Gladwell's Tipping Point

Malcolm Gladwell's book The Tipping Point offers a fascinating and insightful way to think about the issue of epidemics. Those elements Gladwell believes are the basis for why epidemics start allows the reader to think about their world in a way they never thought they could. I would not have thought of Sesame Street or Blue's clues as being defined as epidemics. When one thinks of an epidemic, one thinks of AIDS, or some form of disease so widespread that it must be contained and a cure provided to keep the disease in check from spreading further. Therefore, after reading the book, the reader is left with a new perspective to "look at the subtle, the hidden, and the unspoken" (Gladwell, 2002, pg. 80). Those things in everyday life that we would not normally think about as being epidemics are now taken under the microscope and analyzed. Through the work the reader learns to apply those concepts put forth by Gladwell to see if things like soap operas, game shows, magazines, and eating disorders can fit into the framework of what an epidemic is or is not and why certain things do become epidemics.

EXAMPLES

By using such common examples such as the flu from the start of the book, anyone reading the book can visualize just what happens when the flu mutates and spreads, as you get sicker and sicker. The idea of the flu provides a basis from which all other examples are understood; that if the flu is not stopped, then the epidemic will continue to become bigger and bigger to the point that nothing can be done to prevent it, as in the case offered by Gladwell on smoking. The basis of all examples, all concepts in the book is contagion. Contagion is the reason why something tips whether it is a physical feature or a character feature. For example, Mavens, Connectors, and Salesman, would not be effective unless they were able to create the environment of being able to spread their messages, their knowledge, their pitches, and bring their social world's together by letting others be exposed to their friendships and their skills.

Gladwell's use of continuity is apparent throughout the book. There are no instances where he does not provide the reader with an example to demonstrate his points, to provide a basis from which to get a better understanding of the terminology and concepts used. The effective use of practical examples by Gladwell throughout the book allows the reader to become an interactive reader not a passive reader. If the examples he used in the book did not apply to the lives of the readers then Gladwell would loose the reader. He truly does promote the idea that "we are attuned to personal cues than contextual cues. The reader would not continue to read on and stop and think of examples in their own lives. For example, his use of the study of cultural microrhythms by William Condon and his use of his experience with Tom Gau to further demonstrate the meaning of interactional synchrony.

What Gladwell does not do effectively is provide numerous examples of ideas/behaviors/products that did not result in epidemics. A chapter should have been devoted to showing just why something would not result in an epidemic so that a balance is met showing both sides of the picture to answer his fundamental question of why some things become epidemics and others do not.

EPIDEMICS as INCIDENTAL

Gladwell, at the start of the book, portrays epidemics as incidental, out of the hands of the individual as in the Hush Puppies example. But then all other examples are set up as being intentional, that people can make epidemics happen. Epidemics, by Gladwell, are discussed as being subject to such quick and unexpected changes. So, how is it that researchers and professionals can pinpoint just what the sole factor is that caused an epidemic to tip. The emphasis placed on Sesame Street and Blue's Clue's demonstrates this point. The creators of those shows purposely went out of their way, by tinkering with the shows concepts, to make the shows epidemics. The intent of creating an environment to purposely make kids want to watch the shows to the extent of contagious proportions was not incidental. Gladwell's portrayal of epidemics as something that are in our control, that we can help prevent, as in the case of suicide or smoking, is not realistic. Those insignificant, small things or changes that one would not normally think about to cause big differences are deemed as incidental. If those small, insignificant things or changes that would not normally be thought to cause big differences were incidental then they would not be subject to the process of control.

What Gladwell lacks in his methodology of tipping points is an evaluation of a scale of what causes some ideas/behaviors/products to tip and start epidemics. It would have been effective if Gladwell would have explored the idea of a maximum or minimum by which everything changes. Because he treats epidemics as situational and that one moment is the cause Gladwell tends to treat epidemics as single entities. It is not a combination of factors that come together to bring about an epidemic but one single event at a particular time that causes something to change.

For example, the case study by David Phillips on suicide outlined by Gladwell. The fact that Gladwell uses this example discredits his ideas. The example disproves any reliability or factual information. The fact that the research done by Phillips can be based in coincidences and far-fetched connections throws the