Social and political movements have been created and carried out by people from every corner of the globe for any number of reasons. Today some argue that movements for change such as the Occupy Movement in the U.S. or the protests of the Arab Spring are driven by the internet and social media in a way that creates more potent and powerful movements. Others make strong arguments that this is flatly false. This week I would like you to read a fascinating New Yorker article by Malcolm Gladwell entitled "Small Change," originally published in October, 2010. This is one of my favorite articles that we will read all quarter as it combines two of the themes I feel most passionate about. In the article Gladwell compares the motivations of those involved in the civil rights movement (and specifically the sit-ins, which emerged in Feb. 1960) with modern day digital revolutions. He argues that they are fundamentally different because of the strong social ties motivating civil rights activists and the weak ties connecting those using social media today. After reading the article, do you agree with Gladwell? Does social media create weak ties and is it fundamentally different from and inferior to the social bonds that drove the nonviolent civil rights movement? Why or why not?
Feel free to provide other examples to support your argument and please react to one another so you create a good online dialogue.
Gladwell’s article brought up a lot of great points, and halfway through, I kind of realized that I’d forgotten what “real” activism was as well. I would definitely have to agree with Gladwell. I think that social media is a great way to communicate with others and organize, but it is largely situational and does not always provide the best platform for such organizing, depending on the cause. Like the article mentioned, there’s a difference between high-risk and low-risk activism. I think Gladwell has a point when he remarks that weak ties do not often lead to high-risk activism. He says, “The evangelists of social media don’t understand this distinction; they seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend and that signing up for a donor registry in Silicon Valley today is activism in the same sense as sitting at a segregated lunch counter in Greensboro in 1960.” He’s absolutely right. The kind of activism that Facebook and Twitter are influencing today is not really for issues that were so controversial and emotional like civil rights in the 1960s. Sure, there are examples that seem to be exceptions, like the Arab Spring, but Gladwell mentions other such events like the Twitter revolutions in Moldova and Iran were not actually all that dependent on Twitter. In Moldova, there was no real internal significance of Twitter, and in the case of Iran, most of the people tweeting were from the western world.
ReplyDeleteI still think that online organizing is something that will continue to influence the global world for years to come. Even though it is associated with weak ties, there is still a lot of influence that this can have, and it still provides a means for communication, which I think is at the root of all activism. But it will be interesting to see how it plays out – if there is more high-risk activism required in the world in the future to come, perhaps the network structure (as opposed to the more hierarchical, centralized leadership structure) will lose some of its credibility and utility.
I agree that while social media does increase the amount of weak ties that we may have, it also helps to build the quality of the strong ones that we have. Thanks to social networking it is much easier to stay in touch with friends that are no longer geographically close, but are always a few clicks away. It is much easier to stay in touch with old friends when you can share pictures, videos, and stories instantaneously. This makes it possible to go months without seeing people and being filled in on their lives pretty much up to the minute. In a political sense it does however lead to a much greater deal of inactive participation. For instance, Moveon.org was discussed in today's lecture. I signed a petition on MoveOn over two years ago and until it was part of last week's blog I had not returned to their site since, yet they still considered me to be a member. I did not join a sit in or even go as far as petitioning an elected official by writing a letter or email. I simply clicked ok a few times and suddenly was a member. This leads to inflated numbers for sites like MoveOn, because they have no true judge of how accurate their numbers are.
