The Tipping Point and the Study
and Philosophy of History
Kate Raynes-Goldie, University of Toronto
Katie@beefchickenpork.org
Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point is a theory of causality that that has
interesting implications for the study and philosophy of history, especially in
regards to history as being a spread of knowledge. Gladwell’s theory can be
offers a number of refinements to the major themes in the philosophy and study
of history and fills in a number of blanks.
In this paper, I will provide an analysis of the applicability and usefulness of
Gladwell’s theory as a new tool for making history understandable. I will compare
Gladwell’s thinking to past philosophical thinkers such as G. W. F. Hegel and
Wilhelm Von Humboldt as well as to more contemporary thinkers such as the
philosopher E. H. Carr and the scientifically oriented Jared Diamond. My aim is to
examine how Gladwell’s theory can augment and supplement other theories,
providing the first steps towards a more comprehensive way of explaining history.
I will begin with a brief outline of Gladwell’s theory works and analyse his
assumptions and their implications. I will then suggest how Gladwell’s theory can
be supplemented to make it more useful as a tool of the philosophy and study of
history. I will do this in the context of “Geschichte” -- thinking about how history
1
manifests itself1 -- as well from the more scientific standpoint with its emphasis
on events and “facts”. Finally, I will elaborate on Gladwell’s theory and examine
what it says with respect to the major themes in the study and philosophy of
history, such as the role of society, context (in terms of environment and
geography as well as socio-cultural influences), the role of the individual and
finally chance and unexplained events.
The “tipping point” refers to the sudden and seemingly inexplicable moment
where certain trends, behaviours or ideas (or in other words, knowledge) explode
in popularity or prominence. Gladwell’s theory, then, is an attempt to explain,
based on empirical evidence, the spread of some particular knowledge that is
usually chalked up to chance or luck. In this context Gladwell’s theory could
provide some fresh insights. regarding history, for as Karl Popper suggests in his
The Poverty of Historicism, human knowledge is the main causal factor in history.
Gladwell likens the tipping point phenomenon to the spread of a viral epidemic:
both are highly contagious, can change over a very short period of time, and are
a result of small things making a big difference. It is this last point that
demarcates Gladwell’s theory and makes it fundamentally different from how we
usually view cause and effect. Generally, we see a linear and proportional
relationship between what happens and what the results are – this significant
cause causes this equally significant event.
1
Klaus Jahn. The Philosophy of History. class notes. (University of
Toronto, 2003)
2
After giving us a descriptive account of how the tipping point behaves, Gladwell
provides an explanatory account of the three driving forces behind it –each of
which is a function of our human nature. It should be noted that these forces
seem to work together in differing degrees – not all of them must be in play at the
same time for the tipping point phenomenon to occur.
The first is what he calls “the law of the few”, which proposes that the spread of
ideas, trends and behaviours is dependent not on how many people are involved,
but rather on having the right people involved. Gladwell sifts these right people
into three categories: Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen. Connectors are very
charismatic and occupy many different socio-economic and cultural spheres so
they know lots of many different people, thus they are very good at starting word
of mouth knowledge epidemics. Mavens do not know as many people as
Connectors, but their obsessive fascination with certain topics and their desire to
help for its own sake causes them to be a trusted source of knowledge for
anyone they come in contact with - if a Maven tells you something, you tend to
listen. Thus, if a Maven endorses an idea or behaviour, they will influence others
to endorse it as well. Lastly the Salesmen, who are very persuasive as they have
a mastery of human communication in terms of body language, facial
expressions and so on. A good example of a Salesman would be a political
candidate or a newscaster – if they propose a certain idea, many people tend to
listen.
3
The second driving force behind the tipping point is the “stickiness factor”. The
stickiness factor generally refers not to the knowledge itself, but to how that
knowledge is packaged: something is sticky if it is memorable, useful and unique
to the receiver of that knowledge. Often, the most effective packaging is simple,
yet counterintuitive or contrary to pre-established conventions.
The third driving force behind the tipping point is “the power of context”. Here,
Gladwell proposes that a great deal of human behaviour is determined by
environmental factors. For example, people who live in an environment that is
uncared for will continue to litter, vandalise and generally neglect the things
around them. Notably Gladwell explains the tipping point phenomenon as the
result of human nature, actions and relationships, rather than the result of the
knowledge itself.
Gladwell’s focus on human nature as the primary explanation of the tipping point
phenomenon suggests that a fundamental assumption has to be made if his
theory is to be applied to an understanding of history: that there exists a universal
and temporally fixed human nature. If Gladwell’s theory, or something similar,
can be applied to understanding history, then it not only suggests the importance
of human nature in historical events, but would also propose that history can be
understood through different models of human nature. In other words, Gladwell’s
4
theory could be applied to recent history, and similar models could be adapted to
fit different past human natures.
