Dear Malcolm Gladwell: The nonprofit technology world is not very happy with you.
Mr. Gladwell’s article in this week’s New Yorker magazine, criticizing the hype about social media’s ability to stir social movements, is drawing fire from nonprofit technology experts, among others.
The primary gripe against Mr. Gladwell, left, an author of several best-selling books, centers on his argument that Facebook, Twitter, and other online tools foster “weak” ties among people, which he says are not the types of relationships upon which social activism depends. For example, he writes, the lunch-counter sit-ins that helped foster the civil-rights movement of the 1960s were built on “strong” ties, true friendships, which are necessary if one is to engage in high-risk activism of the sort required of civil-rights leaders.
Allison Fine, a social-media expert and Chronicle contributor, disagrees that the Web is undercutting these “strong” ties and promoting only weak ones. Successful activism has a “combination of initially tight ties—someone has to drive the train—and loose ties—others have to join the movement,” she says. Furthermore, she writes, all successful movements today happen both online and “on land.”
R.A., a blogger for The Economist, says that Mr. Gladwell gets it wrong by suggesting that the Web simply increases the number of weak ties between people. Social-networking sites do make it easier to form loose connections with people one barely knows, but they also make it easier to stay in touch with people one knows deeply, thereby also making “strong” ties stronger.
Beth Kanter, co-author with Ms. Fine of the book, The Networked Nonprofit, offers further analysis, as does Jillian C. York, of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, and a number of scholars who discuss the issue on The New York Times Web site.
What’s your reaction to Mr. Gladwell’s piece?
3 Responses to Can True Activism Be Fostered Through Social-Networking Sites?
gsinstitute - September 30, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I must agree with Mr. Gladwell. I have not found social networking beneficial with regards to increasing social activism. It does help meet others who are already active but (and I know I’ll hear it for this) the users I have met online believe activism is clicking a link, not joining a carpool to protest or using divestment to have their voice heard. After all, how involved would you be with someone who was only pixels on a screen? It’s too easy to say no.
markandphil - September 30, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Contrary to what our personal beliefs about social media might be, the facts show that social networking, and the internet in general, has enormously aided in breaking down the communication barriers that exist between people and cultures, as well as opening up never before seen possibilities in reaching mass #’s of people.I think Gladwell is using too many examples of cause movements that were largely aided by government and/or traditional media. If we instead look at how 350.org uses social media to gain support for real climate change legislation around the world, or how programs like Kiva or Charity Water are making real, tangible differences in the lives of people by using both online and offline tactics, then we begin to see the true power of social media.The larger thing we should be concentrating on is making sure that the larger part of social media campaigns that causes are running are actually needed and worthwhile. There is nothing that will be more detrimental to the progress of an organization right now than wasting time on social media where it isn’t being capitalized correctly or efficiently. This is something we specifically work closely guiding our NPO and social cause clients with at Mark & Phil (http://markandphil.com)I’m interested to hear what others think!
crystalhaidl - October 5, 2010 at 12:22 pm
The debate is about protectionism on both sides. I agree with MarkandPhil’s comment above. The true discussion should be how the tool of social networking can be used to create tangible real-life engagement among all demographics, and how real life issues and relationships can use social networking to foster even more real life solutions. Most social media philanthropic engagement is touted, owned and networked by millenials, who have the tech savvy to create and use it. It is definitely contributive to fostering some real solutions, but it depends upon having “networks” and benefits only those concepts that millenials are interested in. Networks seem to be a continuation of knowing people in the same ways as in high school and college. Most older adults do not respond to networks in the same way as younger adults– partially because we have many more real-life obligations that necessitates and values closer-knit, deeper relationships. Secondly, the issues of online privacy, trust and even maturity are weighed differently in older generations. The challenge is for the Millenials to think outside of the new media box and reach out to those of us who advocate for others through old-fashioned, but very genuine, methods. There is wisdom in those of us who have lived decades of struggle and human one-to-one real life caring. If the millenials truly care about effecting world wide equity for all humans, they will strive to understand that Gladwell was defining the need of real life human touch; the need to physically roll one’s sleeves and feel — genuinely feel –the journey of others, in all its suffering and joys, and to share your own journey with others the same way. Without that kind of continual real life knowing, social nwteorking tools are just an aniseptically virtual cloud.