ReplyDeleteGladwell's point is clear and correct. Social networks do not, and cannot, create the hard-hitting activism required to truly challenge the existing power structures. Drawing on his point that the so-called Twitter Revolution in Moldova, and later Iran, was no more than Western sensationalization, I firmly believe that social networking does nothing more than reinforce, and entrench, the current power structure. In praxis, this occurs because social networks create a variety of weak-ties that never materialize into strong-ones. To illustrate my point I'll draw upon two recent political movements, Occupy Wall Street and the TEA Party.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe it a stretch to surmise that the organizational structures of these two movements were drastically different. The TEA Party, which was predominately white, middle-aged, and conservative, was able to achieve mass turnouts at rally's, extensive airtime in the news-media, and ultimately electoral success. While we can debate the overall effectiveness of the TEA Party and their subsequent radicalization of the Republican Party, one cannot deny that those whom participated truly affected the powers that be to bend to their political desires/will. On the other hand, the Occupy movement seemed to be less organized but more spontaneous. It achieved two goals: it turned out devoted people to protests, it dictated the national conversation for a time, but it was unable to truly achieve any of it's stated goals. There was relatively little pressure on national politicians or institutions to change their behavior, and as to my knowledge, there hasn't been a single "Occupy" delegate elected to Congress. The movement was indeed a "social network tiger" with fierce online support, but unable to garner any traction converting that into real world results.
Yes, social networks allow people to communicate quicker and broader than ever before; however, these communications allow people to feel connected without actually doing much of anything to further the cause in reality. This "easy out" allows people to stop short of full engagement and activism. Thus, social networks wont cause anything to happen that really wouldn't have happened otherwise, outside of arresting a girl who happened to take another's cell phone, which they lost themselves.
The Gladwell article made me reflect on how the nature of activism has changed as a result of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. I agree with Gladwell's claims that social media creates weak ties and is fundamentally different from the social bonds that drove the nonviolent civil rights movement because Facebook “friends” are people you would most likely never keep in touch with and Twitter allows you to follow people you may have never met before. As a result, this creates weak ties unlike the social bonds that drove the civil rights movement where people told their friends and roommates to join the cause. I doubt that I would join a protest if a “friend” posted it on Facebook or if I saw it on my Twitter feed because I would not have any motivation to participate. However, if my actual friends told me that they are joining a protest, I would be more inclined to join them because we have strong ties and I would like to help.
ReplyDeleteGladwell claims that social networks increase participation because the level of motivation is much lower in order to participate. I disagree with the definition of participation because I define it by how many people step away from their computers and physically help the cause by participating in protests and rallies. The fact that people “like” the Save Darfur Coalition Facebook page does not mean that they are participating because activism is where real sacrifice takes place. However, we should not downplay social media because it is an effective tool to organize people. If a million people like a cause on Facebook, then you can most likely receive the necessary signatures for a petition online. This is significant because politicians will be forced to look at the cause. When I interned on the Hill, I received generic mail, emails, and faxes from constituents about various concerns and causes. The people who created the Facebook page for the Save Darfur Coalition can easily write a letter and ask their “friends” to send it to their Congressman via email. If enough people send these emails, then the Congressman will look at this cause because he must focus on the constituent concerns or else he will not be reelected.
Gladwell claims that social media “makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact” (5). I agree with this claim to a certain degree because the internet is a tool that makes it easier to express ideas and concerns, but most people do not go beyond that; therefore, it is harder to have an impact. However, there is potential online in terms of signing petitions and contacting politicians, which has an impact.
First off I just want to say that I am a huge fan of Malcom Gladwell and if you haven’t already, you should definitely read the rest of his books! They’re amazing!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Tony’s post (a really good argument!) I almost changed my opinion; however, I still slightly disagree with Gladwell’s take on social media here.
I did always think that the use of Twitter and Facebook in the Arab Springs and the like was overrated, and I have been tired of hearing the Arab Spring be referred to as the “social media revolution,” since the stage was set for a revolution since the late 80s to early 90s – ask any political scientist.
Even Clay Shirky mentions how technology doesn’t cause revolutions – it only eliminates some of the obstacles.
But social media did a few important things in contribution to the revolution, not only by simultaneously creating more weak ties and strengthening the stronger ties that lead to physical action as someone above mentioned, but mainly by increasing and spreading awareness and changing individual ideas and behaviors.
