I have watched at a distance as Malcolm Gladwell has taken on Social Media. There is always a grain of truth in his statements, and a certain sense of "this is just common sense" in his writing that makes it both believable and attractive.
That doesn't mean I agree with all of his premise however, far from it. I find that he selectively culls past research to support his statements, and in some cases misrepresents or fails entirely at grasping the implications of it. In his latest piece over at the New Yorker entitled
Does Egypt Need Twitter? The way that I would summarize the point of view is "Social Media is not, and can not, be the cause of these kinds of high risk activism. Social media provides shallow roots and weak ties whereas these types of revolutionary acts require deep roots and strong ties."
This is a thought provoking stance, because it requires a number of assumptions to be made, both in the nature of relationships fostered within Social Media and those required for this type of activism.
Weak and Temporary Ties
First, on the notion of weak and temporary ties and their inability to create meaningful change. I would argue that in and of themselves weak and temporary ties within Social Media have allowed movements to spring up ad hoc and without clear leadership much like traditional groundswells have done for centuries. The predominant factor in this case is reach of awareness.
Whereas a time-sensitive issue that would have previously been known to only a few, or would not have had the means to reach critical mass prior to the issue itself going away, can now find a foothold in the wildfire distribution models of Social Media. Is that awareness not then the cause? At what point does the size of the stage and reach of the microphone find a tipping point to where it becomes one of the stars of the show and not just the person(s) speaking...particularly in headless revolutions? Where do you draw the line between what is the 'cause' of an event? The thing people are rallying against is the cause? The first person to step forward and speak out is the cause? The mother who bore the child of the first rebel?
These are not black and white singular causes nor should they be, but to imply that Social Media cannot play a major role which enables new movements to take hold simply because there have been movements prior to Social Media's existence is an astounding bit of logic to me. No one is saying "Look at how Social Media overthrew a government!" any more than we would say "Look at how the underground railroad ceased slavery!", but "Look at how Social Media enabled a government to be overthrown" may not be that much of a stretch some day. History will decide that.
Weak Leads To Strong
Second, a blanket statement regarding the nature of ties within Social Media as being weak and temporary is a bit disingenuous. Even if one considers that statement to be true, it conveniently ignores the fact that weak ties lead to strong ones. Those strong (and sometimes permanent) ties have always needed an instigation point, one which Social Media serves well. Are we to ignore that catalyst role and act as if it doesn't exist?
The World Is Watching
Finally, Gladwell appears to see Social Media as a distraction. Tools simply to reinforce the status quo. It's as if putting a live video feed in the offices of every world leader wouldn't change their behavior. Would we not then focus on the importance that those video cameras had in bringing that change about?
Cheers,