Gladwell Underwhelmed by the "Twitter Revolution"

I have chosen to analyze Malcolm Gladwell's article for The New Yorker entitled "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted". In this article, Gladwell shows concern that, with the rise of social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook, true activism may be dying out.

And understandably so!

I myself have sat in silent awe of the various causes that parade across my Facebook news feed, wondering how many of those little pixellated thumbs represent actual tangible contributions to resolving the issue on display. Evidently, Gladwell has had the same experience.

On my first read through, I must admit, I was convinced. As I read through again I was trying to understand why. Now, I might be biased: as previously stated, my own opinion is already along the lines of what Gladwell argues here, and I'll also admit, I have read several of Gladwell's books and I'm definitely a fan of his writing. But I like his writing because I generally find therein the same things that make his writing effective here: Malcolm Gladwell excels at introducing and supporting an idea.

I'm convinced and I imagine that many others who have read this article have been convinced. If you use social media and if you are concerned about the world around you, you are in this audience, and I think you would be convinced as well.

There's much that Gladwell does here to get my attention; and there's much he doesn't do to equal effect. To the latter point, I find Gladwell's voice to be distinctly lacking in condescension. There is no passion or putdowns here. The words used are not overly grandiose and above the typical reader of such a publication. In every way that matters Gladwell's tone is neutral and accessible--this piece is about the facts, not the feelings.

And about those facts, there's tons of them. Gladwell's primary means of persuasion in this article is evidence. Anecdotes and case studies are the backbone to his piece and everything else is just the means of stringing them together. As a result, there is really no excuse at any point to feel like the author is ranting about his own opinion. On the contrary, the presentations ultimate impact feels more like a grand unveiling of the truth. Under close scrutiny we must suppose there is always the possibility that these "facts" are selectively represented to make the authors point, but there is nothing I can see to betray such a possibility

The ultimate message is soundly presented: Perhaps we should be wary of contenting ourselves with internet activism and feeling like we are making a difference. Maybe we need to look at what it really means to stand up for something.