I am surprised that Gladwell doesn’t see the benefit of social media when viewed from Shirky’s “epidemic” analogy, which Gladwell himself wrote a whole book on (“The Tipping Point”). Isn’t it obvious that the internet and Twitter and Facebook spread “the infection” much faster than traditional methods?
Also, Shirky’s three levels of “shared social awareness” are much more easily achieved through the use of the internet as well, bringing about any revolution much faster. Think: how long did it take from slavery, to the civil rights movement?
As for hierarchy: For strong, mass correlated sit-ins, or for actualizing movements such as Occupy (as Tony brought up), hierarchy is a must as it allows for the most effective organization. However, the fight for civil rights extends farther than simply gaining seats in congress, towards influencing individual beliefs and behaviors as well. Media invades people’s homes with the amazing ability to change their minds about certain issues and normalize what was once considered abnormal or irregular. Thus the internet works at a subconscious level as well, allowing for the goals of a revolution to become mainstream before a physical one even begins.
So let’s go back a little farther in history, past the civil rights movement (which by the way had the use of television on its side!), all the way to Shay’s rebellion. I wonder how easily put down the rebellion might have been had there been better communication between far away individuals as well as neighbors. We might have a completely different country today.
I agree with Gladwell and his argument that social media and networking creates weak ties in comparison to active movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement. While social media and the Internet are great tools and their positive affect on the world is endless, the credit that is given to revolutions like the Arab Spring are unwarranted. Gladwell mentions that many of the revolutions that have occurred over the past decade have been fueled by people from outside the place of conflict. These are people who are not participating or experiencing the revolution for themselves, but simply recounting the feelings and interactions of those people who truly care about the movement. People who participate online do so because it is easy and simple. Many efforts require nothing more than a few clicks and then you are 'part" of the movement. All of this can be done within a matter of minutes and without little risk. In my opinion, participating in a movement should require effort, planning, and risk. If a person feels strongly about something then they should not fear any consequences from authority. The risk is worth fighting for the causing and promoting social change. Blacks who sat at the counter at Woolworth's knew what could happen to them, but it was what they thought was right.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet inspires weak motivations and a lesser connection to a certain movement. The way in which many people are using the internet today for social movements is only weakening active participation; however, the Internet can be made to start a movement and raise awareness. More importantly, the Internet can be used to draw the attention of the media, as mentioned already, and bring more people to the cause. It should not stop there though! The Internet should be used to set up rallies, protests, and meetings, so that people can actively participate with others and build a stronger relationship to the cause.
After reading the article Small Change, by Malcolm Gladwell, I agree with Gladwell when he argues that there are strong social ties that motivate civil rights activists as to the weak ties that are created when using social media. Although social media websites and applications allow us to better communicate with one another and help to create a quick group or organization to voice our opinion on an upstanding issue, it doesn't actually get everyone involved. When Gladwell discusses how "new tools of social media have reinvented social activism," he explains that the traditional relationship between the political authority and the popular have made it easier for the "powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns." By using social media it definitely helps to spread the word of current news or civil rights movements that may be occurring, but it does not actually get the individual involved in the situation, thus leading to the weaker tie of social media that Gladwell discusses. Using social media helps to push and advocate for change, but it doesn't actually create change. When Gladwell tells the anecdote of the four college students that helped to create a nation-wide civil rights movement during the 1960s, this is what he means about strong ties that were created among these civil rights activists. These four students were able to make their voices heard across the country without the use of any social media sites.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gladwell when he claims that social media helps activists to better express themselves, but its hard for the expression to have an actual impact. Using the internet and social media allows activists and those involved to voice their thoughts and opinions and spread their ideas, but that is about as far as that goes. Even people on Twitter and Facebook who may read about various organizations and movements, will go as far as to "like" or "favorite" the group or the idea that was posted, but very rarely do these people actually get involved in the movement or group. In order to get your voice heard about a certain issue and make sure that it carries an impact on society, you need to go farther then just online.