This assumption that human nature determines the spread of knowledge and the
creation of tipping points raises another issue that Gladwell does not directly
address: the influence of society and culture on the individual. As E.H. Carr
proposes in his examination of the study and philosophy of history entitled What
is History?, “Society and the individual are inseparable…every human being at
every stage of history or pre-history is born into a society and from his earliest
years is moulded by that society.” (Carr 25) Thus, Carr believes that history
cannot be understood from an examination of individuals, but must take into
account the equal importance of societies: “The men whose actions the historian
studies were not isolated individuals acting in a vacuum: they acted in the
context, and under the impulse, of a past society. (Carr 29)
Gladwell would probably counter that society and culture influence the type of
ideas, behaviours and trends created, but the way in which this knowledge is
spread would be the same in all societies. Thus, Gladwell’s thinking is not
inconsistent with Carr’s. Although he does not address this issue directly,
Gladwell would probably see socio-cultural influences as working to support his
theory of the tipping point: human nature is fixed in terms of how knowledge is
spread, yet open to be influenced by that knowledge. For example, this can be
5
seen in Gladwell’s description of connectors as occupying certain socio-cultural
spheres and in his discussion of the power of context.
This idea of different types of knowledges (as a result of cultural influence) being
spread in the same manner (as a result of static human nature as described by
the tipping point) would also serve to answer some questions posed by Jared
Diamond in his contemporary and scientific look at history entitled Guns, Germs
and Steel. Diamond proposes that human history can be explained as a result of
human interaction with geography and biogeography. He argues that cultures
evolve as a result of environmental factors, and like Carr, Diamond also
discusses the importance of taking into account the social and cultural influence
upon the individual when examining history.
Diamond also realises that there are many cultural idiosyncrasies which effect
individuals that cannot be explained by environmental influence. Diamond states:
“Some cultural variation is no doubt a product of environmental
variation…but an important question concerns the possible significance of
local cultural factors unrelated to the environment. A minor cultural feature
may arise for trivial, temporary local reasons, become fixed, and then
predispose a society toward more important cultural choices… such
cultural processes are among history’s wild cards that would tend to make
history unpredictable.’ (Diamond 418-419)
Thus Diamond sees the environment as influencing both components of the
mutually implicatory society, culture and individuals.
6
Diamond’s emphasis on context is very similar to Gladwell’s power of context, yet
on a much larger scale. Diamond’s “local reasons” that have a large effect on
cultures would fit well into Gladwell’s description of how the tipping point
behaves: small things have large effects. Thus Diamond’s unexplained local
reasons that impact on culture can be explained as tipping point phenomena.
Essentially, Diamond’s theory explains environmental influence on human
history, and Gladwell’s theory fills in the blanks regarding cultural influence.
Therefore, if Diamond and Gladwell’s theories were combined, one could
anticipate a theory of history where the environmental factors of geography and
biogeography would influence culture, knowledge and individuals on a large
scale, but as a result of both large and small causes and influences.
Interestingly, Diamond does looks at history in the context of the spread of
knowledge and gives an example of a tipping point. He examines how the
QWERTY keyboard became prominent while the superior Dvorak was largely
ignored noting that this is an outcome that cannot be explained by his
biogeographic and geographic theory. Diamond suggests that the success of
QWERTY was a result of the people behind that idea. Here Gladwell’s law of the
few serves to fill in the blanks: perhaps the people behind QWERTY were
Mavens, Connectors or Salesmen.
This idea of geographic or natural context as influencing human history is also
shared by the earlier and more philosophically oriented theories of Hegel,
7
Humboldt and Darwin. In his philosophy of history, Hegel deduces a theory to
explain all of history from one universal standpoint. Essentially, Hegel imposes
his theory upon history, rather than deriving an understanding from history itself.
The result is a philosophy of history that explains all historical events as being
the progression of Spirit (in terms of human minds) working itself out. Thus, all
events, no matter how horrible, are as they should be because they are
manifestations of Spirit working itself out until the end of history, at which point
Spirit’s natural state of freedom is entirely realised. Unfortunately, Hegel’s theory
serves only to explain all of history at once, rather than specific events. No
specific insight is given as to why things happen, other than the fact that their
occurrence was meant to happen as part of the grand scheme of things.
In terms of context, Hegel proposes that Spirit embodies itself in nature, as
geography is “an essential and necessary basis” (Hegel 79) for the essential
working out of Spirit in the development of certain societies. Thus, even though
Hegel uses his grand universal theory to explain why geography is important, he
would still have to agree with Diamond and Gladwell that context does determine
how human history evolves.
Humboldt, in an attempt to move away from Hegel’s a priori imposition of his
theory upon history, discusses the influence of context in terms of natural laws.
Humboldt discusses three forces that the historian must examine in history, and
then give organisation and meaning to through the application of his or her
8
imagination. The second force, the physiological force, can be seen as similar to
geographic influence in that it determines how things, including “products of the
mind, such a literature, art, morals and the outward form of human society”
(Humboldt 66) develop. Thus, like Hegel, part of Humboldt’s understanding of
history relies on examining contextual influences.
Similarly, Charles Darwin’s scientific Origin of the Species and Descent of Man
explains human physical evolution, as well as moral evolution in terms of natural
selection resulting from adaptation to the surrounding environment.
