Malcolm Gladwell, author, and astute assessor of life -- who I first encountered when I read The Tipping Point back in the summer of 2004 prior to entering the University of Pennsylvania for Penn's annual reading project, has somehow missed the mark in his latest piece in The New Yorker, Oct. 4, entitled "Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted." As usual, Gladwell points to many facts and sources in this case to make a persuasive argument as to how social movements today are loosely-tied as compared to those of those before us, most notably several movements of the 1960s, such as sit-ins and the Montgomery Bus Movement. He argues that creatures of Facebook and Twitter are commanded by simple pounds on a keyboard and stir movements by these simple pounds as opposed to actual physical participation, creating weak-ties to participatory events and lower-risk involvement in movements themselves as compared to those that occurred in the past. Participation today is thus either negligible or, it seems as Gladwell argues, drastically less significant than has previously been.
Yet, the social media movements of today are far from insignificant: the most palpable and significant in recent time, for example, based largely (not solely) on a foundation of a social media movement was the momentum of President Obama's victory in 2008. The election of a United States President, was not only tangible, strongly-tied, but also one of absolute high-risk -- maybe not high-risk in the sense of a sit-in with the repercussions of the 1960s -- but high-risk in results, as the results of a presidential election are not a low-risk matter.
When the United States Department of State used SMS text messaging as means to raise money for those impacted by the Haiti disaster, creating the largest mobile donation campaign ever at the time, this was a high-risk movement too. By texting the word "Haiti" to 90999, individuals were each able to donate $10 to the Red Cross, generating 1.7 million dollars the first 24 hours alone. The campaign spread virally across Facebook and Twitter and money kept pouring in. By January 20th, eight days after the earthquake initially struck, the campaign had passed $25 million in its total fundraising amount. This was a movement in the United States that spread across national boundaries, a point that Gladwell clearly distinguishes with the Iran elections, claiming that there was little or no revolution within Iran but instead a movement that was "Western-led." In regard to "Text Haiti," Haiti needed us, and they didn't have the tools to lead the revolution. America needed to lead and did.
Gladwell touches upon societal restructuring with the assumption that we are seemingly now more apathetic. As a younger individual, I can't help feel that some fingers are being pointed at Generations X and Y, the so-called "future of our nation." But studies about younger generations, many of whom are glued to their screens or PDAs day-in and day-out, do not reveal this, not only at election times, but also in regard to civic participation as well.
True, pushing a button on Facebook or sending a tweet is not the same as being in the center of a sit-in or a rally. And if it were not for the generation before each generation, we would not be where we are today. This goes without saying for many generations throughout history, and risks change with history too.
I enjoy Gladwell's books and consistently find many of his arguments intriguing and interesting. But I find his recent piece in The New Yorker to be somewhat generationally insulting -- to me, it seems that he is saying that older generations knew how to create real, palpable movements; younger generations simply know how to push buttons. But Gladwell, younger generations can do both. They have: they were in the Facebook groups for President Obama and then they showed up by the thousands to the rallies and then they voted for him. And in the end, whatever you believe politically, Obama won. This was one significant, high-risk movement. And what if no physical presence occurs at all with such a movement? Look at the "Text Haiti" example: individuals raised over $25 million in eight days via this campaign. Was this high-risk or low-risk? Ask the people of Haiti.
I understand the point that Gladwell makes about joining the largest Facebook group to help save Darfur. Why do it he seemingly asks? The average donation amount is relatively low. However, the problem with this argument, Mr. Gladwell, is that it breeds a culture of cynicism in itself and falls into a cyclical nature of apathy. Just as it was unlikely to force people to join a sit-in if they didn't want to back in the 1960s, it is unlikely to make people donate more than they are willing to, or anything at all, if there main goal is to make a point. And making a point to them might just be joining that group. Either way, these individuals are still making their own statement in their own, as you say, loosely-tied ways. And whether we like it or not, times have changed, and these are the movements of today: new societal structures have been created where people can in fact still make differences.
When Malcolm Gladwell spoke at my alma mater during the first week of classes a number of years ago, I believed in him because I thought he believed in the future generations. After reading his latest piece, I'm not so certain that he does anymore.
Mr. Gladwell: Look at all of the responses on the Internet that you have been receiving to your initial column. I have seen many. Low-risk, for sure. Loosely-connected, of course. But we care enough to write responses. And others care enough to tweet our responses or post them on their Facebook walls. And so, I end with what you ended with in your own piece: Viva la revolución.
David Helfenbein has also posted this blog posting on his site, http://www.TheBeanPredicts.com, under his blog, The Bean Blog.
Follow David Helfenbein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidHelfenbein
As for the legitimacy of social media activism, the medium begs for the free-rider issue of movements. The work has been done. Elsewhere. Probably not online. But simply clicking Like, ReTweet or Send Message requires less from each us. The difference between this and the free-rider issues is only that nstead of assuming that "someone else will get to solving the problem", we act effortlessly, carelessly because it's that easy to benefit from the cause.
I'm also not sure how sending a text message is high risk for the "activists" involved.. Actually, I'm not sure how receiving (or not receiving) a donation is high-risk for the victims of disaster. Truth is, much of that money still has yet to reach Haiti.Life goes on, suffering continues and, as well as they possibly can, Haitians try to rebuild.
Barack Obama was able to convert social media activism into real world activism, but most campaigns cannot; and even Obama's campaign was helped by having real world advocates motivate people locally or regionally to get involved further.