I just don't see how this is an argument. Who cares if you created a weak or strong tie, the point of word of mouth is to create any sort of tie. As many have mentioned, the utilization of social media during the Arab Spring simply did what traditional word of mouth does, it just did so in a faster and more effective way. Think of this on the smallest scale possible, when you are trying to plan a birthday dinner with 10 of your friends, you could call each friend individually and ask them what day is good for them, then you'd have to keep calling and rescheduling asking "is this time good for you?" "no, okay how about this time?" If you did this through a Facebook message or a group text message, you could agree on a day much faster and save yourself a lot of headache.
ReplyDeleteWhile the number of 70,000 students participating in these protests that spread all throughout the south, I am almost positive that social media and text messaging would have allowed that number to double. Social media and texting doesn't make people more willing to participate, it simply allows you to reach those who are willing to participate -you aren't creating numbers that don't exist. I don't agree with those who give credit to social media for events such as the Arab Spring -that's just dumb, obviously it's the people that are making such regime change happen, but yes, technology in general allows for people to convene and organize more efficiently and effectively.
In the context of the Green Movement in Iran, I know it wasn't a Twitter revolution -I have never heard of anyone tweeting in Iran at the time and my cousins all said the way they stayed in touch was through texting and anonymous Facebook messages (sent from fake accounts). At the same time though, Twitter did play a somewhat significant role in getting the word out there -people in Iran didn't communicate via Twitter but people outside of Iran spread the word about what was happening inside of Iran via Twitter.
All that being said, I think people need to stop being so critical of social media and also stop giving it so much credit. These people who have taken to the streets, whether it was in the 60's or today in Syria, these people know how to bring about change, and they will use whatever resources they have access to bring about that change. Today, many appeal to mobile devices and/or social media to spread awareness -either to people within their geographical borders or outside of them -the point of social media in the context of social change is to spread awareness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article by Malcolm Gladwell it is clear to me that social activism has indeed changed dramatically with the introduction of social media. The rise of Facebook and Twitter brought on the age of “faux” interaction between friends and followers. Social media allowed people to claim that they cared about a movement or issue without actually doing more than posting a video or news article. Many truly felt that they were making a difference by spreading this information but they were doing nothing more than taking part in the latest fad. The latest movement that comes to mind when thinking about social media activism is Kony 2012. After hearing about child soldiers in Africa a year earlier during class and having the knowledge that this issue had been around for many years, I found it interesting that it only came to light after a group posted a video on Youtube. A date was set for protesters to show their support for the movement but that day came and went with no mention of Kony at all. This situation is similar to the bone donor situation provided in the article that people are willing to participate as long as the work is safe and minimal. This situation shows the loose connections that social media provides and the lack of work that people are willing to put into a cause.
ReplyDeleteAnother situation that was brought to mind while reading this article was the Occupy movement that spread across the United States in 2011 due to the financial crash of 2008. The movement was considered to be for the 99% and demanded change but there were so many differing opinions, or lack thereof, that the movement struggled to get off the ground. This movement, largely organized through social media, is a very good example of what Gladwell was speaking to in his article. Unlike the NAACP and other civil rights movements in the 1960s, the occupy movement did not have a hierarchy or leader to assign tasks needed to push the movement forward (maybe communism isn’t so perfect after all). This lack of leadership meant disorganization and ultimately the stagnation of the occupy movement as a whole unlike the civil rights movement that had designated leaders that organized protests and marches in order to sway the public/government. If we wish to make a difference in the internet era it is important to retain the human aspect of activism and remember that change requires hard, sometimes dangerous, work.
