The loose connections that comprise our on-line networks may associate us all with Kevin Bacon, but do they help us change the world? Malcolm Gladwell says ‘not so much’ in his intriguing piece on social media and social change in The New Yorker. But Jonah Lehrer of Wired has higher hopes.
The debate centers on ‘weak tie’ and ‘strong tie’ relationships, and which ones are required to advance significant social change. Gladwell posits that most on-line social networks are havens for weak-tie relationships (friends of friends, passing acquaintances, and such), and that strong-tie relationships (close friends, people we know and trust) are required to get hard stuff done.
Lehrer counters that without weak-tie relationships to connect them, tight-knit groups can become separate and disjointed, unable to mobilize larger social movements.
Who’s right? Probably both of them. So, artful managers will hedge their bets by building both strong-tie and weak-tie networks just in case.
While it made a good read and he certainly has a point, Gladwell is dealing in absolutes. It’s not a case of either or, it’s a case of, as you also indicate, blending online and offline, weak ties and strong ties, network and hierarchy.
The expectation that social media can replace any and all worldly things is just silly and naive.
The basis for Gladwell’s article is examples with a narrow focus on the effectiveness of social media to deliver perfect results in all areas of an overarching goal.
But shouldn’t we use social media tools for the particular strengths they have and consequently measure social media in terms of specific objectives, rather than an overall goal?
Marc,
I agree with you. The connection that Gladwell had with social media and social change was too much of a generalization, concretizing something unrefined and a factor or cause and relating it to a finished product. Saying that social media does not create social change is like saying that flour can’t make bread. There is an element of truth in the statement, however, it doesn’t mean that flour is not a useful, if not essential ingredient in the creation of bread.
During a live discussion via chat he had with readers on the topic, he said that one thing he loves about the social media/tech culture is the amount of intellectual virtuosity present and the article was his means to provoke discussion or debate with the said community. If that’s the case, his article achieve the purpose for which it was written. It is, like you said, narrowly focused. I figure that what Gladwell confirmed via his article is that using social media as a tool to spark discussions is effective. The word of mouth that his article created is a testament to the power of social media in instigating conversations about specific issues.