I thought I would post here an exchange about the recent Malcolm Gladwell New Yorker article that is making the rounds about whether Twitter has the makings of an advocacy revolution. This came from Weber Shandwick’s Social Impact blog.  I must admit I am skeptical about Gladwell’s argument that Twitter is not going to set the world on fire about the issues that really matter in creating a better world and and having what it takes to ignite true social activism. However, I do believe that Twitter can get more people engaged at different levels and to different degrees and that matters in a world of advocacy fatigue and apathy. And perhaps as Twitter evolves, we will see it matter alot at times of great social strife. If you care about advocacy, definitely read the Gladwell article.

Does social media help or hurt activism?

David Leavitt

Author Malcolm Gladwell made waves this week with a New Yorker essay called “Why the revolution will not be tweeted,” in which he makes the case that activism movements are effortless and perhaps even meaningless in the world of social media.

We’ve been debating Gladwell’s thesis in the office the last few days. Here is part of the discussion from Colin Moffett and Victoria Baxter.

Colin: My biggest issue with Gladwell’s piece is that he assumes that somehow social media is something completely new. The technology itself is new and allows us to connect with people and share information farther and faster than ever before, but the activity of using the technology is nothing new. The technology doesn’t replace strong ties, hierarchical organizations or the mass media — in fact it helps fuel mass media by encouraging the spread of media content.

The technology also does not replace traditional advocacy and organizing. It is a tool, a highly effective tool in fact, that can help organizations reach large numbers of people in consistent and efficient ways. These loose ties, as Gladwell characterizes them, build on each other over sustained periods of time and create strong ties that are effective at helping people make the sacrifices needed in successful movements. He tries very hard to label social media as trite and ineffective and yearns for the old but in reality completely ignores that we aren’t talking about something that is altogether new.

What do you think, Victoria?

Victoria: My biggest issue was the suggestion that deep, committed high-risk advocacy is always the “better” advocacy. The story of young college students risking almost certain violence to sit at a lunch counter and start a revolution gives me chills. How could it not? But there are many different ways people can impact the world.

Advocacy – and I would also argue participation – is needed on lots of causes, especially those that happen half a world away, isn’t a situation experienced firsthand and don’t really lend themselves to high risk activism. Quantifying Darfur advocacy by number of Facebook likes, divided by money raised misses the mark for me. It’s measuring the wrong thing.

I agree with Colin that Twitter doesn’t replace activism, strong ties or even the media. Instead of pro- or anti-Twitter debate, let’s have a more nuanced conversation that starts at encouraging and valuing participation. Participation is a much-needed starting point. Social networks help curate information, cutting through the ever-increasing clutter we face every day.

I’m reminded of the recent Nick Kristof article  and the recent Melinda Gates TEDxChange speech on marketing causes. We do ourselves a disservice by assuming that everyone knows what we know – or that everyone will automatically care. Social networks extend conversations beyond your immediate friends and provide an opportunity to start talking and start participating. That’s what happened in the dorm room in North Carolina A&T. It’s what’s happening online right now.

Colin: I completely agree. I think if there is one bit of warning we need to heed from Gladwell’s piece it is that organizations need to make an effort to create varying levels of action so that advocacy doesn’t devolve into a series of “likes” on Facebook. But again, this challenge isn’t new. Organizations have been under pressure for years to drive levels of participation from mailing lists and email lists. Large numbers of people will only give an email address or like something on Facebook and be done with it, but the same number of people as always can be compelled to become more heavily involved. And we will always have the special few who will make the personal sacrifices to sit at the lunch counter.

Victoria: Exactly! That’s exactly the nuance that is useful for advocates. The common “ladder of engagement” has a few missing rungs. Yes, we will need people to donate or send a letter to Congress. But why do so many campaigns stop there? Twitter makes it easy for friends to inform each other, talk about issues within networks and generally become more aware and engaged.

Here are some of the other reactions to Gladwell’s article that we’ve been reading:

A. Fine Blog: “Malcolm Gladwell Strikes out on Activism” | Sept. 28

Beth’s Blog: “Social Media for Good and Evil” | Sept. 29

Yglesias: “Facebook and Freedom” | Sept. 30

Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Can Activism Be Fostered Through Social Networks?” | Sept. 30

New York Times: “Can Twitter Lead People to the Streets?” | Sept. 30