In a New Yorker article titled Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted, the always provocative Malcolm Gladwell (Tipping Point, Blink, etc) takes on social media.

In a nutshell, Gladwell argues that social media merely enable a sort of faux activism … not the “real thing” of social transformation, a la the sit-ins of the civil rights movement. As he puts it, social net activism “doesn’t require that you confront socially entrenched norms and practices. In fact, it’s the kind of commitment that will bring only social acknowledgment and praise.” Ouch!

If you or your nonprofit are devotees of Facebook and Twitter, his article is sure to fire you up! Here are just a few excerpts.

Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires. The Facebook page of the Save Darfur Coalition has 1,282,339 members, who have donated an average of nine cents apiece. The next biggest Darfur charity on Facebook has 22,073 members, who have donated an average of thirty-five cents. Help Save Darfur has 2,797 members, who have given, on average, fifteen cents. A spokesperson for the Save Darfur Coalition told Newsweek, “We wouldn’t necessarily gauge someone’s value to the advocacy movement based on what they’ve given. This is a powerful mechanism to engage this critical population. They inform their community, attend events, volunteer. It’s not something you can measure by looking at a ledger.” In other words, 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.

…

The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter is a way of following (or being followed by) people you may never have met. Facebook is a tool for efficiently managing your acquaintances, for keeping up with the people you would not otherwise be able to stay in touch with. That’s why you can have a thousand “friends” on Facebook, as you never could in real life.

This is in many ways a wonderful thing. There is strength in weak ties, as the sociologist Mark Granovetter has observed. Our acquaintances—not our friends—are our greatest source of new ideas and information. The Internet lets us exploit the power of these kinds of distant connections with marvellous efficiency. It’s terrific at the diffusion of innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, seamlessly matching up buyers and sellers, and the logistical functions of the dating world. But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism.

…

But it [Facebook-style networking] is simply a form of organizing which favors the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact. 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.

If Gladwell ranks 10 on a scale of one-to-ten in his skepticism about social net activism, I would place myself at about 6. on the one hand, I think he underrates the importance of getting people to take even small steps that indicate some genuine social consciousness (or perhaps more cynically, at least an awareness that given today’s social norms it is socially beneficial to appear that one cares about a cause or two outside themselves). There’s evidence to suggest that small steps toward engagement — especially when taken publicly — lead to bigger and more forceful steps.

However, I do think he’s right about the need for hierarchy, discipline and strategy when it comes to achieving serious social change, and in his observation that online social networking might distract, or even undercut, serious organizing. You’ll need to read the entire article to follow this point … but it’s worth your time if your nonprofit is in the business of fomenting change.

Where on you on the one-to-ten scale?

Tom

P.S. For a counter-punch (and interesting reader comments), read Malcolm Gladwell Is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by Eric Sass blogging at The Social Graf.