Animal Farm Couldn’t Have Happened at Farmville
In the article, ¨Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted¨, Malcolm Gladwell, a staff writer for The New Yorker since 1996, argues that social media is incapable of inciting true activism and social change. Gladwell expertly weaves together several examples of social change to display all the different factors of social change, both successful and less than. He begins with the powerful story of the Greensboro College sit-ins, which began with four brave students at their local cafe and quickly progressed to many more sit-ins across the south with thousands of supporters. This anecdote allows the reader to connect to the well known civil-rights movement and is intended to provide an …show more content…
Preceding my reading of this article I disagreed with Gladwell’s stance; however, I now understand the nearly scientific reasons why social media can’t coincide with activism. The two most prominent of these reasons is the idea of close attachments and hierarchies vs networks. I can personally relate to the idea of close attachments inciting one to fight for a cause that may be more difficult. I would be willing to sacrifice more for someone I cared about or if my close friend was taking the same risks. This is quite similar to the phrase, “If he jumped off a bridge, would you?”... “If he risked his life for social change, would you?” However, social media is primarily a link to people that don’t correspond in person. Big social change can’t be enforced by a bunch of semi-strangers...you’re only as strong as your weakest link, but this link is dainty. Gladwell interestingly points out that people on social media just want easy praise and recognition from these mass associates. While speaking of simple activism that doesn’t require real thought, action, or danger, he states, “...it’s the kind of commitment that will bring only social acknowledgement and praise.” His point, of which I share, is that in this present time, people are only fighting for the “right” causes that will bring them praise for the smallest thing. An example of this easy activism is the Ice bucket challenge. All anyone did was post a video of themselves and tag their friends. People were more likely to care about who they tagged or if they were tagged in someone else’s than the cause they were supporting. Most didn’t even know what ALS stood for. In addition, I totally agree with the idea that real action requires a singular leader. An example of this would be the Natzis, who would have never had such a sprawling effect without Adolf Hitler. In reverse of this is the NAACP and Martin Luther
In the article, ¨Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted¨, Malcolm Gladwell, a staff writer for The New Yorker since 1996, argues that social media is incapable of inciting true activism and social change. Gladwell expertly weaves together several examples of social change to display all the different factors of social change, both successful and less than. He begins with the powerful story of the Greensboro College sit-ins, which began with four brave students at their local cafe and quickly progressed to many more sit-ins across the south with thousands of supporters. This anecdote allows the reader to connect to the well known civil-rights movement and is intended to provide an …show more content…
Preceding my reading of this article I disagreed with Gladwell’s stance; however, I now understand the nearly scientific reasons why social media can’t coincide with activism. The two most prominent of these reasons is the idea of close attachments and hierarchies vs networks. I can personally relate to the idea of close attachments inciting one to fight for a cause that may be more difficult. I would be willing to sacrifice more for someone I cared about or if my close friend was taking the same risks. This is quite similar to the phrase, “If he jumped off a bridge, would you?”... “If he risked his life for social change, would you?” However, social media is primarily a link to people that don’t correspond in person. Big social change can’t be enforced by a bunch of semi-strangers...you’re only as strong as your weakest link, but this link is dainty. Gladwell interestingly points out that people on social media just want easy praise and recognition from these mass associates. While speaking of simple activism that doesn’t require real thought, action, or danger, he states, “...it’s the kind of commitment that will bring only social acknowledgement and praise.” His point, of which I share, is that in this present time, people are only fighting for the “right” causes that will bring them praise for the smallest thing. An example of this easy activism is the Ice bucket challenge. All anyone did was post a video of themselves and tag their friends. People were more likely to care about who they tagged or if they were tagged in someone else’s than the cause they were supporting. Most didn’t even know what ALS stood for. In addition, I totally agree with the idea that real action requires a singular leader. An example of this would be the Natzis, who would have never had such a sprawling effect without Adolf Hitler. In reverse of this is the NAACP and Martin Luther