I would have to agree entirely with the point of this article entirely. The internet does not inspire long term commitments it inspires brief interest and if it is really juicy or close by it might inspire the use of a few minutes of free time. It is a convenient way for those that want to work for a movement to get involved, but if they were inspired enough already to get involved the decreased time to enter should hardly have made the desire to get involved more powerful. The internet is a tool of convenience it allows you to speed through your day accumulating information and making you feel special. When over the course of few days and a few button clicks you can become the mayor of your local restaurant you lose interest in goals that don’t provide satisfaction and rewards as quickly. It discourages the difficult work of political activism and makes it feel like your interest is equal to contribution. I will not go so far to say that the internet will prevent dedicated activist from getting their job done and that once started the rapid communication is important because it allows for greater adaption within the movement. I will go so far to say that it does discourage long term campaigns because as you grow up surrounded by the ease and comfort that the internet allows you become less likely to care about the real world and travesties going on around you.
ReplyDeleteGladwell's notion of media creating weak ties with social activism is both poignant and holds some truth. While tools like Facebook and Twitter may boast a large following with social activist movements, the actual number of people actively participating in a real world protest (like the 1960's sit-ins) is yet to be actualized. Likewise, I tend to believe that the internet makes a fad of social movements and once the fad has run its course, the general public forgets the movement and quickly moves onto the next one. This "weak tie" means that movements are noticed but no real social change comes from them. I think Gladwell is spot on when he says, "Where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools." People become too caught up in the novelty of social media and forget the real aims of many social movements. In a way, social media is inferior to the social bonds like those forged during the 1960s Civil Rights Act. People act differently online than they do in public, wouldn't it make sense for people to be bolder under the relative anonymity of the internet, but when it came time be active in the real life, a person would be more apt to falter?
ReplyDeleteI think that people have already very well established a shared conception of how social media triggers the expansion of movements at exponential rates. At least compared to any other activists movements in the past.
ReplyDeleteSomething I find interesting is what Shaza said, "...technology doesn't cause revolutions – it only eliminates some of the obstacles." The biggest obstacle most seem to address is communicating the message to the masses. The rapid spread of this message is what makes social media agents such powerful assets. The only thing that might come into question now is the effectiveness. The experience of activism has been altered by media yet the only way it has changed is by speeding up the process. Ultimately, does the rate at which "word of mouse" is spread render an effective campaign?
People keep on discussing about the Tea Party movement, Occupy movements, and Arab Spring, yet I haven't heard any mention KONY 2012. This was huge because it strictly used social media giants as a gateway for mass mobilization towards protest. The center of the movement began through the VIDEO he made showcasing the inhumane recruitment of children. The video was the catalyst and there was a date set to protest major cities. Unfortunately, the fuel that drove this movement waned and "Cover the Night" was unsuccessful.
Let's also consider that "Cover the Night" did succeed and people became aware. First it would have been nice to know how well social media and on-hands activism functioned jointly. By "on-hands" I just mean going out there and participating. However, the next question would be "Now What?" Now that people know what has been going on what comes next? The video aimed at capturing US citizens to address this issue enough so that it becomes of "national interest." Essentially supporters could not stop at "Cover the Night" they would have to keep on pressing on this issue to keep it as one that is of national concern.
What you then have is to keep people committed to this cause. Then you would have to question whether or not Facebook and Twitter are thus effective ways of keeping people's interest. People's daily lives catch up and some might not have anymore time. This becomes problematic because social movements only have a set period of time that will eventually lead it to certain ends.
What you now have out of both situations is,the original question, did the rate at which the message expanded render an effective activist campaign? The answer is unclear because if the message is spread fast then the whole movement itself has to act according to the pace that the message reaches the masses.
It doesn't have to be correlated with activism either because it is just the way social media communication functions. One day you check your Facebook and people are talking about the Harlem Shake, then in the next few weeks you hear about the Twerk Jerk or something. People are getting used to being caught in attention for a set period of time and regularly tend to forget about it later on.
