What Happens Next?
From Internet: Knowledge and Community
- Hoyle Hodges
- Internet: Knowledge and Community
- Response for 16 Feb 2011
- What Happens Next?
- High-risk activism, McAdam concluded, is a “strong-tie” phenomenon.
(Gladwell, The New Yorker, Small Change, pg 3) The author does a great job of explaining the differences between weak-tie social media’s so called activism and the strong tie, face to face, fully committed activism that actually makes change happen. Social media is being given way to much credit for bringing about political change from Iran in 2009 to Egypt today. One of the main things Western media breathlessly announces is how the government in charge is cutting off the internet, or phone service, or Twitter etc. At the same time showing a complete disregard for how few people in these repressive regimes actually have internet accounts or the technology to use them. In Egypt its’ somewhere around only 20%. The weak tie social network is by design just that a network, it has no leaders, cannot make a timely decision, and cannot make tactical and strategic decisions. (Caldwell, The New Yorker, Small Change )While being a weak tie network has some advantages i.e. not too much is asked of each member, they are enormously resilient and adaptable in low risk situations (Caldwell, The New Yorker, Small Change pg 5) In the Middle East it’s still more about what is said and done at Friday prayers that what some pimply faced geek tweets from the safety of his moms basement in another country that determines the big changes in the region. It takes the hierarchy and organization of the mosques and the imams’ to get the message out to the protesters. Successful revolutionaries and revolutions follow a fairly basic recipe for non violent social change. Members have strong ties, there is a hierarchy, and often there is a religious connection. A central leaders or leaders, face to face meetings with subordinates, shared experiences and often family / clan ties. Violent revolutionaries require an ever tightening grip on the body politic in a way that makes the tracking of friends on face book appear to be just what it is, a way to list and track acquaintances and casual contacts, or non geographic close friends not a way to organize a revolution and topple a government. Social networks are particularly effective at increasing participation- by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires (Caldwell, The New Yorker, Small Change pg 4) Motivation enough to face armed men in pick-ups during the fight for civil rights, or to face down thugs charging at you by camel and horseback is only going to be found in the classic small group bonding that happens during times of risk. The internet is a tool for communication but it cannot replace the type of human group bonding that shared experience and danger bring. The author finishes his article with the story of the lost cell phone and asking and answering his rhetorical What Happens Next? He says more of same. A networked weak-tie world is good at things like helping Wall Streeters get phones back from teen-age girls. Viva la revolucion. (Gladwell, The New Yorker, Small Change pg 6) It’s here where the author speaks to the inclusiveness of social media, yet warns us that it is not enough to bring about real social change. Pure networks never are, even when coupled with the latest technology a network is still just a network and behaves like a network (connected nodes)
