Malcolm Gladwell Small Change

In general, Malcolm Gladwell makes a point in his article “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted” that the real social or political revolution cannot be tweeted. By confirming his opinion, he addresses two crucial distinctions between traditional activism and activism associated with social media. The first distinction is that high-risk activism is a “strong-tie” phenomenon, demanding “personal connections to the civil-right movement” (Gladwell 405); while the activism associated with social media is a “weak-tie” phenomenon, “[bringing] only social acknowledgement and praise” (408). The second distinction is that traditional activism emphasizes hierarchical organization, while the activism associated with social media is more

This example clearly corroborates Gladwell’s general idea that social media does not help the process of social revolution, because “it happened without e-mails, texting, Facebook, or Twitter” (Gladwell 401). Civil-rights movements need far more than what low-risk activism can provide. Then Gladwell gives examples on the failure of Moldova’s so-called Twitter Revolution and Twitter’s role in Iran right to prove that real revolution does need “high-risk” activism instead of the push from social media. Because “racial insubordination was routinely met with violence”, “personal connection to the civil-rights movement” is highly required in the example of Mississippi Freedom Summer Project of 1964, which is considered as a “strong tie” phenomenon (405). However, “the platforms of social media are built around weak ties” (406). Twitter and Facebook activism do have their strengths of exchanging and promoting new ideas and information, even though they hardly “lead to high-risk activism” (407). For example, the Help Sameer campaign was based on low-risk activism, because people were motivated to do the things that were not really counted as real sacrifice (408). This is the first obvious distinction “between traditional activism and its online vibrant”

High-risk is also a strategic activism with “military precision”, while low-risk activism do not demand absolute authority (Gladwell 412). “Boycott and sit-ins and nonviolent confrontations…are high-risk strategies” requires “disciple and strategy—things that online social media cannot provide” (412). Gladwell demonstrates that point by giving examples on the Palestine Liberation Organization, German successful left-wing terrorists, and the Montgomery bus boycott. Even though, unlike traditional activism, activism associated with social media has difficulty in “reaching consensus and setting goals, it still has its organizing power, which is clarified by the example of Evan’s friend losing her smart phone. This story illustrates that in the age of Internet a group of unfamiliar people can be easily organized to fight for a same goal (414). The special characteristic of the activism associated with social media is that it can “[make] it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact”