"Precis" -or- "What I will write about in my book review"
[Echoing many others in the class, I am unsure exactly what a precis is. I will probably not write enough in this precis, as I am wont to be detrimentally laconic. Essentially, I think that each mini-paragraph here will become a paragraph of the final review, barring the merciless editing to be inflicted soon. Prof. Arvan: I welcome all comments (even the harsh ones). Although I feel I can intelligently discuss what I've laid out here, I am not confident that my review is broad enough in scope, or that it has enough original content (am I talking too much about the 'plot' of Gladwell's book?). Also, if this post is not appropriate for a precis, I'll do my best to rectify the situation.]
In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell attempts to trace the elements involved in the spread of epidemics--be they diseases, fashion statements, or messages such as Paul Revere's famous cry of impending battle. Gladwell simplifies the problem into three variables:
1) the people among whom the epidemic spreads, or "The Law of the Few"
2) the content of the epidemic (contagious disease, commercial message, etc.), or "The Stickiness Factor"
3) environmental factors influencing the epidemic's spread, or "The Power of Context"
I will address these three topics and Gladwell's treatment of them.
In the first, "The Law of the Few", Gladwell posits that there are three types of people who really help contagions to spread, and that these few are all that are needed to instigate an epidemic.
His "Connectors" spread contagions by contacting lots of people. His "Mavens" spread contagions by fostering the most contagious strains. His "Salespeople" spread contagions by spreading them to everyone they meet.
I disagree that these three types of people would be the only ones who would have the power to transform a contagion into an epidemic--what about someone who harbors a contagion for a long time (a 'Collector') or someone who develops the effectiveness of a contagion (a 'Refiner')? Gladwell also talks about "Innovators" in later chapters--why not sooner with the Connectors, Mavens, and Salespeople?
Additionally, I think it is short-sighted to say that certain types of people are necessary for an epidemic to transpire; however, I think there is value to the idea that different types of people will have an impact on its spread.
In the second, "The Stickiness Factor", Gladwell discusses the content of the contagion: It must be "sticky" enough to be absorbed before it can be passed on.
Gladwell highlights children's television as an example of what can be done to improve 'stickiness.' I wonder if his conclusions can be applied to all types of epidemics, or just this information type?
In the third, "The Power of Context", Gladwell states the very obvious point that circumstances matter. Additionally, humans have complex psychology that influences us even without our knowledge.
Gladwell undermines some of his earlier conclusions by overstating the importance of context.
Gladwell goes on to list more examples of epidemics, which are very well-written and fun to read; however, these examples do not all contain ideas from all three of his laws.
One example--the suicide rates of Micronesia--does not even involve even one of the types of people from "The Law of the Few."
Gladwell presents a wealth of provocative ideas, a wealth of interesting examples, and a wealth of succinct conclusions. Nowhere does he give an example that effectively demonstrates the importance of his three variables.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One point first about Gladwell's book, then some suggestions about the review itself.
ReplyDeleteThe topic is diffusion of innovation. The topic is not innovation per se. Where does one draw the line? I don't know the answer to that. But I wouldn't get hung up on that point, which seems to be a distractor and the essence of your critique (adding collectors and refiners to the list). Likewise, any innovation has its antecedents. So you can get into a trap by trying to separate the innovation itself from its diffusion. You might get more mileage in thinking of Gladwell by asking why many good ideas fail to spread.
My metaphors about this are quite dated. In the 1960s, a rock song couldn't become popular without getting on the radio. There was no way it could get listened to otherwise, at least at first. So the questions for that would be what enabled the song to get radio play and then what from that caused kids to buy records with the song. It might not be so straightforward with other ideas nowadays, but start with this simple approach to diffusion rather than making it too complex out of the box.
On the writing of the review, a determination will have to be made whether you can produce in a style that features the multiple threading or not. Read the magazine article I linked to in my recent post, A Prep School in the Inner City. Focus on the style in that piece. There are threads about individuals and their experience as it pertains to the issues. And there is a thread about the general issue itself.
If you do choose to write this way for your review, then you need a source for the personal threads. If you don't write this way, then we need an alternative approach. Might you try to combine Gladwell with something else we've read or discussed and then intersperse those in the writing? Those issues need to be addressed.