Social Media to Social Revolution
Co-Authored: Andrew White, Chadi Haddad, Richard Ngov, Raymond Benito, Timothy MacDonald
Throughout the years, people in the world communicate in many different way. Many ways include technology, writing notes, and in person socialization. Believing that connection between others is much stronger when they socialize rather than using social networking, Malcolm Gladwell in his Article, Why the Revolution will not be tweeted, published in October 4, 2010 addresses the topic of social networking and social activism and argues that social networking such as Facebook will not have the same impact as social revolutions of the past such as the civil rights movement. He supports this claim by using real life evidence from Historical events, then He uses trustful tone, and finally He proves his point by giving his readers his point of view. Gladwell’s purpose is to prove that people interacting with each other in person is much better than using social media in order to show the readers that as good technology is, people should interact in person more often for a better social life. He adopts a sympathetic tone for his audience, the readers of Why the Revolution Will Not be Tweeted and others interested in the topic of the difference between personal interactions and social networking. Generally, the whole point of the article is that, while mankind has always done its best to enact social change, technology has been essential in transforming social change into revolution.
American Civil Rights, this, like many revolutions had a technological impact, although these technologies weren’t all the same. Iraq can use Twitter and other technologies but America had TV, Radio, and Landline Phones. Malcom Gladwell says “a photographer from the Greensboro record” was at the Woolworth’s a restaurant in downtown Greensboro, North Carolina. A photographer doesn’t seem like a big deal now-a-days, but back then it was a close second for media, aside from Radio and TV; TV was for the high-class citizen. So radios, newspapers and phones were how word got around for people back then. These things don’t just appear, though these require technology, technology that might be less advanced than other things like twitter. Newspapers have been around forever; though it’s not really technology, back in the pre-revolutionary war days the printing press was a big hit, something to make not only newspapers, but posters and propaganda. In Print Culture an encyclopedia of the new American Nation, Wil Verhoeven says, “The Records of thirteen Legislatures, the Pamp[h]lets, Newspapers in all the Colonies ought [to] be consulted, during that Period, to ascertain the Steps by which the Public Opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the Authority of Parliament over the Colonies.” This quote shows the colonies were becoming aware of the British’s injustices upon the colonies. Further Verhoeven goes on to say, ”During the War of Independence, printing developed into a technology of revolution.” He doesn’t use the word technology lightly technology stands to serve man and his outcomes, thus the papers we print with our technology serve our revolutions.
Although man-kind has always been capable of enabling social change when Revolution is necessary, the creation of global communications and social media alike have changed the way Revolution will occur; permanently. Rarely, will events of the present, slip by and become memories of the past. Every major event that happens around the world is catapulted to “current event” status; especially with the ease of access to information by the mass population. Albeit, change is in the hands of the beholder, but it is all possible. The more social the world population becomes, the more we will change the world, instead of as secular or racial groups and categories; but as a whole. Columnist for The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell writes, “Activism that challenges the status quo—that attacks deeply at the rooted problems – is not for the faint of heart” (Gladwell 3). Gladwell is stimulating the minds of activists everywhere through profound speech of the Peaceful Activist. By directly addressing Activism that deals with deep-rooted social change Gladwell hopes to encourage his audience to lead the way to change rather than be lead to salvation; or better yet…help each other to it. Writer of Foreign affairs for The Washington Post, Anne Applebaum explains:
“We’ve been waiting a long time for political upheaval to follow in the wake of technological change, and on April 7th, it seemed to have arrived. From Moldova, of all places, came news of the Twitter Revolution: In one of the poorest backwaters in Europe…a group of fresh-faced young people reportedly used Twitter Tweets, text messages and Facebook postings to organize a demonstration in favor of Democracy and against rigged elections.”
Just the fact we have American media coverage about a Revolution in another country shows the relevance of technology in our understanding of social change. Applebaum hopes to show how a group of people, when determined, can accomplish anything; even if the powers that be don’t hear you, at least your peers will. She is hoping to raise awareness for a situation that transpired on the far side of the globe, which alone can stand to high moral standard. A previous NSLA had a few words about social media, Gladwell relays, “Mark Pfeifle, a former national security labor advisor, later wrote, calling for Twitter to be nominated for The Nobel Peace Prize. Where Activist were once defined by their cause, they were now defined by their tools. Facebook warriors go online to push for change” (Gladwell 2). By bringing an expert’s testimony into play, Gladwell is strengthening his argument by association. He is bringing to light that even a prior National Security Web Advisor of the United States Government, recognizes the significance of social media’s role in social revolution; in hopes to show that anyone can be the catalyst for change…just log in. The following political cartoon, drawn by Amr Okasha, is a grand example of the previous claim.
