Malcolm Gladwell’s article "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will not be Tweeted" raises a significant question about the prospective contribution of web-based social networking to the advent of progressive social movement and change. Gladwell’s bold declaration that "the revolution will not be tweeted" is reflective of his view that social media has no useful application in serious activism. Contrasting various elements of the “high-stakes” lunch-counter protests in Greensboro, North Carolina in the 1960’s with the “low-stakes” activism achieved through social media, Gladwell concludes that effective social movements powerful enough to impose change on longstanding societal forces require both “strong ties” among participants and the presence of a hierarchical organizations. In contrast, Gladwell characterizes the social networks as an interwoven web of "weak ties" that is inherently devoid of a hierarchy. Gladwell’s prerequisites for social movement are firmly based in strong body of sociological evidence, but his views regarding the nature of online social networks are laughably lacking in foresight and obstructed by a misleadingly selective body of evidence.
Gladwell’s misguided view of social networking is a fundamental error that echoes itself throughout his essay. Social networking websites are not meant to be a form of organization; instead they are designed to be an effective means of communication. Comparing a social site like Twitter to a reform oriented organization like the NAACP is equatable to comparing a telephone to a local branch of government. They are clearly not the same thing and obviously perform two very different functions. Hence, an effective comparison of these two very different tools is practicall...
... middle of paper ...
...widening the gap between extremes, often drawing a clear distinction between a true activist and what he would call true apathy. He renders our generation, along with those to follow as the embodiment of middle of the road mouse clickers with the disillusion that our "like" (in facebook terms) will have a true impact. The problem with Gladwell's argument is that he is looking at it through a uniquely American perspective, assuming that the connections that we form here in the US on Facebook and Twitter are indeed superficial because we have so many other ways to connect with people. In many other places around the world, social networking sites, are the only place they have in which they can freely connect with each other. And those connections are not superficial, those connection helped launch uprisings such as the ones in Tunisia and Egypt.
In conclusion, Carr and Gladwell’s essays have proven that the internet positive effects are outweighed by its negative effects. Carr has found he is unable to finish a full text anymore or concentrate. He thinks that the internet has taken our natural intelligence and turned it into artificial intelligence. Gladwell discusses how nowadays, social activism doesn’t have the same risk or impact as former revolutions such as the Civil Rights Movement. The internet is mostly based on weak ties based among people who do not truly know each other and would not risk their lives for their
Gladwells misguided view of social networking is a fundamental error that echoes itself throughout his essay. Social networking websites are not meant to be a form of organization; instead they are designed to be an effective means of communication. Comparing a social site like Twitter to a reform oriented organization like the NAACP is equatable to comparing a telephone to a local branch of government. They are clearly not the same thing and obviously perform two very different functions. Hence, an effective comparison of these two very different tools is practically im...
Perez, Sarah. "Tipping Point Author Malcolm Gladwell Says Facebook, Twitter Won't Lead to Social Change." ReadWrite.com. ReadWrite, 4 Oct. 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
The issues of how technology is influencing our nation today has come into play with social media and surveillance in our personal lives. We use twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. to express our opinions on things and as a voice to inform people on what’s going on in today’s society. We have learned how to use the tools we’ve been given to change our lives forever; our government has access to all of our personal information in exchange for our protection against terrorism. In Bijan Stephen’s article on “Black Lives Matter” and Rebecca McKinnon’s chapter on “the Arab Spring”, they both touch on the power of technology in negative and positive ways.
Gladwell discusses the difference of how people protest or raise support in today’s society compared to how people did this before Facebook or the internet. He begins his article by telling a story about a sit-in in 1960 and how it escalated to involve the entire community. He often goes back to this story to show how it was different than what people do in today’s society. He goes into how all of the people knew each other and how they started the sit-in. They all knew each other from college or high school and planned the entire protest in one of their rooms and then went out to do it. He then says the reason why everyone participated in the sit-ins was because they were good friends and they inspired more people because the people that joined in went to the
Malcom Gladwell, is an author of numerous New York Times Best Sellers, who uses several techniques in his writing to clarify and support his argument. Gladwell’s techniques are using stories to appeal to the reader’s emotions. Using scientific facts and research to logically strengthen his argument. Also, writing about controversial issues to establish credibility with the readers. These techniques are found in “Offensive Play”, “Small Change”, and “Harlan, Kentucky”, works by Gladwell.
