Significant Writing
Andrew Heffernan
Professor timothy
English
2/12/2025
English essay 1
When reading and talking about Malcolm Gladwell’s Small Change and Anthony Appiah’s Making Conversation, both go into depth on social change and the difficulty of changing people’s minds, but they offer very different opinions on the topic. Gladwell emphasizes the swift transformation social media can bring, highlighting how weak ties networks create rapid links between individuals and allow for large-scale action. Also, he suggests that these tools can quickly and easily bring people together and create quick widespread action. He talks a lot about the power of online movements to ignite fast change. Appiah does not see the same thing he argues for the potential of thoughtful, well-rounded conversation. He thinks that long-lasting change results from ongoing deep personal involvement and communication that allows for respect toward different opinions. While Gladwell’s approach is effective for quick action, Appiah’s slow, deep conversation is much better for creating long-term change, particularly in a world with so many different cultures. I find Appiah’s emphasis on intellectual exchange and reflection more compelling for long-term change. That is why I agree with him.
In his essay Making Conversation, Appiah makes an argument that change happens slowly and through thoughtful and respectful conversations He adds that the important thing for the generation of change is the holding of more profound, intellectual debates in which people are challenged to reconsider their way of looking at a subject, and on the contrary change their way of thinking about their convictions. According to Appiah, effective change only emerges from creating a context in which people can communicate, be attentive to each other, and produce communication that facilitates mutual understanding. He describes the present acceleration of superficial, rapid interaction that tends to ignore the most profound and complex global problems. Appiah’s preferred approach is slow, profound, reciprocal communication between cultures and between humans that results in change. As he continues, “The real dilemma in changing minds is not to make someone agree with the right answer, but to. provide space for them to test different ways of thinking about things” (Appiah, 2016, p. 103). This notion is linked to Appiah’s notion of cosmopolitanism, that is, there is great emphasis on being able to both understand and interact with people from other cultures. He thinks that real global citizenship includes the capacity for discussion and to look at others as being part of a common humanity, even if they come from a different background or have a different faith. Different from Appiah’s slower, more deliberate approach, Gladwell says that the key to real activism is hidden in the ability to mobilize large groups as fast as possible, particularly through social media networks like Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram. In Small Change, Gladwell distinguishes the strong tie networks of traditional activism, where relationships are personal and intimate, and the weak tie networks made by social media, which can connect people across vast distances with little effort. He is critical of the idea that activism on social media is a form of real change, arguing that it often lacks the depth and commitment required for sustained action. As he states, “The revolution will not be tweeted, suggesting that while social media can raise awareness, it cannot generate the kind of serious, long-term commitment required for true social change. Gladwell p. 62
For example, he is one of the protests that have been orchestrated by social media, the Arab Spring, which was a protest about the government having too much power, or the women’s march in Washington, D.C., where 500,000 men and women marched for their rights. All those people were able to connect in a short period and take collective action. However, Gladwell also argues that modern activism, often driven by social media, lacks the personal connections and depth that made earlier social movements so successful. He believes that without strong, meaningful relationships to the cause, these movements are less likely to create lasting change. He is particularly critical of the idea of online petitions, Twitter campaigns, or other social media activism.
The divide between Appiah and Gladwell lies in their different views of how change can happen. While Appiah emphasizes the importance of slow, intellectual conversations that challenge notions, Gladwell focuses on the power of rapid mobilization, arguing that social media offers the potential for fast, widespread activism. Appiah suggests that social change is an ongoing process of personal transformation through conversation, while Gladwell sees change as a collective, rapid force driven by the ability to unite people quickly.
Where they agree is on the importance of engagement: both writers acknowledge that real change requires individuals to act and think differently. However, they differ significantly in the kind of engagement that is necessary for long-term transformation. Gladwell argues that social media’s ability to connect large groups of people quickly is the most significant advantage of modern activism, but he concedes that it often lacks the depth of commitment needed for real, sustained change. Appiah, on the other hand, views conversation as the most powerful tool for change, suggesting that while it may not be as fast as social media, it is ultimately more enduring.