Roya makes a good point on how social media makes it easier for people to spread awareness all over the world. Great leaders like Martin Luther King were able to gather thousands of followers all over without the use of social media. Now days, social media websites like Twitter and Facebook make it easier for people to spread awareness and their concerns about everyday life. The citizens of Iran were able to voice their thoughts and concerns via Twitter. Social media websites like Twitter were considered to be nominated for the NPP after the people of Iran stood up for their freedom and democracy with the help of social media use. All in all, if someone wants their voice to be heard, they will find a way with or without the use of social media.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Gladwell's notion that social media creates weak ties. Case in point I have roughly 300-400 friends on facebook. Out of these "friends" honestly outside of facebook there are probably only 10-15 that I would call real friends. Although according to facebook I have tons of friends these are the weak ties he speaks of.
ReplyDeleteSocial media as a whole does create weak ties. There is a difference between actually personally engaging with individuals and liking a status of theirs. I think social media is just a tool to help movements however it is not there to replace them. If the individuals in 1960's had facebook and twitter their message still I believe would have been the same. Social media would be there to help them inform more individuals about their cause. You still need these initial strong social bonds to create the movement and from there I believe you can build on it with social media. Social media isn't in my opinion inferior it is there to compliment the movement.
i think that Gladwell makes a very good argument. To draw a comparison between social movements of the past, such as the civil rights movement, with digital movements of today, is like comparing an online conversation with a face to face interaction, its just not the same. The real social interaction is removed, and in relation to a social movement, one would expect social interaction to be involved.
ReplyDeleteThough the lens of a realist, digital movements are less powerful than they may be perceived. Civil disobedience is powerful, it is a commitment, and it has the ability to change a society when individuals are actually sacrificing their lives and freedoms for a greater cause. When I ask all of my closest friends to click a link and sign a petition, i know that half of them probably don't really care, and if push came to shove they would rather sit on the sidelines. It also leaves me wondering how many of those signatures are actually signatures at all-how many likes on whatever cause or movement is being advertised are from accounts that are just made up? Theres no telling.
Gladwell brings up valid points when mentioning the sit-ins during the civil rights movement. So many progressive movements were able to happen in history without the help of facebook or texting. The members involved were extremely passionate about their causes, and were somehow able to communicate and organize rallies without the social media outlets that we have today.
ReplyDeleteHowever, things are much, much different now. Social media is so present in our lives today. Whether or not one is utilizing these social networks to the best of their ability is another story, but for the most part I truly believe that social media has helped, and will continue to help, get the word out about rallies or political events and so on. Social media is certainly not a "weak tie." Because the social media is there, it would be impossible to ignore it when dealing with important issues like presidential elections or rallies or protests.
That is not to say that everyone is using social networks and media in a positive, progressive way. I would argue that most people choose not to use social media to their advantage in spreading word about political issues, or things of that nature. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people are more concerned with updating their facebook status to inform everyone of what they ate for lunch, or what they are doing this weekend, than using their voice to promote positive change.
