Malcolm Gladwell, Social Activism, and the Internet

I know that, as an academic, I'm not supposed to like Malcolm Gladwell--but I do.   I admire the way he weaves a story from an experiment, I love the craft of his storytelling, I like his larger politics and, well, anyone who can publicize to a wider audience the important cultural psychology of Richard Nisbett is a friend of mine!  That said, I have much to admire and some hesitations about a major new piece of his that is to appear soon in The New Yorker, "Small Change:  Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted."  Here's the url:  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?cur...

My qualm with the argument in this piece is that, even while it is protesting that the Internet is not an agent of social change, it is giving the Internet too much power and force as an agent of social change.   By that I mean Gladwell is wonderful (as always) when talking about real humans, those four very brave men at a lunch counter in Greensboro who contributed to the civil rights movement, putting their actual bodies on the line for a cause and an ideal.    But I balk at the idea that the mechanism of social change IS the engine of social change. If there were a large social activist anti-racist civil rights movement now, of course it would be organized on the Internet.  During the Civil Rights movement, television, radio, folk festivals, newspapers, underground newspapers, Black newspapers, religious newspapers and every other media was called into service to inspire those massive marches.   If social activism was the mood of the early 21st century, every available media would be summoned to that end.  

Here's the bottom line:  The existence of new media neither necessitates nor precludes social activism.  New Media provide a possibility for use to a certain end, but anyone who thinks sending a tweet is  a social action or is even social networking has never really, successfully been involved in either a social action or a social (online) network.   There is enormous human labor invisible behind every social, collective action.   That is also true for Net activism in all its forms.   Those who now quickly dismiss the role of Twitter in the Iranian protests during elections are as technodeterminist in their logic as those who, originally, acted as if Twitter was the cause of the Iranian protests.  Twitter fuelled, encouraged, expanded, and communicated ideas--just as the "hootenany" and the Chicago Defender and television did in the Civil Rights era.   Read deeply in the history of Civil Rights actions and you find media-savvy people who bolstered their brave acts of courage with well-orchestrated media coverage.  Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus would be one solitary act of courage were the media not there to make it a symbol. 

At the same time, it is important to remember that tweeting and other social media do not have intention, are not in themselves motivators, but their use in social actions can have serious consequences.  Michael Widner one of our HASTAC Scholars, has just blogged about the recent arrest of protestors who tweeted the location of police breaking up protests at the G-20 summit.  I quote:  "A man was recently arrested for tweeting the locations of police to G-20 protesters. If you read the Huffington Post, you may already know this, but this Ars Technica post (and the New York Times piece it links to) provides significantly more detail. Eliot Madison, the self-described anarchist in question, was apparently using a police scanner to warn protesters about which areas to avoid."  Here is the url for Widner's entire post:  http://www.hastac.org/blogs/michael-widner/arrested-tweeting     It is inconceivable that Civil Rights protestors of the Sixties wouldn't be using Twitter for their social actions, including for protection from hostile authorities and segregationist crowds, had such affordances been available to them.  

We may wish that the Internet could solve all social ills or inspire social change.   It is there for those of us who wish to use it for the good of society.  Sadly, it is there as well for those who wish to organize on behalf of evil.   It is an effective communications tool.   But, without "end users" generating "content" and "interconnection," it's inert or simply instrumental and chaotic.   That's one reason why we have to learn better and more wisely how to use this marvelous connector that we have at our disposal but that requires idealism and values and integrity of purpose to realize its full social potential.

I read Malcolm Gladwell because he has an original mind and always makes me think of something I wouldn't have before. Even when I disagree with him, he frames questions in deep and interesting ways.  I urge you to read his essay, even if it is to resist.   If his goal is to inspire better, more creative and constructive use of social media, then he frames the questions exactly the right way to do so, with real heroes who were able to organize a social movement that helped change a world without a single tweet.