Shannon McMillan
Professor Swain
WRD 103 – 417
1 October 2013
Professional at Persuasion
Malcolm Gladwell's article, “SMALL CHANGE: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.”, is a rhetorically effective argument that illustrates why social media is not an adequately effective tool in organizing social or political activism. Published by The New Yorker on October 4, 2010, the article was aimed to convince the general population that social media is not as dangerous to the status quo as many would be lead to believe. Social media's popularity was increasing exponentially and worldly politics were tense at the time, so the seasoned author had a wide audience of hungry readers. In his essay, Gladwell describes multiple examples of protests, and observes that in the absence of social media in these events, the protests tend to be stronger, more organized, and the people participating have stronger emotional bonds and investments. He begins his article with a detailed account of the Greensboro sit-ins, and how the protests swelled from a group of four college students, to around seventy thousand students all across the South, being careful to emphasize that the sit-ins took place “without e-mail, texting, Facebook, or Twitter”. He then goes on to describe multiple other historic examples of activism, and determines that the “weak ties” related to social media and online acquaintances “seldom lead to high risk activism” (Gladwell). He discusses how social media establishes a large network based upon consensus instead of a hierarchy, and argues that many activist movements have not succeeded on the large scale when lacking a central authority and hierarchy. Throughout the essay, Gladwell displays extensive knowledge and research on the topic, builds a solid argument supported by countless examples, and uses underlying emotions to his point, making his article rhetorically effective and persuasive.
Malcolm Gladwell writes with a certain air of confidence and authority. It is this confidence, coupled with his impressive resume, that allows him to craft a rhetorically efficient argument. As a professional journalist, with a degree in History, working for reputable publishing companies for 26 years, Gladwell appears more than capable of constructing a reliable article. He portrays this knowledge and experience through his writing with not only the intellectual language and writing style he uses, but also simply the way he organizes the article and builds his argument. Gladwell begins with a story, follows it with a statement highlighting the way in which that example supports his argument, and then continues on with another story. This strategy makes him appear highly knowledgeable in both political history and social psychology, strengthening the validity of his argument. Through his writing style, Gladwell also establishes many trustworthy qualities such as confidence, experience, educated thought, and eloquence. He uses effective word choice that can be comprehended by the general population, but possesses a higher education quality. The phrase, “mounted with precision and discipline” (Gladwell), is just one example of the many eloquent phrases in which Gladwell displays his knowledge throughout the article. In addition to linguistically establishing superiority, he fairly addresses counter-arguments in both the beginning and end of his article, proving himself an intelligent writer keenly aware of opposition, but ready to prove contenders wrong. By establishing himself as a knowledgeable experienced author, Gladwell is able to gain trust and credibility from the readers to better persuade them of his argument.
Gladwell doesn't simply rely on credibility when establishing his argument, he also uses countless examples and facts as a tool to bring validity to his argument. The majority of his article is retelling events in history to build his case on a factual, indisputable, level. To support his reasoning, he draws from multiple events that had a powerful impact on society without the use of social media as an organization tool. His argument is that social media can only create weak-ties that support limited commitment and low-risk activism, while strong ties are required for major change to occur. Some of the examples he pulls from history to support this are the Greensboro sit-ins, the Mississippi Freedom Summer, the Red Brigades, and the opposition movement in East Germany. These historical examples not only support his thesis with solid logic, but they draw on the intense patriotism surrounding events such as the Civil Rights Movement. When Gladwell writes that “thirty-seven black churches were set on fire and dozens of safe houses were bombed”, and “a quarter of those in the program dropped out”, it is clear he has done his research on the Mississippi Freedom Summer; and by following that factual information up with the statement, “activism that challenges the status quo–that attacks deeply rooted problems–is not for the faint of heart”, Gladwell highlights it's relevance, and connects it to the argument by specifying its effectiveness was rooted in strong bonds (Gladwell). By utilizing facts and logic as the main support for his position, Malcolm Gladwell establishes an increasingly strong rhetorical argument.
Without the emotional appeal he craftily incorporates into his article, Gladwell's logic would beg to be disputed. As an experienced journalist, Gladwell understands that the readers can resist information he conveys unless he spins it in a way that makes them want to believe it. Malcolm Gladwell appeals to the emotions of the readers by subtly putting emphasis on certain stories, and writing others in a way that make them seem infantile. Gladwell begins by going in depth about the Greensboro sit-ins in an almost patriotic way, leaving the reader with a sense of pride that such radical events took place without the use of social media. His second story, about the Moldova Revolution, is written with a critical twist, belittling the people involved with calling it a “Twitter Revolution” (Gladwell), and discrediting the entire social media aspect of the event. It is written in a way that almost makes the reader feel foolish for believing anything different. He finishes up the essay with this same tone while describing the story of Evan and the Sidekick. Since Gladwell does not have evidence to completely discredit the story, factually, he settles on spinning it into a ridiculously futile event by reducing it to “Wall Streeters get[ting] phones back from teenage girls”. He ends the article with a sarcastic remark, “Viva la revolución”, solidifying his effort and forcing any readers that disagree to feel juvenile (Gladwell). Malcolm Gladwell's use of pathos almost condemns people that contradict him to a loss of pride and validity.
Through Gladwell's use of personal credibility, logical support, and emotional extortion, he builds a solid case, but without the counter-arguments he dismantles, his persuasion could potentially be disputed. Malcolm Gladwell decimates two counter arguments over the course of his article. The first appears just after his initial story, and when he has clearly established his argument. He craftily incorporates a relevant, timely event, the Moldova Twitter Revolution, and then decimates its credibility to prove his point. He does this by illuminating the fact that “the people tweeting about the demonstrations were almost all in the West” (Gladwell). This allows for him to not only address a potential counter-argument, but also to establish the legitimacy of his argument from the beginning, so the rest of his article proves more compelling and indisputable. His second counter-argument is strategically placed at the end of the article. By addressing the story of Evan and the Sidekick, Gladwell illustrates another potential objection, and concludes his essay by classifying the event as juvenile. He pulls from it the support he requires to aid in his argument: social media creates weak ties that do little more than supply “access to information” (Gladwell). Concluding his persuasive argument by obliterating his opposition only assists the already solid claim he had supported throughout the entirety of the essay.
Throughout his article, Malcolm Gladwell authenticates his opinions to build a solid rhetorical argument. He establishes himself as an authority through his presence and use of language, forcing the audience to acknowledge his influence and knowledge. Using evidence and examples, he logically constructs his argument in a factually indisputable way. Malcolm Gladwell uses language and tone to convince readers, emotionally, and uses his knowledge of his target audience to manipulate them into accepting his point of view. Through addressing and dismantling any possible opposition, Gladwell solidifies his intentional argument, and is able to establish clear authority. Through all of these skillful tactics, Gladwell builds a sound, rhetorically effective argument that social media is not an adequate tool in large scale activism.
Works Cited
Gladwell, Malcolm. "SMALL CHANGE: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted."The New Yorker 4 Oct. 2010: Print.
"Malcolm Gladwell." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.
"The Top Ten Political Events Of 2010." Political News Analysis Opinion. N.p., 27 Dec. 2010. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.