The purpose behind the image is left up to the viewer’s interpretation; however, it seems to explain a more deliberate approach to waken the zombie horde, that being The Internet of course. Being from Egypt seems to give Amr strong reasons to attack western politics, especially with such heinous crimes committed by the Military, in the name of America around the globe, throughout its short history. It seems to say, the time for military action is over, we must unite to defeat the beast, or sit silently and wait for direction; in hopes that that change is made for us. Regardless of who, what, or how we pushes social change, revolution is necessary.
Although it is true that technology has been helpful to mankind in creating social change, it threatens to undermine the very basis of social change and that is social skills. These skills are widely defined as the ability to properly interact with other people; being able to see and understand body language, interpreting the non-verbal and verbal cues that people make and the ability to react appropriately and adapt to different social settings. Some may say that the people's fervor and passion for what they are fighting for will carry them through but when their ardor cools and the time for talk and negotiations has come, how will they be able to organize change in an entire society if they are not even able to interact properly with other people in real life. Strong ties of friendship and comradeship are essential to any social and not being able to communicate effectively or even appropriately is a huge handicap. In his article, Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted, Malcolm Gladwell addresses this very same topic. “Even revolutionary actions that look spontaneous, like the demonstrations in East Germany that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall, are, at core, strong-tie phenomena.” (Gladwell) Here, Gladwell asserts that the structure of social change is comprised of strong ties which means friendship. With today's media permeating everything we do, from a car radio on a country drive to accessing Facebook on your laptop at home, people often use these things to avoid interaction with a fellow passenger on the bus or their parents at home, normal conversations. It may seem simple or frivolous but simple social interactions such as these are the basis of creating strong and or intimate relationships with people and thus social change. If the bonds between the social activists groups are not firm enough it will fall apart when faced with opposition or adversity because the members simply don't care enough about the others to stay within the group. Not only does technology interfere with day to day communications, it also interferes with the development of social skills, an important part of forming relationships. “'They don't know how to handle conflict face to face because so many things happen through some sort of technology,' said Melissa Ortega.” (Bindley) This further cements Gladwell's claim by stating that because many interactions today, including conflict, are conducted over some sort technology kids and teens are losing and aren't even learning how to interact with others. When one cannot see their aggressor, it is often easy to be bold and brash but when faced with a confrontation in real life people who were often aggressive online aren't so straightforward. Technology is handicapping many children, teens and even some adults' abilities to deal with adversity in real life effectively. Whenever there was a revolution or social change there was almost always opposition to such a change with verbal, legislative and even violent protest; the ability to communicate effectively in a social setting is important to create social change, as well as the ability to diffuse a dispute peacefully and to, more importantly, change their mind.
Today in the modern age, technology is integrated in a multitude of things, from super high tech smart phones, all the way to the toaster on the counter. Not only does it improve people’s quality of life on many different levels, but it weaves us all together in one global society. Cohen remarks the internet “[Is] terrific at the diffusion of innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration” (Gladwell 5). Technology allows people to excel at their task, to outperform, whereas without it, would prove unwieldy and inefficient. Take the Haiti earthquake incident for example, after the fallout; many people were cut off from food water, and medical assistance, trapped in islands of rubble, desperate for aid. But with the aid of technology, the Knight Foundation describes the people of Haiti utilizing, “Interactive Maps and SMS (Short Message Service) texts, [helping] guide search-and-rescue teams and find people in need of critical supplies, as the Caribbean nation became a real-world laboratory for new communication tools.” (Knight Foundation) technologies like SMS allows people to connect even in desperate situations, which the lack of, could have been a logistical nightmare. The spread of technology and advanced communications and media also have a significant influence on social change. Though Gladwell opposes the weak-tie relationship; stating that they “seldom lead to high-risk activism” (Gladwell 5) weak-tie relationships normally attributed in social media sites like Facebook or Twitter are not the rolling tide of support that Gladwell compares to the lunch counter sit ins of the civil rights movement, but they do offer friction of a different sort. The LBGT community have been regarded as taboo for decades, and perhaps even centuries, but social media sites like Facebook and Twitter has given them a new medium so that they can share ideas. Though it is not the “fever” that Gladwell has described the lunch counter sit-ins, this new social revolution is rather slow burn, easing itself into the next generation steadily and effectively.
In life, humans have always been trying to make social change, personal interaction is always better for socializing. Technology advances all the time and everyone uses them for socializing with others, but the point is, social networking does not give a good connection between people. In life people enjoy sharing a connection as they socialize. Therefore, even though technology is always advancing, and always great for socializing with others who are close or across the world, communicating in person is and will be the best socialization a person has. In-person communication is the best form of communication because of the great connections we make with others, on an empathetic level.
