Malcolm Gladwell in his work Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted? Casts light upon the role of modern technologies in the people’s life particularly in the activists’ attempts to organize a demonstration. The author expresses his point of view about the relationship between social media and social changes. He points out that the internet connects people on the one hand, but the bonds between them become weaker.
Internet makes it easier to organize different groups, to attract the people’s attention to the people who need help and find all information which people need. In fact, it seems that the Internet and social nets make people closer and sympathetic, but these bonds are supported by participation not motivation. Taking into account on-line charitable organizations, the author says: “Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice” (Gladwell 321).
As for social and activist organizations who want to attract the people’s attention to the social problems, the internet seems to be very helpful. The communication flaw is very fast and millions of people may read the idea you want to pass to them but it does not make them involved. This information just crosses their minds without any results. Comparing to the activists of previous centuries and demonstrations that overturned the whole political and economic systems, modern network organizations have a lot of drawbacks.
The civil right movement organized by Martin Luther King was a strategic activism with discipline and precision. Martin Luther King was an unquestioned authority and the black church was in the center of movement (Gladwell 322). Networks are not controlled by the authority. Everyone has the same rights in the network. Decisions are made with the help of agreements and the ties between people are loose (Gladwell 323). People can never see others in a real life that is why they do not worry about the life of other people who they have never seen and probably will never see in the future. The spirit of collectivism remained in the past when activists organized demonstrations without the Internet.
There are not any limitations in the Internet. People can say whatever they want and nobody is responsible for the inaccuracy of information. Wikipedia is one of the brightest examples. There is not any editor-in-chief who controls the entry of every article and the accuracy of information. As the author points out, “networks do not have a centralized leadership structure and clear lines of authority, they have real difficulties reaching consensus and setting goals” (Gladwell 323). Such vague structure makes many organizations vulnerable to manipulation and internal strife. Boycotts and rebellions of the past were organized with the help of discipline and strategy that cannot be achieved with the help of Internet. Weak-tied connection in the Internet with the access to all information helps people to get through difficult situations feeling strong-tied connection of virtual friends (Gladwell 327). In fact, it makes easier to express your point of view, but harder to influence other people’s mind. People prefer to sit in front of their monitors and click the mouth supporting the activists but they are not ready to go to the demonstration and fight for their rights and liberties.
I agree with Gladwell’s point of view. In fact, the use of Internet does not help to provide social changes in our life. Otherwise, it makes people more indifferent to the information which comes to their mind every day. Although, there are a lot of advantages in using social nets, this weak-tied world is good at things like the return of the stolen telephone but not at the great overturns of our life.
Works Cited
Gladwell, Malcolm. “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted?” The New Yorker, 2010. Print.