400 word draft:

In order to talk about activism, first you have to understand it. Activism varies from individual to individual, but it usually involves some effort, this could range from liking a post on social media, to protesting on the streets of New York, with a desire to make change. That last part is important. Without the change part an Activist really isn’t an activist and activism isn’t really activism. Without the intent of making change the supposed everyday “activist” is either someone who does it solely for recognition and the many benefits that come with that, or someone who’s outright crazy. You wouldn’t march for days on end, because you like the taste of chocolate chip cookies, that’s just pointless, you wouldn’t do it. There’s no intent or desire for change. However you would march for days on end, to end discrimination against a particular group, race, religion or ethnicity as you want to change how they are being treated. Hence as there is desire to make a change, they would be considered an “Activist”. Gladwell explores this activism from the viewpoint that it has changed and evolved alongside the progression and advancement of technological entities.

Thesis:
Digital technology makes it harder to differentiate activists from non activists, and creates an environment where it’s harder to make meaningful change through Activism.

Topic sentence one:
As people feel more at home in the world of their screens then they do in real life, they lack the conviction and motivation to make change, they feel too comfortable.

Topic sentence two:
As media moves farther away from the truth, and closer to an entertainment proprietary, influencers and a majority of individuals are able to accentuate themselves as activists, without truly being activists.

Thoughts I think would tie in well. The idea of Friendships/Acquaintances
The connections between people through social media often aren’t real friendships, in fact their hardly connections at all. They’re more artificial, with a few clicks, here and there being the only interaction between the two people that are supposed “friends”. To me and I assume the vast majority of people this does not qualify as friendship. While in certain situations there might be one or two people that do interact completely online, with more than a few clicks, the idea that this pertains to thousands of people is frankly, comical.

Following someone on insta face, or whatever social media platform you use, has an incomparable effect, between actually talking to someone and getting to know them in person. This is an important distinction that many of the younger generation, earthier, don’t understand or don’t want to understand, as they feel more at comfort with their devices in hand, making as Gladwell says it “thousands of acquaintances” that way. At the end of the day one friend is worth more than all the acquaintances in the world.

800 word draft:

In order to talk about activism, you first have to understand it. But today, you’re in luck. I’m not going to bore you with your generic type of textbook definition. A lot of times this just goes in one ear and out the other, and before you can say remember, you’ve already forgotten the definition entirely. This isn’t helpful, and puts the reader often in a state of confusion. Instead I’m going to do something that is more well worth your time. I’m going to show you: Activism is what you make it. Just like everything in life it’s individualized. If you were reading Albert Einstein theory on relativity you wouldn’t anything but Albert’s own definition on relativity. You wouldn’t want an average Joe’s definition. You wouldn’t want your mom’s, uncles or grandmother’s definition. You would want Alberts, and Alberts alone. In a lot of essays you don’t see this. You see exact definitions from dictionaries. This is pointless. You’re not reading a paper to know about the Oxford dictionary definition on Activism. And if that is why you started reading this, well you’re going to be disappointed, and you might as well stop reading all together, and go google the definition online. You’re here to learn about me, my writing and my views. It’s a misconception that so many of the most esteemed authors seem to miss.

I view Activism as something that takes place through self exertion, this could range from liking a post on social media, to protesting on the streets of New York, with a desire to make change to benefit the greater good. That last part is important. Without the change part an Activist really isn’t an activist and activism isn’t really activism. Without the intent of making change the supposed everyday “activist” is eathiar someone who does it solely for recognition and the many benefits that come with that, or someone who’s outright crazy. You wouldn’t march for days on end, because you like the taste of chocolate chip cookies, that’s just pointless, you wouldn’t do it. There’s no intent or desire for change. However you would march for days on end, to end discrimination against a particular group, race, religion or ethnicity as you want to change how they are being treated. Hence as there is desire to make a change, they would be considered an “Activist”. Gladwell explores this activism from the viewpoint that it has changed and evolved alongside the progression and advancement of technological entities. Through this innovative technological ideology, it’s clear digital technology makes it harder to differentiate activists from non activists, and creates an environment where it’s harder to make meaningful change through Activism.

Topic sentence one:
As people feel more at home in the world of their screens then they do in real life, they lack the conviction and motivation to make change, they feel too comfortable.

Topic sentence two:
As media moves farther away from the truth, and closer to an entertainment proprietary, influencers and a majority of individuals are able to accentuate themselves as activists, without truly being activists.

Topic Sentence Three:

As digital technologies control continues to grow over the individual, we lose the ability to create and maintain friendships, making it harder to create and regulate activist movements. The connections between people through social media often aren’t real friendships, in fact their hardly any connections at all. They’re more artificial, with a few clicks, here and there being the only interaction between the two people that are supposed “friends”. To me and I assume the vast majority of people this does not qualify as friendship. While in certain situations there might be one or two people that do interact completely online, with more than a few clicks, the idea that this pertains to thousands of people is frankly, comical. Following someone on insta face, or whatever social media platform you use, has an incomparable effect, between actually talking to someone and getting to know them in person. This is an important distinction that many of the younger generation, earthier, don’t understand or don’t want to understand, as they feel more at comfort with their devices in hand, making as Gladwell says it “thousands of acquaintances” that way. At the end their missing a value of utmost importance. That one friend is worth more than all the acquaintances in the world. With it they don’t only lose the ability to have friends, they lose the ability to make meaningful change through actvism,

It seems we’ve forgotten how to be activists. Many who are so-called activists support the right causes but do it with all the wrong intentions for all the wrong reasons. We need to move away from this. If we dont we will move closer to the ideology to do things not because they are right or wrong, because it betters ourselves, and not because it betters others in the process. We need to move away from this individual, self centric approach. It’s truly counter intuitive, and sets a precinct to do things solely for recognition, which is no way to live.

Peer review 1200 words:

How Phones Hurt Activism 

You’ve lost your phone. You reach in your back pocket only to realize it’s not there. Panic ensues. You start to sweat. Your heart begins to race faster ever so slowly. Your hands start to tremble, only for you to realize that you haven’t lost your phone at all, in fact it’s still on you, just not in the pocket you expected. For phone users this is a quite common daily experience. The ordeal, rooted in trepidation and fear of losing one’s most prized possession, equates to a quite agonizing experience for the consumer.  It’s an endless test of trial and tribulation. A cat and mouse game that runs on forever. All this for a 6 inch metal graphite shaped rectangle that lights up when you touch it. Funny isn’t it. While this might seem quite minute, its core ideal plays a larger role in the conjunction of this essay which is about activism. While we often don’t think about our phones affecting our inner activist self, just like we don’t think about losing our phones when we buy them, our lives are dictated and alerted by the devices we chose or not to choose to be associated with more than you might think and more importantly, like. Gladwell explores this activism from the viewpoint that it has changed and evolved alongside the progression and advancement of technological entities. Through this innovative technological ideology, it’s clear that for a majority of people the invention and intervention of technology has hurt their inner activist self activistself, creating a world where real change for many is difficult to make.near impossible.

As people feel more at home in the world of their screens then they do in real life, they lack the conviction and motivation to make change, they feel too comfortable. In today’s current atmosphere of what we call life, people feel more comfortable with one thing more than everyone else. It’s not a person, it’s not a place, it’s not even food. It’s an object. It’s our phones. Turkle, highlightsTurkle highlights how these objects provide a sort of comfort, as they give us this ability to change how we are perceived: “But these days we found ways around conversation. We hide from each other even as we are constantly connected to each other…but online at our leisure, it is ebay to compose, edit and improve as we revise. (Turkle) This is what it’s come to. It’s truly scary if you think about it. The impartial reason why we feel so comfortable when using phones is because they inhibit us from interacting with people face to face. Since when was this such a burden? We’ve become people that dont like people. Or maybe we just like our computers more. One thing is clear: the computer’s ability to provide comfort is unmatched. Turkle puts it really well: “Among family and friends, among colleagues and lovers, we turn to our phones instead of each other” (Turkle) Think about that. Let it marinate. The comfort doesn’t necessarily stem from something the phone creates, it stems from allowing us not to interact with people, and instead through digital presence through a computer.  This comfort is a cause of concern. And it’s hurting our activist selves. This comfort makes us weak. Gladwell explores with this added comfort that our digital apps provide we lose a sense motivationsense of motivation. “In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro” (Gladwell).  By lowering the bar for participation through social ties and phones we get used to this idea that we don’t need to put in real effort to make a sacrifice. We almost get numb to this idea. But it’s quite easy to see why this is such a popular trend. When people are given the option between reposting an image for a cause on their phone, and doing some of it in person, they most often choose their phone. Why? It’s simple, it’s convenient. It’s so much easier. The effort required is minuscule. The effort required to march on the streets of New York is not. Here’s the thing: there’s an innate distinction between the two. One solicits change and has a greater impact and meaning from the other. This is what differs an activist from a non activist. Someone who is willing to go the lengths to put in real effort to support a cause they really believe in vs someone who hides behind the glass wall in their phone, making a few clicks from the comfort of their bed. It’s truly no surprise why less and less people are becoming true activists. The comfort our phones provide are too good to pass up.

Start of Body: 2 (Still torn on quotes)

As media moves farther away from the truth, and closer to an entertainment proprietary, influencers and a majority of individuals are able to accentuate themselves as activists, without truly being activists.

It seems we’ve forgotten how to be activists. Many who are so-called activists support the right causes but do it with all the wrong intentions for all the wrong reasons. We need to move away from this. If we dont we will move closer to the ideology to do things not because they are right or wrong, because it betters ourselves, and not because it betters others in the process. We need to move away from this individual, self centric approach. It’s truly counter intuitive, and sets a precinct to do things solely for recognition, which is no way to live.

Start of Body 3: (Still torn on quotes)

As digital technologies control continues to grow over the individual, we lose the ability to create and maintain friendships, making it harder to create and regulate activist movements. The connections between people through social media often aren’t real friendships, in fact there are hardly any connections at all. They’re more artificial, with a few clicks, here and there being the only interaction between the two people that are supposed “friends’ ‘. To me and I assume the vast majority of people this does not qualify as friendship. While in certain situations there might be one or two people that do interact completely online, with more than a few clicks, the idea that this pertains to thousands of people is frankly, comical. Following someone on insta face, or whatever social media platform you use, has an incomparable effect, between actually talking to someone and getting to know them in person. This is an important distinction that many of the younger generation, earthier, don’t understand or don’t want to understand, as they feel more at comfort with their devices in hand, making as Gladwell says it “thousands of acquaintances’ ‘ that way. At the end they are missing a value of utmost importance. That one friend is worth more than all the acquaintances in the world. With it they don’t only lose the ability to have friends, they lose the ability to make meaningful change through activism.

Start of conclusion: Conclusion:

The feeling compares to losing a piece of clothing; when losing it they feel almost what it would be like to be naked; they resort erratically in any means necessary to find this object. They flip over cushions, toss aside their friends and family,  and scour anywhere from a bustling subway, to underneath their cushion. What could possibly promote such a passionate and vitriol reaction? Our phones. And how do I know this? I’ve experienced it myself. As digital technology continues to advance at an exponential rate, which in turn gives our devices more control over our lives, many lose the ability to make meaningful change for the issues that matter to them, they lose the ability to become an activist.

Final Draft! 1500 words

How Phones Hurt Activism 

You’ve lost your phone. You reach in your back pocket only to realize it’s not there. Panic ensues. You start to sweat. Your heart begins to race faster ever so slowly. Your hands start to tremble, only for you to realize that you haven’t lost your phone at all, in fact it’s still on you, just not in the pocket you expected. For phone users this is a quite common daily experience. The ordeal, rooted in trepidation and fear of losing one’s most prized possession, equates to a quite agonizing experience for the consumer.  It’s an endless test of trial and tribulation. A cat and mouse game that runs on forever. All this for a 6 inch metal graphite shaped rectangle that lights up when you touch it. Funny isn’t it. While we often don’t think about our phones affecting our inner activist self, just like we don’t think about losing our phones when we buy them, our lives are dictated and alerted by the devices we chose or not to choose to be associated more than you might think and more importantly, like. Authors, Malcom Gladwell and Sherry Turkle both provide different perspectives that connect to the topic. Turkle a sociologist, writes in “The Empathy Diaries” how with the continuous use of digital devices, we lack the ability to converse with others, and lose empathy because of it. Gladwell, a journalist, writes in “Small Change”  how activism has evolved alongside the progression and advancement of technological entities. Through these ideologies, it’s clear that for a majority of people the invention and intervention of technology has hurt their inner activist self, creating a world where real change for many through this is near impossible.

As people feel more at home in the world of their screens then they do in real life, they lack the conviction and motivation to make change, they feel too comfortable. Today, people feel more comfortable with one thing more than anything else. It’s not a person, it’s not a place, it’s not even food. It’s an object. It’s our phones. In one quote Turkle describes how our screens provide unlimited and unmatched comfort synonymously in two completely different ways: “But these days we find ways around conversation. We hide from each other even as we are constantly connected to each other…but online and  at our leisure, it is easy to compose, edit and improve as we revise (Turkle). The first point she brings up is, we’re invisible behind our phones. With one click we can change almost anything. This provides a sense of security that isn’t offered in real life, and with that comes a sense of comfort. Point two: they save us from the mental exhaustion of interacting with people. This is what it’s come to. It’s truly scary if you think about it. The reason why we feel so comfortable when using phones is because they inhibit us from interacting with people face to face. Since when was this such a burden? We’ve become people that dont like people. Or maybe we just like our computers more. One thing is clear: the computer’s ability to provide comfort is unmatched. This comfort extends through social apps on our phone that promote the cognitive dissonance necessary for many to think and view themselves as activists, without really being activists: “In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice.” (Gladwell). Gladwell makes a really interesting point. By lowering the bar for participation through social ties through phones we get used to this idea that we don’t need to put in real effort to make a sacrifice to make change. But it’s quite easy to see why this is such a popular trend. When people are given the option between reposting an image for a cause on their phone, and doing it in person, most often they choose their phone. Why? It’s simple, convenient. It’s comfortable. The effort required is minuscule. The effort required to march on the streets of New York is not. Here’s the thing: there’s an innate distinction between the two. One solicits change and has a greater impact and meaning from the other. This is what differs an activist from a non activist. Someone who is willing to go the lengths to put in real effort to support a cause they really believe in vs someone who hides behind the glass wall in their phone, making a few clicks from the comfort of their bed. It’s truly no surprise why less and less people are becoming true activists. The comfort our phones provide are too good to pass up. As media moves farther away from the truth, and closer to an entertainment proprietary, influencers and a majority of individuals are able to accentuate themselves as activists, without truly being activists. Through the various social media platforms people are able to voice their opinions on topics through so-called “Posts”. But this is where it gets tricky. Because these posts require minuscule effort you can do it in a matter of seconds, it’s hard to tell if people do it benefit their personal perception in the public or because it’s a cause they really believe in. Again for me personally, I dont think it’s the latter. This might be a cynical outlook on the matter but I truly believe it’s pretty valid. Gladwell does a great job explaining how social media affects a vast range of people : “Facebook is a tool for efficiently meaning your acquaintances… That’s why you can have a thousand “friends on facebook”, as you never could in real life (Gladwell). This acts as an outlet for wide spread self recognition, giving people the opportunity if they wish to boast their public perception presenting themselves as an activist, without really being one. The following really hammers home this point. You see media influencers and peers posting to stop animal cruelty online, But won’t think twice about eating the millions and millions of animals that are often treated inhumanely. And furthermore they usually only do it on social media where you get the most clicks, reposts and eyes. Further supporting my opinion that many probably do it more to benefit their public perception among their friends and “acquaintances” rather than because they truly believe they want to make a change through activism.  It truly seems we’ve forgotten how to be activists. Many who are so-called activists support the right causes but do it with all the wrong intentions for all the wrong reasons. We need to move away from this. If we dont we will move closer to the ideology to do things not because they are right or wrong, because it betters ourselves, and not because it betters the cause in the process. We need to move away from this individual, self centric approach. It’s truly counter intuitive, and sets a precinct to do things solely for recognition, which is no way to live. All hope is not lost though. Turkle Puts it really well: “We recognize that we need things that social media inhibits. My previous work described an evolving problem; this book is a call to action. We have everything we need to be. We have to be with each other  (Turkle). Turkles right, we still have everything we need. Computers have not yet erased the human population altogether. We have a chance to rekindle what was previously lost. We have a chance to reconnect with each other. We need to get back to our roots. As Gladwell says “We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro”. We need to get back to this. Let’s “Sit in”, rather than “post it online”. Let’s talk to people instead of robots. Through this we can pick out the fake activists and advocate for real problems that require real change that people truly believe in.

 I like to think of them as entertainment machines, not truth machines. Our phones just dont hurt activism. They hurt us: “Among family and friends, among colleagues and lovers, we turn to our phones instead of each other” (Turkle) Think about that. Let it marinate. They make us feel so comfortable with them that we don’t feel comfortable with each other, with our own species. Many have social anxiety, not with aliens or bigfoot but with people. We’re so used to staring at screens we can’t even meet each other’s eyes. But it’s not just our phones. There’s another object that holds a similar grasp over us. When we lose this object we resort erratically in any means necessary to find it. We flip over cushions, toss aside our friends and family, and scour anywhere imaginable to find it. What could possibly promote such a passionate and vitriol reaction?  It’s Our…….Phones. And how do I know this? I’ve experienced it myself.