The Gladwell controversy

Malcolm Gladwell’s current New Yorker story ‘Small change – Why the revolution will not be tweeted’ has stirred up a lot of controversy online and offline. His article is a thought-provoking piece criticizing the use of social media for ‘real’ activism. Drawing on examples from the 1960s civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King and Stanford sociologist Doug McAdam’s study that compared the movement’s dropouts with the participants who stayed, Gladwell argues that high-risk activism relies on strong-ties, whereas platforms of social media are built around weak ties.

The article mentions some important points and a much needed correction to the (over)hyping of Twitter and Facebook. But it also overlooks some important insight. Gladwell quotes Mark Granovetter’s classic 1973 paper on ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’:

‘Our acquaintances—not our friends—are our greatest source of new ideas and information. The Internet lets us exploit the power of these kinds of distant connections with marvellous efficiency. It’s terrific at the diffusion of innovation […]. ‘

Unfortunately, Gladwell then draws an erroneous conclusion:

‘Weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism.’

The diffusion of information about the motives, causes and goals of a social movement as a prerequisite for any kind of activism, whether high- or low-risk. A density of strong ties certainly increases motivation but a lack of weak ties inhibits social activism. As studies of diffusion and mass communication have shown, people rarely act on mass-media information unless it is also transmitted through personal ties. Enthusiasm for an organization in one clique, then, would not spread to others but would have to develop independently in each one to insure success.

Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter are ideal tools for the quick dissemination of information through weak ties which is an empowering mechanism that enables people to become more engaged in the causes that they support.

Gladwell argues that getting a million people to join a ‘Save Darfur’ page on Facebook is an example for social networks’ effectiveness in increasing participation by lessening the level of required motivation: ‘Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice’. But by insisting that activism only succeeds when supported by the most highly-dedicated and motivated individuals, he promotes an elitist view of activism that disregards the different ways in which activists work on causes today, and the way that activism has evolved.

Moreover, the first contact with a like-minded soul through a social network is only the beginning of the process, not the end. All strong ties start as weak ties and often social networks facilitate this transformation by decreasing communication barriers. Gladwell, who famously wrote about ‘How little things can make a big difference’ in his book ‘The Tipping Point’ has overlooked the potential of social networks to trigger real change.

Another very critical view of the so-called ‘slacktivism’ is presented here by journalist and author Evgeny Morozov:

Further reading:

McAdam, D 1986, ‘Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer’,  The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 92, No. 1., pp. 64-90.

Granovetter, MS 1973, ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6., pp. 1360-1380.

Rogers, E 2003, ‘Diffusion networks’, in Networks in the knowledge economy, eds. Rob Cross, Andrew Parker and Lisa Sasson (2003), Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, pp. 130-179.