Small Change Gladwell Analysis

708 Words3 Pages
Malcolm Gladwells article, Small Change, contrasts modern day activisms to traditional activism. Throughout the article he shows how he is not convinced that social media is the new social revolution. His arguments to why he believes this is that, social networking creates weak ties and there is no type of hierarchy. I believe Gladwell effectively provides strong examples getting his argument across and solid counterarguments that prove how social media is poorly tied into being a revolution. Gladwell’s argues that social networking is not the most effective way to start a revolution. He believes that social media activism is a poor way to protest because it is not organized in a hierarchy and does not have the emotional bonds traditional activism does. “But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism.” (Gladwell 2010), here Gladwell is arguing that the people associated with online activism, for the most part, are those who have never met before so there could be no strong bond to tie them together to get up and fight for something big and weak-ties, he claims, rarely leads to…show more content…
He provides a strong example right away and then provides his arguments that tie into his example. He also addresses counterarguments that could be made throughout the article. But the counterarguments he provides prove how that they are weakly bonded to being a strong social revolution, and that they are more a matter of participation rather than motivation. Strong bonds and a clear line of authority is the effective way to start a movement. Behind your computer and cell phones is not enough, it is too easy and will never truly change anything. Gladwell successfully proves this throughout his essay with countless examples and his counterarguments prove the same. If a true change is ever to happen, we cannot count on Twitter or Facebook, we need to go outside and make that
Open Document