Malcolm Gladwell Small Change Summary

Malcolm Gladwell, a published author and staffed writer for The New Yorker since 1996, argues in his article “Small Change” that social media will not have a great impact on social change, and might even be demolishing the necessary tools that high-action activism has always been reliant on. Gladwell attempts to speak out to warn our current technological society, specifically to the young adults who frequent social media more than other ages. Gladwell highlights an event from 1960 when four college women from North Carolina A. & T. were denied service because of their race, and turned to protest as they sat at the lunch counter, refusing to move. The movement of sit-ins spread and grew until eventually seventy thousand students across the South were united in protest, without the use of technological communication. He focuses on the idea that this protest, like many others before the use of social media, was formed on the idea of strong bonds between real friendships, and not just loose relationships between acquaintances. But if we were to combine the key concepts Gladwell highlights that are needed within protests

along with the use of technology, we could form a society of strong voices and efficient protests that don’t just make the news, but actually change lives.
Gladwell starts off with historical events as his main driving point, which isn’t exactly the best way to appeal to the audience of millennials he is trying to appease. This is especially true when he states that these events “happened without e-mail, texting, Facebook, or twitter” (2). Readers tend to raise a brow to this statement – a sort of ‘no duh’ reaction – since the internet wasn’t invented until 1969, so this clearly wasn’t even possible.
After explaining how social media has changed the game in the world of activism, Gladwell highlights a valid statement Stanford sociologist Doug McAdam tells about the ‘strong-tie’ phenomenon. The basis of his ideas is that high-risk activism only plays out when protestors have a deeply-rooted connection to each other. Without this, protestors are more likely to fall out of line, or not stick to the intricate plans. When it comes to evoking real transformations within a society, there is a certain precision that goes along with it. He states that activism can only make a great impact if everyone is on the same page. A sense of accountability is easier to maintain among a large crowd if there is a sense of strong-tie connections. He relates back to social media, saying that these “platforms… are built around weak ties” (6).
Gladwell is right in saying “weak ties seldom lead to high-activism” (6), but can we transform Facebook ‘friends’ into a bonded group of people striving for change? In order to have the most efficient society for social change, there is a need of incorporating both the necessity of strong-tie relationships and the use of technology for connection. When people incorporate both the tools of technology to spread information about, for example, a march to city hall, and then use their strong-tie connections to involve the people closest to them, not only will the band of people standing together be strong, but the amount of people could be much larger than previously anticipated if they didn’t use the Internet as an outlet. If my roommate, Ana, sees an event for a march on Facebook, and she’s extremely passionate about this, she will end up going. But she will also tell me, and our suitemates. Then my suitemates and I will tell our other friends, and those friends will recruit others. Let’s say that we end up bring 25 people through our web of relationships. That’s 25 more people that wouldn’t have attended this event if it wasn’t for Ana’s event notification. Having weak-ties within protests is dangerous, as Gladwell explains, for there is a lack of commitment. But this example of Ana’s integration is a perfect example of technological balance. It started with a weak-tie connection, someone from middle school who invited her to the event, and then through her own personal strong-tie connections, she created a stronger force to back up this protest.
The next major example Gladwell brings to the table is the idea of a hierarchical power system as opposed to a larger network. He argues that hierarchical organizations, used by leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., are the only way to have a solidified structure. An authority power is necessary in systematic change. This links back to his earlier point on strong-ties; when there is an authority figure, there is more accountability placed on activists. Everyone has a specific role and knows how to play their part. But networks, such as Twitter and Facebook, don’t have these qualities. They’re based in general community rules. He does acknowledge that networks “are effective at increasing participation” (7), but if these participants all have different goals and strategies, how efficient will these groups be? Not very.
Let’s look back at the roommate example. If Ana brought together 25 extra people, with strong-tie connections, they won’t do much good unless they all have the same goals and actions in mind. They will go to the march, and one of them will be more vocal than the rest or one will be more timid than the others. These actions will make the group weaker, and dissolve their message. It will become confusing and ineffective. But what if the Facebook event wasn’t the march, but rather a pre-march get-together, led by someone with a centralized purpose? This person will give people roles, assign them groups, and hold members accountable. Everyone is on the same page. No one is confused. All are united. Then they hold a couple more meetings, do a practice run, give improvements, and then march. What started as a network, advanced into a strong-tie group and ended with hierarchical organization.
But this formula doesn’t always add up.

Often times social media isn’t given much thought, and protestors come together and then fall apart. Violence strikes, extremist messages are conveyed, and the central goal becomes lost. If our society looks at social media in a different light, we could find a way to strengthen our activism, instead of ruin it. Twitter isn’t going to disappear, Facebook won’t get shut down, people aren’t going to throw away their phones. We have to adapt. Transforming how we can integrate technology, instead of banishing it, is our only option, because let’s be honest: millennials are too connected. But maybe if we stop seeing this as a bad thing, and rather an adaptive necessity, then our revolution can continue. As Gladwell explains, activism “challenges the status quo” (4). So why not challenge the way we view social

media?
Viva la revolución.