In his article Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted, Malcolm Gladwell probes the emergence of Twitter and Facebook as tools to mobilize the masses for protest. He believes that really Twitter and Facebook are just tools and they can not create or start revolution like the organized sit-ins in the Deep South of the U.S.A. in the 1960s.
An interesting discussion erupted in class today when we discussed this article, one that everyone seemed to participate in. At first when I read this article I went back to look at the date on this article ~ because I felt that it was written before the Occupy movement. I was right (it was written in 2010), and while Gladwell wasn't privy to some of the events that happened this past year, I understand what message he was trying to convey in this article.
Yes social networks have a plethora of tools to choose from today to help stay in touch. And yes these tools have been used to motivate the public to join in something that they believe in. Gladwell argues that these "revolutions" or social movements that are organized via Facebook or Twitter have no lasting impact unlike Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus.
This is where I beg to differ - I think that while the tools may have changed, the reasons for being involved are still the same. In fact my classmate Amanda put it best, "It's not about the social tools, it's about the social movement. The reasons why people want to be a part of something have never changed." I agree with her - the desire to be involved in something that will make a difference has always been a part of people's DNA. Today we just have different ways to mobilize and educate people.
I see where you're coming from Mr. Gladwell but I don't agree with what you're saying.
Nice post Andrea. It's a complex issue - and one I think Gladwell glosses over, to the detriment of his argument. And I also agree that Occupy, and consideration of it, might have changed his stance. Might. The guy seems to be pretty content in his position.
ReplyDelete