September 29th, 2010 by Anna

In an article for the upcoming issue of The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell examines the use of online social media tools for social activism, concluding: “[w]here activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools.” He writes that “[w]ith Facebook and Twitter and the like, the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns.”

He contends, however, that the “outsized enthusiasm for social media” has caused some to forget the true meaning of activism. Using last year’s post-election protests in Iran as an example (in which Twitter was allegedly “the medium of the movement”), Gladwell notes that this new kind of social activism is built on broad, loose ties between people, organized in a network rather than a hierarchy. Although social networks like Facebook and Twitter can increase participation in social movements, they require a lower level of commitment by activists. The network structure may make movements more resilient and adaptable, Gladwell says, but networks may not be the most effective structure for activists to challenge powerful establishments. In general, expression via diffuse social networks has less impact than the more traditional, boots-on-the-ground organizing that dominated the Civil Rights Movement, for example. Gladwell, in effect, asks readers to critically examine the real efficacy of social media tools for producing change, writing: “They are not a natural enemy of the status quo.”

Posted in Civil Society, Elections, Iran, Technology |