September 27th, 2010
I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but I’m in sympathy from the beginning. What strikes me, though, is the assumption which is almost always made (Gladwell does not do so explicitly, I don’t think) that “social change”–with or without Twitter/Facebook–is always a good.
Gladwell centers his piece around the anti-Jim Crow sit-ins of the 1960s. But isn’t the Bolshevik Revolution an equally powerful example of modern social change?
(James Glassman’s comments which Gladwell reproduces, are particularly troublesome if they haven’t been taken out of context.)
SkinsFanPG September 28, 2010 at 8:10 am
JVL
I don’t think Gladwell insinuates, explicitly or implicitly, that “social change” is always a good. In fact, he cites several examples of social activism networks/hierarchies that are most certainly evil: German commies and Al Qaeda.
Does it bother you that Gladwell is stealing your stuff? You’ve been on this beat for over a year.