We had a storybook at home written by a Russian girl. We had its Hindi translation that mom must have bought from one of those book fairs at Pragati Maidan. It contained short stories about the reminiscences of a girl’s father’s childhood: Chab Papa Bachche The that means “When Papa Was a Child”. It was a collection of short stories about different events occurring in papa’s life.
In one of the stories papa used to get angry whenever somebody raised the finger at him. He would always, without fail take offense whenever somebody raised the finger at him. He would create fuss, he would stomp his feet, he would get into fights, he would run around in rage whenever somebody raised the finger at him.
His cousins, his friends and even the elders in the family were aware of his peculiarity and would raise the finger at him just to have some fun. No matter what he was doing — whether he was playing, sitting, simply chatting or studying — the moment somebody raised the finger at him he flew into a rage. No matter how many times his mother explained to him that people were doing this just to annoy him he wouldn’t cease his tantrums. Mischievous boys and girls would come to him from all over the village just to raise the finger at him and then enjoy his annoyance.
Small change with big implications
Although I am an admirer of Malcolm Gladwell’s writing, in this New Yorker article he doesn’t seem to get social media. Coming from an author who is constantly encouraging people to embrace new thoughts and think out of the box it seems a bit strange when he tries to downplay the role of social media tools like Twitter just because you cannot be physically present at a particular place in order to stir up a social revolution. More about Translation Companies UK
Social media is effective because it empowers people (at least those who can connect and communicate through text, video and images). It is a communication network. It may not trigger full-fledged revolutions (well, who knows?) but it can easily internationalize local revolutions as we recently saw in the case of Iran, Egypt, and latest, even Saudi Arabia. With just a single tweet you can reach the entire global community. Of course, it doesn’t happen in every case but you can say this even about revolutions in the physical world: not all revolutions catch up and 99% of revolutions die off even before 5 people can join.
The same happens with Twitter and Facebook. After all it’s the people who are interacting and they are moved by the same things that move them in the actual physical world.
Revolution doesn’t always have to be, necessarily, dipped in sweat and blood — it is normally a mass action against an ideology, regime or bias. What is wrong if you can participate in a revolution by simply sending a tweet? It’s about expressing yourself and you don’t always have to be physically present in order to express yourself.