IP Work: Addressing the opposition
You must address one key opposition to your claim. Otherwise
you don’t appear sensitive to all angles of an argument. Just
ignoring a key argument against your own argument makes
reader’s suspicious! : )
Below are steps to make this portion of your paper effective:
1. State the opponents’ viewpoint.
2. Provide some discussion of that viewpoint. You may even need
to concede that the opponents are not completely wrong. You can
do this by saying, “Granted, this concern is a legitimate one …”
3. Then provide a rebuttal by introducing it with “However” or
“But.”
4. After stating your rebuttal to the opposition, provide evidence
to support your rebuttal.
Read Justin Tubb’s opposition below. (I’ve include d his claim to
help you remember his argument). In my comments I’ve pointed
out how he has followed the steps above.
Claim: Although some assert that it does not serve as a “real” form of activism, social
media is an important and valid platform for feminist activism because it aids in the
organization of the feminist movement, is able to reach a wider audience than traditional
activism, gives a voice to often marginalized members of society and allows for the open
and public discussion of feminist ideas.
The Naysayers
Some critics of online activism, like Malcolm Gladwell, suggest that such activism is not
as important or meaningful as “high-risk” activism, like the sit-ins or marches of the civil
rights movement. Many of those who criticize social media activism lovingly refer to the
concept as “slacktivism” or "armchair activism." By cleverly combining the words
“slacker” and “activism”, they hope to promote the idea that online activists are lazy and
ineffective.
In his 2010 article Small Change, Malcolm Gladwell examines the social media activism
of today and contrasts it with the American civil rights movement. He claims that, in the
age of Twitter and Facebook, “we seem to have forgotten what activism is.” He claims
that social media is only useful in forming “weak ties” to others, and that “weak ties
seldom lead to high-risk activism.” Gladwell argues that “real activism”, as he sees it,
must involve some sort of major risk and a challenging of society as a whole. But you
don’t have to travel hundreds of miles to participate in a rally in order to challenge
societal norms anymore. You shouldn’t need to be shot at or pepper sprayed to be
counted as an activist. Social media allows more people to enter into debate, participate
in discussion, organize a movement, and act on their own to change the world.
Gladwell also takes issue with the organizational structure of social media. He argues that
like the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Civil Rights movement in general, the activists
of today should develop a more hierarchical structure. This article in Psychology Today
explains how hierarchies work to crush creativity and innovative ideas, which are pivotal
to the success of social and political movements.
He looks back on the events of the sit-in at the Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro,
North Carolina with the hope that today’s activists will get off of their laptops and
smartphones and be more like them. But is there actually a need for people to make such
“real sacrifices”? Is Gladwell just being nostalgic, wishing we could go back to the
“good ol’ days”, when blood, sweat and tears were the only way to get things done? Is
such “high-risk activism” really even necessary in this globalized and interconnected age
of feminist tweets and women’s rights blogs?
In short, no. Although on-the-ground activism, like boycotts and marches do still hold
power and relevance to create social change, it’s no longer the only way to impact
society. A new, powerful, easily accessible and increasingly popular form of activism has
come about – social media activism – and it is no less effective either. Twitter is
becoming just as important as the national mall as a site for activism. The “slacktivists”
of today can now accomplish a great deal for their cause in 140 characters or less from
the comfort of a Starbucks.
Recent research published by Georgetown University contradicts the notion that this socalled “slacktivism” is a lazy, ineffective form of traditional activism. It found that
people who use social media to promote ideas like feminism “are twice as likely to
volunteer their time (30% vs. 15%) and to take part in an event or walk (25% vs. 11%).”
and are also “more than four times as likely to encourage others to contact political
representatives (22% vs. 5%), and five times as likely to recruit others to sign petitions
for a cause or social issue (20% vs. 4%).”
This study's findings clearly contradict Gladwell's notion that social media activism is
ineffective and does not lead to what he terms "real activism". Social media activists are
more likely to take part in important offline action for their cause than those who don't
use social media for activism. Not only are the “slacktivists”, themselves, more likely to
participate, but are also much more likely to get others to participate as well.