Gladwell says that the difference between these two eras is that activism is less accountable. Back then, movements and causes spread like wildfire, and people who join feel personally involved in the furthering of their cause. With the internet, people spread the accountability among their fellow activists. For instance, there is no accountability if they don’t show up to a rally or protest. The lack of effort that results in more people joining a cause, could be called could be called “teamwork effect,” which Gladwell holds in high disregard. However at the same time of this “teamwork effect,” there are more people informed about movements than before. People who may never have been aware of a movement’s cause can now be made aware. During the 1960s people did not have the same access to information as they do today. This alone leads to more support and awareness which negates any concerns Gladwell has about social media accountability. Now there are more people, and also more power in current movements than there is in the
Gladwell strongly believes that activism was viewed in a much different way before technology took over the world. In the 1960’s protests, and boycotts spread rapidly but usually only among friends. Today, information spreads to thousands of people in seconds due to social media. Gladwell believes traditional activism formed strong-ties whereas today 's movements and protests form weak-ties because of social media. People are motivated when they have close friends with them in a movement, not just through a text message. As Gladwell states, “where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools.” (Gladwell 408) Gladwell believes these tools can’t really help a social activism movement, but he does acknowledge the speed of social media networks. But, without news and social media how will the information spread? Anything placed on the internet can be broadcasted to a large audience within seconds. Gladwell writes: “Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires.” (Gladwell 408) Gladwell makes a good point but how will the motivation ever be there without people receiving information? Nevertheless social media has many flaws, but with other tools
If the founding fathers didn’t stand up for the things they believed in we would have never separated from Britain and established our own country. However, today it seems like retweeting a cause you believe in or watching the new makes people think they are politically active or active in a cause. For example, “These days, however, most Americans think that just sending out a tweet or a social media post counts as advocacy” (Schwartz 1). When in reality they never had to leave the comfort of there home to make this stand. But, studies do also show that the more active people on social media for a cause may actually be more likely to get involved with the cause even farther and take action. “ But while calling yourself an activist for sending out a supportive tweet seems a little lazy, there are indications in the study that social media posts do translate to more involved behavior”(Schwartz 1). Depending on perspectives mass media can either hurt or help people will to stand up for their
Jeff Jarvis is a journalist, professor, and public speaker. In his book, “Public Parts”, Jarvis’s own opinions on “publicness” are stated plainly. He sees both social and personal benefits to living a totally public life on the internet. David Kirkpatrick is a technology journalist and author. He offers no opinion of his own on subject of total public disclosure. He has written two books on the social media giant Facebook. Kirkpatrick’s book “The Facebook Effect” was reviewed by David Pogue in The New York Times, Sunday Book Review. Pogue wrote, “You come away with a creepy new awareness of how a directory of college students is fast becoming a directory of all humanity — one that’s in the hands of a somewhat strange 26-year-old wearing a T-shirt and rubber Adidas sandals.” His book may leave readers more cautious than ever about what information they themselves are uploading to the
Technology has had a negative impact on this generation- we have lost and forgotten many things because of it. In Malcolm Gladwell’s “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”, he discusses the difference between social media activism and “real” activism and the loss of human connection that he has identified. He believes that with social media activism, we lack the connections a community should have because we don’t get together in person- we are satisfied with being connected through technology. He also thinks that as time goes on, we will only get worse when referring to the ideas that we are delusional because the issues we fight about (such as getting phones taken away) aren’t as important as we think.
“You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide.” This phrase was first introduced in George Orwell’s novel 1984, where Orwell created a dictatorial government that addressed itself as “Big Brother”, a sort of benevolent nickname for the higher powers that actually watched over it’s citizens obsessively, and managed their behavior like an eye in the sky. The phrase has also been used in British closed-circuit television (otherwise known simply as video surveillance) which was used experimentally during the 1970’s. During that time period, citizens rebelled against the higher-power that had assumed the right to sift through personal information for the sake of monitoring individuals. New-age technology has herded first-world citizens to document their lives for the public, using methods such as “Tweeting”, “Snapchatting”, and
While many people throughout the world see social media as a trendy new application in the service of personal amusement, the political upheavals in the Arab world have shown how it can change the dynamics of modern day activism. The Arab Spring Uprising interlaced social unrest with a technological revolution. Blogs, news websites, twitter feeds, and political list servers became avenues for communication, information flow and solidarity. Being capable of sharing an immense amount of uncensored information through social media sites has contributed to the success of many Arab Spring activists. Social media played a role in facilitating the events of the Arab Spring, but the main issues are rooted in a broader set of economic, political, and social factors. This paper will examine how social media impacted the Arab Spring Uprising. Specifically, I will look at how social media introduced a novel resource that helped to created internet activist communities, changed the dynamics of social mobilization and revolutionized interactions between protesters and the rest of the world.
This summer if you were on social media you heard about the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. The concept was simple, just film yourself dumping a bucket of ice water over your head, challenge your friends to do the same, and donate ten dollars to the ALS Association. Opt out and donate one hundred dollars (Madison). Many Americans did not know what ALS was and by putting this challenge on social media has brought tons awareness to this devastating disease. Activism used to be taking action to bring social change, people in the 1960s used to gather in front of community centers and protest and or speak about their issue or cause. Now even though people still gather together it is much easier to use the internet. Hundreds of social media applications
First off, when and how did social media become such a dominant aspect in our world? This revolution began when computers decreased in price in the late 1980’s. The startup of internet service providers (IPS): AOL, classmates.com, and theglobe.com, initiated communication through the internet, and the...