In a recent article titled "Small Change" in The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell argues against the hype about social media for social change. His article is packed with interesting observations, but his conclusions are ultimately flawed.
I'm sympathetic to Gladwell's two main points as he sets up the article:
Meaningful social change is driven by "strong-tie" networks, such as the network of black churches that mobilized sit-ins in the 1960's. "Weak-tie" networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, cannot achieve meaningful social change alone.
At Citizens Market we've always been interested in developing both "strong-tie" and "weak-tie" networks to recruit people to share information about corporate social and environmental behavior on our site. In fact, we recently shifted our strategy towards building a foundation of face-to-face networks through events and partnerships, which can then be enhanced with social media tools. We take our cues from successful online networks such as Yelp! and the Obama campaign, which were launched through carefully organized events and meetings.
"If you're taking on a powerful and organized establishment you have to be a hierarchy."
Gladwell's point here rings true for us too, at least in part. We envision a diverse, independent, emergent network of people sharing crowdsourced content about corporate behavior, which will engage consumers and ultimately change financial incentives for companies. But that vision depends on an organized hierarchy: our team. It will take sustained effort to prepare fertile ground for that network of crowdsourced contributors to emerge. We need to develop tools, partners and a core community. In order to achieve a movement with a life of its own, we need to organize now.
So Gladwell is right to emphasize the importance of "strong-tie" networks and hierarchies in launching social change movements. But what begins as a "strong-tie" network driven by a hierarchy might become an even larger and stronger "weak-tie" network with nobody at the reins at all. If anyone should appreciate the potential for an organized effort to reach a tipping point with emergent behavior, it ought to be Gladwell! Consider this excerpt from Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point":
"The Power of Context says you don't have to solve the big problems to solve crime. You can prevent crimes just by scrubbing off graffiti and arresting fare-beaters: crime epidemics have Tipping Points every bit as simple and straightforward as syphilis in Baltimore or a fashion trend like Hush Puppies." (p. 151, "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell)
Gladwell's logic about small efforts and big payoffs is persuasive in "The Tipping Point," but this logic is at odds with a bizarre circular argument he adopts in his New Yorker article: because "high-risk activism... is a "strong-tie" phenomenon," it therefore follows that meaningful social activism must somehow be high risk. He takes a wrong turn here, pooh-poohing social media as a lighthearted pretender to "real" social change merely because social media tends to be low risk. Gladwell describes a successful online campaign to register money for bone marrow transplants, but dismisses this as an example "that doesn't require that you confront socially entrenched norms and practices." He claims that "Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice."
An otherwise compelling article thus ends with a shaky, condescending conclusion:
"The instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not a natural enemy of the status quo. If you are of the opinion that all the world needs is a little buffing around the edges, this should not trouble you. But if you think that there are still lunch counters out there that need integrating it ought to give you pause."
I don't doubt the risks incurred by activists in the civil rights movement, nor do I doubt that high-risk activism is still necessary for some causes. But I don't see why all meaningful social activism must necessarily be risky. Social media may be a low risk, "weak tie" phenomenon as Gladwell claims, but social media still has enormous potential to enhance "strong-tie" networks and thereby enable deeper social change.
Sometimes a little effort by a lot of people - perhaps enabled by social media - can make a massive difference in the status quo. The challenge may not be in the risk or hardship incurred by people, but in developing an environment in which people can more easily effect change. In the United States today we are fortunate that the act of voting requires little effort and virtually no risk, thanks in large part to the innovations of our country's Founders. But while voting may be easy, it certainly still matters.
At Citizens Market, our theory of change is that organizing a lot of consumers to make marginal differences in their shopping patterns will have a profound impact on the private sector and society at large. For example, consumers interested in the issue of lobbying could use a mobile phone to scan product barcodes and - holding other factors such as price or quality equal - easily avoid brands owned by companies with nefarious lobbying practices. At scale, this behavior would reverse the financial incentives for some companies to exert undue influence on government policies. As with other social and environmental issues we cover on our website, we face a "powerful and organized establishment" with market-driven interests that are unlikely to change meaningfully until we change the underlying market itself. Once we develop our tools, partners and core community, however, it will be easy for consumers to empower themselves with information, adjust their market behavior and ultimately change corporate behavior.
As Gladwell says, we'll need "strong-tie" networks and an organized hierarchy to succeed. But we shouldn't dismiss social media and low risk actions. Instead, we should harness them. Our community would expect no less.
0 comments:
Post a Comment