After reading this article i would have to say that Gladwell makes a very valid point. The bond created between people in actuality and someone physically being there is much different then just electronically joining in. The internet allows for people to look into something, or show interest, but signing an online petition will never have the impact that 600 people sitting in a restaurant to protest will have. Like some people before me have mentioned the internet provides convenience, and it allows people to believe at the end of the day that they got involved and helped out if they did something small like signing an online petition, not to say they haven't done something cause they have. There is only so much that participating online will do to help out though or make a difference. In reality a human being in the senate, or house, or congress, etc has to be persuaded to change their mind on something or make a decision, not the computer. I will say though that the internet has a way of informing people about things a lot faster then any other source of media, and though sometimes it may seem to get people involved when in actuality they are only interested because its "trending" the speed at which this information is shared is much faster. I also feel as though the internet is, and will be a revolutionary tool in how these movements are made and continue. We just have to understand that we can't rely on the internet to continue the movement we must physically participate if we care about it.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the Gladwell reading was very interesting because I have followed the protests of the Arab Spring very closely since the beginning. The would agree that the internet is a tool and we as users like the convenience it allows us, to express our emotional, political, and social feels fair easily. I do agree with Gladwell that social media creates weak ties with physical involvement at times but it’s fundamentally different experience from the social bonds that drove the nonviolent civil rights movement. This is because tools like Facebook and Twitter allow anyone around the world to voice their opinion on the web without actually telling in person. These tools have the ability to capture large audiences in a matter of minutes. At the same time social media has its obstacles, I would have to agree with Alyssa that, people become too caught up with the idea of social media and forget how to interact physical in social movements. Going off Gladwell’s quote, "where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools." I believe that is a very accurate statement in today non-profits. We look at MoveOn.org last week and learned about how they were able to use the Internet to gather money from their web users but there member reach was very impressive compared to civil rights movement in the 1960s.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Gladwell’s article and glad to have read it. Gladwell does a great job comparing movements from the past and the more present time. The concept of a weak tie being created by social media is a very interesting one. I do see weak occurring. The Internet and social media has made it possible for activism to occur even without stepping a foot outside your door. Do I believe this is activism? Yes, but to an extent. I believe that high-risk activism brings forth a more powerful message. People are willing to take time to gather up and spend a significant amount of time protesting and marching. I believe this demonstrates strong devotion and shows leaders that people are truly passionate about the issue at hand. Social media does allow for the process to speed up, making group gatherings easier to create rather than by word of mouth. However, social media and the internet cannot take away from the powerful message that a physical protest conveys, when it demonstrates the devotion and passion of a group of individuals.
ReplyDeleteSocial media is a new innovation, which makes life easier, but political movements were strong in the past without it. Mohandas Ghandi used non violent protests to free India from British rule. Social media was not around in the early 1900s, but the British empire was still taken down by a group of people passionate about getting their home country back. It can be suggested non violent movements (Civil Rights or India’s non violent movement) were more successful than the Occupy movement, which had social media to its advantage. The Internet and social media is a tool for improving political movements, but it does not define activism.
Social media has not been able to duplicate, what other social interactions have been able to do. People feel that they can post something on their facebook account or tweet about something and then they have done their part. While this may or may not raise awareness, it does not actually accomplish much change. Awareness is only one step to achieving change, but people also need to do something about it. The problem with social media is people feel like they post about something or do some little task and they have done their part. People do not feel a strong sense of fighting for something now because they are used to just donate a little money online or posting some their attention span is extremely poor, and this makes their ability to help promote change extremely bad. How do you get people to start caring again is an interesting question, what will it take for the social media generation to actually get organized and create change like previous generations have done?
ReplyDeleteI think this was a great article by Gladwell. I liked how he started out with the story of the college students in North Carolina sit in at a lunch counter. It brings us back to how things were dealt with back in the days with out social media. It also makes us realize what true activism is. I agree with Gladstone to a certain extent that social media weakens our ties with having that personal involvement within the community and raise awareness on certain issues. At the same time I think that social media as made a tremendous impact by allowing people to have a voice on issues and create organizations that can reach more people around the world and expand from your community. Like we were talking about in class that because of twitter people are able to interact and see the thoughts of others. For example during the state of the union we were able to use social media as a backdrop. Also when we discussed the idea to raise awareness and advocate for organization I think this is where social media has a positive outlook. By using blogs, Youtube, one is able to establish more connections and reach out to more people. While Gladstone's article provided insight on what it means to organize action, social networking really changed the landscape for activism by having all these tools at our disposal.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article it started off by getting me excited about change through organized activism, and then as I continued to read I felt let down. Learning about how people suffered and put everything they had to make changes is moving and then reading about how nonchalant and easy it is now to make changes is kind of disappointing. I am not in any way saying that the way things are now is not effective it just doesn't seem as satisfying without the hard work. As many people have heard the old saying, “the best things in life are worth fighting for.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gladwell that social media creates weak ties because it shows how easy it is now to just organize an activist group. You can do this by joining Moveon.org which we learned in class or just start a group on Facebook. It seems like activism has changed from a whole hearted, time consuming battle to a 200 character post on twitter. My favorite line in this article is, “Where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools.” That line alone shows how not only the way of activism has changed but truly the meaning has as well. Activism used to be a strong meaning word, and when used people knew you were serious and were willing to put everything you had to change something. Now when I think about activism I think of the Death Star petition. Honestly I find it truly ridiculous that things like that are what people are fighting for. Yes it is a positive thing that most activist groups are nonviolent and now internet based but I find that the issues are becoming more and more absurd as time goes on.
