I have had trouble taking a side on this debate about Twitter. I have had a Twitter account for a couple of years now and absolutely love it. I opened my account for the main purpose of career building and developing. I plan to work in communications and event planning in the non profit world so I follow other non-profits and those in the communication field. Through the years of having my account, there have been times when I have used it for a form of activism, and I like to think and hope that what I tweet does at least in a small way make the world a little better place. With this hope, I side more with Stone but I also see the point Gladwell is trying to make.
The point of Gladwell’s article is that all the activism that has happened up to this point has been a high-risk and includes strong ties to the movement and the other people involved in the movement. Gladwell goes back to the civil-rights movement again and again to prove his points. Gladwell claims that a crucial fact about those involved with the civil-rights movement was their relationship with each other. Gladwell argues that social media like Twitter are built on weak ties. These weak ties can be a great sources for new ideas and information but not on starting activism according to Gladwell. Gladwell argues that the only way to get someone who does not really know you to do something on your behalf is by not asking too much of them.
In Biz Stone’s response to Gladwell, he points that in Gladwell’s own book he teaches how Paul Revers and this weak-tie phenomenon contributed to the success of The American Revolution. As Stone points out, Paul Revers had a broad network (all of your followers), a fast horse (speed of technology), and a catchy phrase less than 140 characters (tweet). Stone brings in several current examples of has Twitter has been used for activism and been successful. Stone ends his article with this argument “Rudimentary communication among individuals in real time allows many to move together as one - suddenly uniting everyone in a common goal. Lowering the barrier to activism doesn’t weaken humanity, it brings us together and it makes us stronger.”
As Aroll’s post said, Webster defines activism as a policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal; the use of direct, often confrontational action, in opposition to or in support of a cause. At first when I read that definition I thought it gave more support to Gladwell’s arguments, but the more I think about it I find myself thinking it supports both points of view. Both points of view are taking an action to achieve a political or social goal. Gladwell and Stone are just going about that action in different ways.
Each point of view has good points and ideas we as consumers need to contemplate. As I resolve this issue for myself, I am not completely taking either side. I think there is a time and place for both types of activism. Some issues may be resolved with the weak-tie method Twitter presents while there are other issues which may require more strong-ties to accomplish the goal. With using what is best for the issue which could be a combination of both views, those political or social goals will be achieved.
This post is in response to Gladwellian vs. Stone on February 13 by Aroll.
No comments:
Post a Comment