Summary Of Small Change By Malcolm Gladwell

Many activists nowadays use social media to spread their message and get people to join their cause, but will it actually go anywhere? Malcolm Gladwell answers this question in his article “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not be Tweeted,” where he discusses the impact of social media on the ability of a revolution to actually make any change in society. Gladwell’s view is that social media, while useful in many ways, will never be able to effectively start and maintain a revolution. He presents a convincing, well written argument that plays on the logic and emotions of the readers, effectively pulling them in and persuading them to agree with his points. Gladwell kept readers engaged throughout the article with the use of historical

He states “But if you think that there are still lunch counters out there that need integrating it ought to give you pause” (414). His emotional appeal throughout the article establishes both a sense of pride and restlessness in readers. He cultivates pride in his readers by showing them how far our society has come from the days of segregation - by showing the strength of those willing to stand up and fight for what is right, making it work without any of the technological marvels of the modern world. He also plants a sense of restlessness in his readers by showing them how there are still plenty of revolutions that are trying to get started today. He shows his readers how the “revolutions” on social media just amount to opinions, and nothing ever comes of it. Showing his readers how true revolutions are made and how they are able to change something within society cultivates a restlessness that can sway readers to his point and possibly even push them to start taking on a problem they see in the

When presented with the argument that says social media allows faster communication and the ability to reach a larger audience, Gladwell counters with the fact that the media promotes weak connections with many people which in and of itself is not a bad thing, but does not do well in fostering revolutions. He explains “There is strength in weak ties… It’s terrific at the diffusion of innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration… But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism” (407). He ties in his explanation of weak connections with the fact that social media has no hierarchy, so any revolution started there will have no organization or true leadership. He uses multiple examples of “weak tie revolutions” that occurred over social media to demonstrate the fact that, while effective in getting attention, the revolutions don’t do much more than that, because they don’t require much of people. He thoroughly counters the possible objections to his theory, thus pulling readers in by making them feel as though he has done much research on the topic and knows what he’s talking