Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] Malcolm Gladwell on Traditional vs. Online Activism
pranesh at cis-india.org
Mon Sep 27 09:49:34 PDT 2010
I largely agree with the piece (having quickly skimmed through it) that
the differences are often underestimated. However, very
impressionistic-ally, there are a few things that Gladwell does not
consider, or consider adequately:
1. The role of the *traditional* media in advocacy.
The traditional media are very powerful in amplifying weak ties as
well. They play a big role in both traditional *and* social media-based
activism. And Twitter and Facebook are easy places to find new stories
for traditional media journalists.
2. Even traditional political advocacy can actually be based on weak ties.
Consider Amnesty International's letter-writing campaigns. Very
strong, very political, requires little action, and is many times very
effective. There are Amnesty posters from the '70s that have a
typewriter with the caption: "This is one of the most powerful weapons
in the fight for human rights". And more recently: "Saliva saves lives"
and "Postman topples dictator".
However, I mostly agree with him that social media-based advocacy is
largely based on weak ties, and that greatly limits it. That having
been said, a large movement of weak ties can (and quite usually does)
have a small core of strong ties that keeps it going. Thus social
media-based advocacy can help convert some of those with only weak ties
into those with stronger ties. This is thus a case of one complementing
the other. Thus, I agree with Mary that this distinction is one of
degree and of tendency, rather than absolute.
3. I'm still mulling over his distinction between high-risk and low-risk.
Revolutionaries of the traditional sort (the re-emergent Red Brigade,
for instance) have put digital technologies, though not "social media",
to great use: to coordinate murders and to cover their trail with
encryption (OpenPGP). Many of the emergent networks of the early
Internet were actually traditional advocacy groups (consumer rights
groups, environmentalist groups, etc.). So is his point about digital
technologies or about social media-based activism?
I will have to read the piece more carefully to see where exactly he
draws the lines between digital tools and social media, and the links he
makes between traditional advocacy groups and the media (if any).
On 09/27/2010 08:15 PM, Mary Joyce wrote:
> ... in the current* New Yorker*:
> Some questions:
> 1. Gladwell draws an absolute distinction between the *strong ties* of
> offline activism (example of the civil rights movement) and the *weak
> ties* of online activism (examples of Darfur Facebook groups). Is this an
> accurate distinction?
> 2. Gladwell reiterates the observation that offline activism is *
> hierarchical* and strategic while online activism is *decentralized* and
> ad hoc. Does this distinction doom online activism to failure or just
> indicate a new mechanics of activism?
> 3. Gladwell argues that centralized and hierarchical protest movements,
> like the civil rights movement, which "help us persevere in the face of
> danger" and "promote strategic and disciplined activity" are unequivocally
> more *effective* than a decentralized and networked movements. Might
> this statement not be true under repressive regimes?
> liberationtech mailing list
> liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
> Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
Centre for Internet and Society
W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the liberationtech