Analysis Of Small Change By Malcolm Gladwell

791 Words2 Pages

Imagine a protest from the civil rights period and its many unique qualities, how does it differ from one you would see today on CNN? In Malcolm Gladwell’s piece, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”, Gladwell argues that social media itself is not an adequate enough tool to organize protests of any kind. He believes that old hierarchy organizations like the NAACP are more effective in their missions than a facebook group or go fund me page. I can see where Gladwell is coming from in this argument, but his word choice and writing style really loses my attention as the work progresses and like one of the previous essays declares, I get distracted easily while reading this. Gladwell admits that there are some benefits to rebellion …show more content…

This historical reference does a decent job at grabbing the reader's attention. He closes the story by practically saying that they did all of this without social media because they obviously didn’t have it and Gladwell of course states that. As one continues into the article, they begin to realize the read bait that they have just read upon. The writing style in the first section is completely misleading because after the civil rights allusion, his relatable, interactive, style disappears. He doesn’t really offer his argument in a warm way, he blatantly enforces it as if all readers agree with the argument right off the bat. He introduces activism into his article and doesn’t even define it for those who aren’t familiar. He straight up says, “we seem to have forgotten what activism is”, and then starts a new paragraph going back to the Greensboro example. Later in the article Gladwell eventually defines activism but it’s way too late to redeem that chance. The point of a magazine article isn’t for readers to set it aside every time they need to look up an undefined term. Gladwell should next time consider his audience before penning out his own mindset onto …show more content…

All of his evidence may be accurate to his argument but besides the civil rights movement, the events he mentions just do not do it for me. Maybe it’s because he has so many different events that he references that I can’t maintain a clean focus on the work. His argument still confuses me at this point. Social media can notify millions upon billions of people in at least a second. Sure they had television and radio in the 20th century, but not everyone had access to these devices. As that still may be true for our society today and access to technology for social media use, I’m sure more people obtain cellular devices as compared to television and radio. With access to this crowd, a protest or movement can easily be arranged on a computer monitor or touch screen. Everyone can see it and spread it at the click of a button. Communication advances through social media definitely top past organization

Open Document