Paper one learning outcome #1 Recursive process
When I was revising my paper on Malcolm Gladwell’s Small Change and Kwame Anthony Appiah’s Making Conversation, I started a recursive process by reshaping and reorganizing for greater depth and clarity. One of the first broad changes that I made was to my thesis. At the beginning of my thesis, it was vague and stated that I agreed with Appiah. In the final draft, I revised it to make it clearer and, more specifically, claim that while Gladwell’s rapid mobilization through social media and a spark change approach to deep intellectual conversation leads to long-lasting change, this helps me in shaping my entire argument. Also, when I was reconstructing the body of my paper, I found that my ideas about each author were separated and lacked strong connections. Through revision, I reorganized each paragraph to better compare the ideas of each author. For example, I decided to place Gladwell’s idea of weak ties directly after Appiah’s argument about mutual understanding to show how their strategies differ from one another. In addition, in tried working on developing my analysis of the text more deeply. Instead of just summarizing the text, I started to add reasons about why Appiah’s emphasis on deep conversation matters in a world that is so divided. I also included a more detailed discussion of the idea of cosmopolitanism and how it is related to Appiah’s argument, which helped strengthen my overall claim. Finally, I decided to remove and add examples from the text to strengthen my argument more effectively. I replaced not-so-clear examples with ones like the Arab Spring and the women’s march, which help me clarify Gladwell’s view and provide a better contrast with Appiah. Overall, my revisions show a back-and-forth journey where I revisited my main ideas, polished my arguments, and enhanced both the structure and analysis to express my viewpoint more clearly.
Learning Outcome #2 Integrating Ideas
In this essay, I tried to draw connections between Malcolm Gladwell’s Small Change and Kwame Anthony Appiah’s Making Conversations. I do this by focusing on their different views on how social change occurs. The key connection I explore, while both authors strongly agree that engagement is necessary for change, they have different ideas about what level of engagement leads to lasting change. This contrast allowed me to shape my argument around the idea that deep, personal conversation is more effective for long-lasting change than quick, large-scale mobilization. To support my comparison used examples like Gladwell’s discussion of the Arab Springs and the Women’s March to give merit to his belief that rapid mobilization is better. I contrast this with Appiah’s ideas on thoughtful, respectful conversations that challenged people to rethink their beliefs without getting upset at one another. By comparing these examples directly, I show how each author defines meaningful change. Also, I added my own analysis talking about how Appiah’s ideas about cosmopolitanism, especially his beliefs in global citizenship and mutual understanding, support the need for slower, reflective change in today’s world. I completely agree that Gladwell’s model is great for getting wide attention, but it completely lacks the depth needed for long-lasting change. Which strengthens my support for Appiah’s view. My thesis is that Appiah’s ideas on deep personal conversation offer a stronger foundation for social change than Gladwell’s fast-paced digital approach. I used both texts to contrast short-term term long-term impact and show how personal conversation encourages deep personal change. Overall, this essay does a great job of showing my ability to draw meaningful connections between different texts and how I was able to use them to create an original argument. By looking at each author’s perspective side by side and analyzing the key points, I was able to show how different methods of engagement change the success and depth of social movements
learning outcome #5 and #6 citations and local Revisions
When I was revising my essay, I tried to focus on improving both citations and mechanical errors. I learned how to properly incorporate in-text citations, ensuring I correctly attribute quotes to their sources. For example, I revised the citation for Appiah’s quote changing it to the real dilemma in changing minds is not meant to make some agree with the right answer, but to provide space for them to test different ways of thinking about things (Appiah, 2016, p 103). This revision ensured proper MLA citation. I also worked on improving sentence clarity by correcting weird phrasing. For example, I changed “Gladwell is one of the protests that have been orchestrated by social media” to “Gladwell discusses protests orchestrated by social media, such as the Arab Spring.” I also fixed some punctuation errors and some random spaces that I found.
