Analysis Of Small Change By Malcolm Gladwell

In “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” Malcolm Gladwell makes a case against social media in regards to how it is effecting activism. He uses social movements as an example, stating that social media creates a chasm or between the movement and the person. Prior to social media, activists were involved first hand in the movement but social media has inserted itself as a protective barrier, allowing people to be involved, but not vulnerable to the success or failure of the cause. Gladwell appeals to the reader by using pathos through several stories regarding the mistreatment of African Americans. He also appeals to logos to add gravity to his arguments in the reader’s eyes. Gladwell does this by producing scientific studies …show more content…
He says that they equate Facebook friends to real friends and signing up to be a donor to sitting in at a segregated restaurant in the racially tense sixties (408). This however is a straw man fallacy as he oversimplifies the issue at hand and provides an outrageous comparison. Not only is this a bold claim, he attacks social media evangelist in the process. Gladwell does not say what he thinks about the issue, instead he says what the evangelists think and overgeneralizes it in the process. He appears to attack the judgment of social media evangelists in the claim when he says they believe signing up to be a donor is the same as a sit-in. Also, in making this claim Gladwell provides no backing at all he simply makes the claim and moves on. Again, by not providing evidence it leaves the reader believing that Gladwell is only stating his opinion and not basing it off of factual evidence. This attack against social network evangelists damages his credibility immensely. I perceive attacking the enemy as a cornered response used when the author does not have any more evidence to produce, therefore by doing that is sounds like Gladwell has no more evidence to produce. Also, it weakens his article due to the lack of evidence backing the …show more content…
There is no specific gender, race, or demographic, it is solely for those who choose to read it. When his audience chooses to read the article, the message Gladwell is trying to convey is the knowledge of how activism is changing as time progresses. He is not trying to persuade or change minds, only bring light to the new activism. I believe Gladwell is successful in conveying his message however, to someone who cares more about the legality of arguments might not feel the same. Gladwell uses fallacies in multiple instances that reduce the credibility of his argument. It leads me to believe that in certain areas of his arguments he had thoughts and opinions but was not able to find evidence that was coherent with his argument. He does produce a strong argument that I agree with, but the way he goes about it with the opinions and fallacies would not be a successful way to convince someone to switch what they believe on this topic. Also, I agree with him that this new age of activism is different than the past, but I do not believe that it is any less significant. The reason that sit-ins no longer happen is not because of social media, it is because there is no need for sit-ins in the current time period. The current time period is suited for social media activism. Saving lives by finding blood donors through email, or spreading awareness about a deadly disease through a retweet is