In this article Malcolm Gladwell challenges the idea of new social media--such as Facebook and Twitter--as revolutionary forces. His argument is in response to assertions such as "'Without Twitter the people of Iran would not have felt empowered and confident to stand up for freedom and democracy'" by former national-security advisor Mike Pfiefle. Gladwell argues that although social media is good for some things like finding a phone left in a taxicab or a bone marrow donor, it is too much based on laziness and a large network of loose contacts to effect real social change. His argument is based on a social sciences approach (as his books and most of his articles tend to be) in which he uses patterns of relationships and behavior repeatedly found in traditional activism that are missing in social media "activism." Gladwell's article is as if in direct response to the Kahn and Kellner article we read for last Wednesday in which they optimistically conclude that "it is up to oppositional groups that utilize the internet to develop the forms of technopolitics that can produce a freer and happier world and which can liberate humanity and nature from the tyrannical and oppressive forces that currently constitute much of our global and local reality" (721). Gladwell would beg to differ, arguing that "The instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not the natural enemy of the status quo. If you are of the opinion that all the world needs is a little buffing around the edges, this should not trouble you. But if you think that there are still lunch counters that need integrating it ought to give you pause" (49). This argument posits Facebook and Twitter into the category with most other mainstream media in that it is helping to maintain the existing hegemony, not turning it on end as some seem to think. It strikes me that there are persuasive arguments on both sides, but Gladwell makes a pretty good one for the cynics.
No comments:
Post a Comment