effort toward converting online to offline, should we put our effort toward getting people comfortable with staying online and getting highly engaged in global communities there?

According to a recent study, the biggest barrier to increased support of causes online is a lack of trust – trust that their efforts would really help the cause. Embracing more online communities and forms of engagement does run the risk of increasing our feelings of isolation, detachment and distrust, as suggested by Robert Putnam, but further technology innovations may hold an answer. Jocelyn Harmon and Allison Fine wrote posts recently suggesting that social networks are beginning to rebuild our social capital and decrease isolation by increasing trust between the people we work with online. If rather than being critical of the current challenges of mobilizing people for a cause online, we should spend more time considering the solutions and opportunities. Not being able to gather in person is still seen as a challenge (among others), but if we continue to find more ways to increase real trust and reciprocity through social networks and other technology, we have the potential to form unstoppable global communities of action.

What do you think? Is this the beginning of more global communities and the beginning of the end for offline action in our global communities? What are some of the other challenges, opportunities and implications of thinking about online actions the same way we think about offline actions and not as simply a poor man’s civic action?

Coming off the heels of the National Conference on Volunteering and Service, I’m reminded about the power of individuals to recognize their potential not only as volunteers but also as philanthropists. It’s kind of serendipitous timing that just last night NBC aired its first episode of a new series, The Philanthropist.