Recently, the popular social theorist Malcolm Gladwell published an article that essentially dismissed social media as a medium that "can't provide what social change has always required." Gladwell tracks many revolutions in history that occurred successfully without the use of Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media websites.
The article can be found on The New Yorker's website here.
Specifically, Gladwell looks at the recent revolution in Iran and dismisses social media's role in the protests. He claims that very few people had access to Twitter or Facebook in the country, and that most of the tweeting and facebooking came from those in the West.
Ultimately, Gladwell claims that social media does a good job at spreading ideas to the weak ties that we hold on the internet but it does a terrible job at involving people in high-risk activities. Gladwell also claims that social media is not effective in increasing our motivation.
Malcolm Gladwell said all of these things before the recent revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen. Critics have jumped on him for saying the things that he did because they believe that social media has been one of the most important tools for the recent uprisings.
Gladwell even posted a response to the criticism here: http://nyr.kr/ggo3aZ
I agree with Malcolm Gladwell to an extent. I think that we have given too much power to social media because it gives us the excuse to sit at our desks and sign online petitions and join Facebook Causes instead of getting on our feet and taking to the streets to raise money. As a culture, we give too much power to social media because it allows us to feel involved in joining with the citizens of Egypt through reading the Tweets of Nick Kristoff while he is on the ground there.
Social media is good for disseminating information and for asking people to do small things, but it doesn't motivate people to make huge sacrifices.
Do you take Malcolm Gladwell's position or do you think that social media is an integral part of revolutions and social change?
I think social media is definitely a good tool for spreading the word and publicizing political issues, but it still doesn't make up for not actively participating more in various protests. Social media is, in a way, joking yourself into believing that you are making a difference. And justifies a lazy-active revolution.
ReplyDeleteSocial media is definitely important when it comes to spreading messages by word of mouth. I can also see how social media has also made us less active in trying to accomplish social change. At some point, in order to achieve change it is necessary to log off of the computer and take action. In the early stages of working toward change, however, I see no problem with using social media to spread the word about ideas and change.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right that social media work when it comes to enabling small actions. Most of us would probably agree they fail to take things a step further and get our butts off of our chairs. I'm not sure if social media will ever do that. Facebook and Twitter were not originally intended as useful tools for protests and revolutions; active citizens in the middle of a struggle saw them in a different light and adapted them to their needs. Social media primarily spread information, so it's up to us – people who actively use social media – to change our mindsets and develop a genuine concern for issues that will make us take that information and turn it into an action.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this article! I love Malcolm Gladwell's work, especially his book Blink. I think that social media should be seen as a complement to political action. It certainly can't replace actual work, but it is a great way to create word of mouth and make people more aware of what people are fighting for.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of an episode of The West Wing (okay, everything reminds me of a TWW episode) in which the Communications Director (Toby) complains about protesters outside posting all their protest details on the website, so that the police arrive before they do and they can't cause any real disruption. This is in contrast to Toby's own youth, when a protest was underground and was able to actually accomplish something.
ReplyDeleteIt's a different point, of course, but with a similar message: Putting the word out on the internet doesn't necessarily help your cause, and may well hinder it. Imagine if the Egyptians who were outside protesting had instead all been inside huddled around Facebook complaining-- nothing would have changed! They had to put the computer away, go outside, and DO something to get a change.
I believe the term you're missing here in regards to what social media can't provide for a cause is OPSEC - Operational Security. Social media might serve as a great way to raise awareness for a cause, as mentioned, but it ultimately won't have the same effect as actual feet on the ground demanding change. In addition, in the case of an actual armed revolution such as the one happening in Libya right now, the use of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook open up a very large security threat - when you're planning to storm an arms cache to overthrow a government, it's not exactly a bright idea to say you plan to do so on the internet and attach your real name to it to boot.
ReplyDeleteWhile social media certainly might help a movement get on it's feet, it cannot make it march and if anything will cause a movement to fall all over itself instead.
I think social media is very important in informing people and knowledge is the first step to social change, especially when social media is now one of the primary forms of communication for most people. The question lies in how we take that knowledge and information and take action. It seems to me there is still a barrier between just taking a side, and actually doing something about it.
ReplyDelete