Clicking a button to say I like or sending a text to donate can and frequently are very low barriers for social activities. They are first or second sometimes third steps on getting someone involved and committed to a cause. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think its bad when people feel like, I gave and that's all I need to do, or I retweeted, I'm done with this issue.
I think Gladwell hits upon the issues tons of nonprofits and social activist are currently struggling with. The wisdom of crowds is great. Large followings are great. But how do you get 1,000 strong, inspiring activist out of 100,000 followers? Can you make them or are they just there?
Admittedly, some of the best will just be there, but really, we want to be able to make them as well.
Key quote:
"Granovetter goes on to argue that weak ties play a seminal role in building trust among a large group of loosely affiliated members, which is essential for rallying behind a cause. (He compares the West End to Charlestown, which was full of “bridging weak ties” and successfully fought off a massive urban renewal project.)
While Gladwell argues that the flat hierarchies of online networks are a detriment to effective activism — he cites the leaderless P.L.O. as an example — Granovetter points out that leaders of social movements often depend on weak ties to maintain loyalty. He notes that organizations dominated by strong ties tend to produce fragmentation and cliquishness, which quickly leads to the breakdown of trust.
This suggests that part of the reason Martin Luther King was able to inspire such discipline among a relatively large group of followers was that he cultivated a large number of weak ties. As a result, people felt like they trusted him, even though they barely knew him."
Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/frontal-cortex#ixzz11MT8uVQi
movements and protests, as well as virtual or online ones?
If we think about books for a moment, it is nice to have real books as well as ebooks.
I will say that protesting online (or armchair protesting) may be easier to participate in, but it is also easier for a hostile state to make martyrs out of people who participate.
By the by. I marched in anti nuclear rallies in the early 80's. Gotta get my plug in.
Socially philanthropic entreprenuers should take heart to Gladwell's truths for the long view.
Humans need real friendships, real contact, real community. When I approach social entrepreneurs at conferences that focus on effecting change, ironically 95% tend to give a smug look and rarely try to understand my advocacies' or generation's issues. Like I said before twenty-somethings have looked down their noses at older folks for eons. We'd all be better if we partnered -- those of us who've had benefit of decades of living with those who are empowered with tech savvy and gumption.
The vast majority of politicised young in the sixties and seventies did not have a clue what was going on around them. They were politically naive, ill-informed and totally resistant to the discipline or hierarchy essential to the building of a mass movement.
The first Internet generations face a similar problem insofar as they can convince themselves that they are being effective because they all jump up and down at the same time a few times. That is movement. It is not A MOVEMENT.
How is Internet going to create hierarchy? You think you can tackle Western governments, sectional and special interests, corporations, warlords and drug-lords, by organising yourselves on-line as a mass? The mass must have cohesion which means structure which means hierarchy which means leadership.
The masses of humanity are politically ignorant. The minority who are politically active take upon themselves the responsibility of leadership.
To lead, there must be a party. My generation destroyed parties. We achieved gains for groups by fragmenting.
Your generation has too many organisations with too little power. Diffusion is confusing. You need centralization of power. Sure, you got Obama elected. Then what? He raised taxes on the rich, legalized drugs and brought the military home? Remember the Wobblies. Get organized.
Online movements may actually benefit by not being hierarchical, they allow for 'leadership' to allow spontaneously and freely based upon merit alone. They are inherently democratic.
Movements may be 'open source' allowing for multiple shifting leadership over time. This could be seen as a strength, making these movements extremely resistant and persistent.
Time will tell, I have a feeling technology will take us places we never imagined we'd go.
I have learned to 'use' technology, but somehow it seems less real-less powerful than say meeting face-to-face, or speaking on the phone.
My 22 year old son, on the other hand 'embraces' technology. It is a natural extension of who he is.
When he was younger, I became very concerned with the hours he was 'wasting' online.
I have since come to understand that, in reality, he was living an extremely rich and stimulating experience.
He could explore a wide range of music, video, writings... He chatted and exchanged e-mails with people from a variety of cultures all over the world.
His experiences are real.
M cubed who posted below said, "it takes more than a tweet to get someone to stand in front of a tank, or face down water cannon".
On the contrary, people can be summoned to action more quickly and in greater numbers than ever before. Sometimes that action is physical. More often that action is a matter of communicating and/or financial support.
The ties that create movements may be less 'physical', but they are every bit as REAL.
Thanks for writing and I do hope that you continue to read and post what you are thinking.
Best,
David
I look forward to reading more of your blog posts.
m3
In Gladwell's argument about the Civil Rights movement, he carefully described the strong ties that formed within the members of this movement. Gladwell carefully delineated the structure of Martin Luther King Jr.'s organization, that he had a war chest of over a million dollars, and that through the organization, thousands of people were trained in the methods of non-violent civil disobedience and resistance. In this organization, the black churches plainly played a leading role. As Gladwell pointed out, 98% of the African Americans went to church every Sunday. They created the face-to-face bonds that strengthened their resolve and proved invaluable in the face of Bull Conner's dogs, truncheons, and fire hoses.
Yes, modern technology provides wonderful tools. Twitter and Facebook can enhance the ability to communicate between people, just as the transistor radio became an important tool in the protests of the 1960s, and the cell phone became a most effective weapon in the Balkan Crisis of the 1990s. But it takes more than a tweet to get someone to stand in front of a tank, or face down water cannons.
All in all, I think this was Gladwell's best researched and best conceived writing since The Tipping Point.