Using some of the “They Say / I Say” Techniques we practiced with Appiah’s essay last week, write a summary of his argument in a few sentences.
In his article, “Small Changes”, Malcolm Gladwell argues that social networks could not be considered an instrument of real social change because they lack a hierarchy and a clear central authority necessary to be effective. Furthermore, Gladwell insists that the idea of what it means to be an activist has been watered down by social media, and the kind of activism America saw in the 60’s, is far different from the Facebook Activism we see today.
Do you agree with Gladwell’s argument? To what extent? Why?
I disagree with Gladwell’s argument for the most part, while I do agree that social media gives people weak ties to one another, and that the idea of activism has changed; I disagree with Gladwell that people cannot use social networks to create change.
I think a lot of good has happened through the use of social media, such as spreading GoFundMe sites, as well as spreading information. For example, when the world first starting finding out that the Amazon had been on fire, or that the cows as a large milk company were being abused, a bunch of people shared it on their Instagram stories.
I think a thing social media has made it easier to do is to create social backlash, or controversies around issues. And because companies are concerned with how they are viewed by the public, and the public can easily be notified, companies are doing things that are better for their image.
While social media may not of created a hierarchy, they haven’t needed to, because they have been changing things without them.
