After reading the article “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not be Tweeted” by Malcolm Gladwell, he basically explains in this article the difference between the activist now and the activist people of back then. He explains how people use technology now to be known and step up, when decades ago they would do all of that in person. Gladwell uses great examples throughout his essay, he starts off by telling us the story of four college students started a protest just by sitting in a “whites only” lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina. He uses this example to prove that many of us wouldn't do that today, many people today wouldn't stand up for what they believe in person and would rather do it by pressing “like” or the “retweet” button behind a computer screen. Gladwell uses logos to support his ideas when he uses the example of the Facebook page of Save Darfur Coalition that is found in page 321 on the bedford handbook. Gladwell uses ethos by pointing out in some example on how people use the internet for the wrong causes. He insisted that many people use technology to contribute to small changes when they could be outside and focusing on more important ones. After all, Gladwell argues that social networking used to promote big changes doesn't work because the internet isn't a strong source to bring people together and fight, without leadership this only causes small changes.
I agree with your assertion that the author exemplifies his ethos by using examples, but I would like to just elaborate more on his use of ethos and how exactly that helps his argument. One thing that came to mind when I reading the article was, “Wow. He is using a lot of examples.” That thought appearing the reader’s mind shows that the author is trying to convince the reader that he is very knowledgeable on the subject and has certainly done his research in this specific topic. I found a use of concession which I think will also help with ethos on page 319: “This (being associated with people that you have never met) is in many ways a wonderful thing.” By not completely discrediting social media as an effective and useful thing, the author makes himself seem like an open minded and reasonable person. He acknowledges where social media is useful, then later on explains where it isn’t useful: “There are many things, though, that networks don’t do well.” When describing the civil rights movement as “high risk activism,” the author makes a strong emotional appeal (pathos) to the reader. For instance, he describes all the horrible things that happened in the movement: people were “kidnapped and killed, thirty even black churches were set on fire and dozens of safe houses were bombed; volunteers were beaten, shot at, arrested, and trailed by pickup trucks full of armed men.” By reminding the reader of the horrors of the movement, the reader’s frustration takes action and begins to be convinced that that is what real activism is and social media activism is not.
ReplyDelete