This was a great article to read as it addressed many of the points that have been brought up in class and that persist in the every day. I must say that I agree with what Gladwell said. The bond that is shared between a group on Facebook and between a group of friends who meets in person to discuss an issue that they are passionate about are different. The weak-ties that are established just do not have the same power. The question of MoveOn.Org comes into my head as they look to give the tools to the masses. Will the weak-ties that have been established through signing up to receive an email each week enough to generate a change being made by those individuals? It just does not seem reasonable that this is the case and they took a fairly large risk in their decision. The strong-ties which were seen in the civil rights movement were a solid bond between those who were prepared to stand up against the oppression they were put subject to each day in a non-violent way. This is something that the weak-ties of todays social world likely would not achieve. The line that ended the article was amusing to me as i thought it was the case in this situation. Social media cannot currently be a successful alternative to physical interaction.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have not followed the Arab Spring or other online issues where social media is the primary medium of communication, I can understand that online social media does not produce a strong enough tie to create an ironclad social movement. One of the things that should be mentioned is that on the internet, everyone is generally anonymous, and this can create a disparity of opinion when it comes to what people actually want. Whereas in face-to-face communication one can actually talk about conversational stances and share core opinions, the internet reduces great talking points to small blurbs which fail to move the point.
ReplyDeleteAlso, social media is not prevalent in all places of the world--in Moldova, where Twitter is almost unknown, this would limit the effectiveness of spreading a political idea, particularly in places where internet use is heavily restricted such as China.
This article was eye opening to say the least. When speaking about technology and the Internet, focus is mainly placed on the advancements and progress made. However, this article refers to the decline in activism that is occurring side-by-side these accomplishments. I do believe that activism can inhibit many forms and there is nothing too small that doesn’t make the littlest of difference. I believe that any type of activism ranging from major protests and sit-ins to a mere Facebook “Like” is a way to show support and in a way gain awareness. The issue, however, is the level of influence and significance these varying acts carry. I agree with Galdwell in reference to the weak ties concerning social medias today. It is apparent that when one “shares” or “Likes” a post on Facebook or “retweets” on Twitter that they believe that one click is going to change the world. I believe that social medias have made people lazy, giving people a way to see what is happening but not encouraging them enough to get off the computer and take action themselves. I am unsure if this is technology’s fault or if this is where society is headed. The strong bonds that were present during the civil rights movement were bonds that set the bar for future movements to surpass not digress from.
ReplyDeleteWhile reflecting on this article I thought about Monday’s class and how we discussed that having one place where 7 million people work together for their own individual campaigns can get to be overwhelming. Overwhelming because of conflicting issues or lack of organization. However, now I see that discussion taking another step, towards passion. Where is the passion in these actions, petitions, protests, etc. Why do people click, sign, “Like”, “share”, and “rewteet” if they do not attain the enormous amount of passion to see change happen? Who will make the change happen?
Gladwell is spot on and talk is cheap. Internet revolutions are anonymous. There are no faces and personal stories behind the people involved and a very superficial. In 2007 over 100,000 students friended a Facebook page but beyond that did very little if anything else. I'd argue one step further that the Internet can sometimes stall moments or slow them down. People feel like sharing an article, retweeting, or liking is actual action but doesn't always advance the issue. Sometimes those actions are a cop out.
ReplyDelete