5.25 Reading Response

Texts:
Gladwell, Small Change New Yorker (Oct 2010)

To start off with, I was immediately interested in this article because it is something familiar to me. I went to school in High Point, North Carolina – right in the Piedmont Triad of Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point. This particular event is a big part of the history of the area. I have been to a museum that remembers the event, there have been events commemorating it, even a play written about it (which I have done a press release on). Gladwell has even come to my school to speak. So it was really interesting to me that Gladwell connected his point regarding social media specifically to this – it really made it more relevant to me.

At the same time, while I did agree with some of Gladwell’s points, I did not agree with his overall attitude or position regarding social media and social change. Gladwell says that social media doesn’t really stand a change in helping with social change. He starts by describing the events of the civil rights movement and pointing out that they all happened without the use of e-mail, texting, Facebook, or Twitter (2). But haven’t the ways we worked changed? I feel that social media and social networks give us a certain advantage. We have increased independence, the ability to influence a wider audience, and the change to work together in new ways with new tools to meet our objectives. Our network – or you could say system – is broader with more subjects. Let me explain.

Gladwell points out that today, “the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns” (2). Furthermore, “where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools” (2). But at the same time, he says that with our “outsized enthusiasm for social media” we have forgotten what activism is (3).  Wile high-risk activism deals with strong ties between people, Gladwell comments that social media platforms are built around weak ties (5). But where’s the proof for this? Isn’t this an awfully broad generalization? Personally, most of my accounts are friends – particularly my Twitter where I have a smaller amount of followers who are only people I know and talk to. If they are really only built around weak ties anyway, can’t this change? And why is this necessarily a bad thing? Gladwell says that there is strength in weak ties and that “our acquaintances – not our friends – are our greatest source of new ideas and information” (5). So couldn’t they insure us to do something effective in real life? He also points out that although the Internet lets us exploit these distant connections, it doesn’t often lead to high-risk activism (5). But does our society today even need high-risk activism. At least in the United States, I feel that we seem less willing to do anything high-risk for a cause anyway. The majority of people are comfortable in their lives and do not feel compelled to do anything that drastic. Times have changed and nothing enormous is motivating the majority of us to participate in anything high-risk.

Another point that Gladwell makes is that social media only brings things that provide easy commitments, the kind that don’t bring change but instead social acknowledgement and praise (5). I ask again, why is this a bad thing? He says that “social networks are effective at increasing participation – by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires” (5-6). But isn’t this more what our society needs, or at least calls for, today? Informing others, attending events, volunteering – these are all things that Gladwell mentions. Since when are these things not worthwhile? He says this kind of activism doesn’t motivate us to make real sacrifices (6). While this may be true, I think that it’s all we have. People have changed. Most of them aren’t going to be willing to make big sacrifices today anyways. At least we can get them involved more efficiently in this way – it’s better than nothing.

While I found it interesting, I don’t think Gladwell’s comparison of social media activism to the civil-rights movement is effective or appropriate. He is comparing it too much to the past. Times and society have both changed greatly – too much to compare. People think and act very differently. We have different ways of organizing ourselves and communicating, and we have different priorities and passions. As Gladwell says, the civil-rights movement was high-risk activism and was a “challenge to the establishment mounted with precision and discipline” (6). I don’t think anything has hit home hard enough for the majority of us to really see if social media could be put into action for high-risk activism. This isn’t comparable to anything happening close to home in our society today, so how can we judge how people are acting now compared to then? Gladwell says that the bad thing about networks is that they aren’t interested in systemic change (7). But what if something happened to get them interested – an event could prompt a change. Maybe if we were presented with something similar, we’d apply our situation to use social media in high-risk ways –we don’t know. Gladwell says that social media isn’t about the kind of hierarchical organizations used for the civil-rights movement, but for using tools for building networks (6). I think that this could, in fact, be more effective in the kind of society we are living in today – we all work together now as more of a network rather than a hierarchy thanks to these new tools. Galdwell says that decisions made this way – through consensus – are only loosely binding (7). But says who? Where’s the proof in that? If we make decisions together, we put more effort into them and have a personal connection to them. When we decide together, aren’t we more likely to be willing to stick together? Isn’t that part of the idea of Democracy?

Gladwell agrees that networks are resilient and adaptable in low-risk situations, but argues that the lack of centralized leadership and authority makes it hard to reach consensus and set goals (7). This kind of goes against what we have learned about an activity system. In a system, subjects all work together using tools to meet their objectives – so why wouldn’t this be possible in the activity system of a social network? Networks are messy (8) but so is real life today. The discipline and strategy used in the civil-rights movement may not even be possible today. So why shouldn’t we try to embrace the organizing power of the Internet at least? Instead of shooting it down for all of the things it can’t do, appreciate it for what it can do and be open for ways it might change. Nothing is static or stable in our society today, but constantly changing.

The Internet increases the ease and speed with which a group can be mobilized for the right kind of cause (9). This organization and weak-ties connection gives us access to information more easily and promotes resilience and adaptability (9). They may not have the qualities of discipline and strategy or any of the other characteristics that have been successful for social change in the past, but who is to say that these can’t work today? I think this is more applicable to how our society works today. We have larger communities that are harder to organize and less likely to have strong ties between people. It is not social media that has prompted this change, it is just our growth and interactions as a society that has changed the way we act and communicate. Gladwell even says that the “instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient” (9). So if they can do this, why not more? Gladwell says that there isn’t a future in digital protesters – but how does he know? 50 years ago I’m sure few people had any inkling of the changes that were to come of their small actions in the civil-rights movement. Their actions didn’t seem to start off very big either, but they eventually grew. Change takes time and you never know what we are capable of with these new – and I think, powerful – tools.