In comparison to these general theories Gladwell’s theory can be looked at as a
more refined and specific version regarding the influence of context upon human
history as proposed by Hegel, Humboldt and Darwin. Specifically, Gladwell’s
theory can take these thinker’s general treatment of context to a more specific
and smaller scale, as it discusses particular causes in different cases, rather than
a forcing them to fit into a general or vague explanation. This is not to say that
Gladwell’s theory is perfect, rather it is to suggest that it serves to make a
progressive step towards a more complete and useful understanding of history.
Another interesting theme in philosophy and the study of history addressed by
Gladwell’s theory is the role that the individual plays in shaping historical events.
As previously touched upon in my earlier discussion of the influence of society on
the individual, Carr believes that the study of history should not be understood as
9
being about individuals by individuals, but rather about historians in a present
society examining facts from a past society. Thus, Carr suggests that history
cannot be understood as “the biography of great men” (Carr 39), but rather as
great men in the context, as well as products of, their respective societies.
Furthermore, Carr states:
“…the facts of history are indeed facts about individuals, but not about the
actions of individuals performed in isolation… they are facts about the
relations (my italics) of individuals to one another in society and about the
social forces which produce from the actions of individuals often at
variance with, and sometimes opposite to, the results which they
themselves intended. (Carr 46)
Interestingly, Hegel’s discussion of his “World-Historical Individuals” and their
influence in history would be in line with Carr’s thinking on the subject. For Hegel,
these individuals are influential because they have “an insight into the
requirements of the time, what was ripe for development. This was the very Truth
for their age, for their world…” (Hegel 30) In other words, World-Historical
Individuals are products of their age, in terms of its specific socio-cultural context,
and as such, they somehow embody the desires of that age, thus appealing to
others to follow them. Of course, these World-Historical individuals are merely
part of Spirit working itself out. Thus, Hegel’s discussion of the importance of
influential individuals is subsumed under his general universal theory that
explains history.
Both Carr and Hegel’s views of the roles of individuals in history speak to the
importance of Gladwell’s law of the few (Mavens, Connectors and Salesmen) as
10
key to the spreading of knowledge and the shaping of history. Gladwell’s theory
not only explains why some individuals are very influential in history (as they
possess the traits that Gladwell lays out in his law of the few) but if slightly
modified, his theory could also explain why some influential individuals are
specific to their socio-cultural setting. The law of the few could be seen as a
necessary condition for a person to influence history, but not a sufficient
condition. The sufficient condition would be dependent on the socio-cultural
climate. It should be re-iterated that Gladwell’s theory does not operate outside of
socio-cultural influence. It is at this point that the two components of the tipping
point come into play: the law of the few and the power of context.
The last and most important theme in the study and philosophy of history which
Gladwell’s theory addresses is the role of chance or unexplained events. It is
here where Gladwell’s theory shines: all the components of his theory come
together to provide explanations for unexplained causes, as well as for
overturning the previous understanding of historical events. The importance of
Gladwell’s thinking of chance can be seen by considering the thinking of Hegel
and Carr again.
In Hegel’s theory there is no room for chance –everything in history has a
purpose. Nothing can be explained as simply being an accident. For Carr the
reliance on chance to explain history is a sign of historical laziness. Carr states:
“[describing] something as mischance is a favourite way of exempting
oneself from the tiresome obligation to investigate its cause; and, when
11
somebody tells me that history is a chapter of accidents, I tend to suspect
him of intellectual laziness or low intellectual vitality.” (Carr 96)
Based on his description of history being a “process of selection in terms of
historical significance” (Carr 99), Carr goes on to describe chance as simply
something dismissed by the historian as being irrelevant to his or her
interpretation of history. In other words, the historian’s aim is to make history
useful by making generalizations – things are labelled as chance because they
are not useful in making history understandable.
In contrast to Hegel and Carr, Gladwell’s theory thrives on the opportunity to
benefit from the study of chance. As a new method of historical explanation, the
tipping point would cause a historian to question, which events are a matter of
“chance” and which are really relevant. For example, Gladwell’s theory would
stress the importance of examining smaller, rather than larger causes, as
influencing large historical events. A revolution may have occurred because the
message of the revolution and the spread of that message through the
population was a fit with the necessary conditions that lead to a tipping point it
was sticky, and highly contagious, provided in a context conducive to its spread
and able to influence the right type of people. Thus, the only thing that would be
left as an accident or chance would be natural disasters that are not controlled by
humans. Indeed Gladwell’s theory has the ability to throw the historian’s “causal
nexus” (Humboldt 58) on its head.
12
In sum Gladwell’s theory is very useful for filling in the blanks of a number of
theories of the philosophy of history. The usefulness of this theory over a broad
range of theories suggests that the Gladwell is on to something. I believe that
Gladwell’s way of thinking can be further developed and synthesized with other
theories to create a new and truly useful way of understanding historical
developments.
13
Bibliography
Carr, E.H. What is History?. Ed. R.W. Davies. London: MacMillian, 1989.
Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. Amhurst: Promethus Books, 1998.
Darwin, Charles. Origin of the Species Amhurst: Promethus Books, 1991.
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs and Steel. London: Vintage, 1998.
Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point. Boston: Back Bay Books, 2002.
Hegel, G.W.F ‘Introduction’ The Philosophy of History. [from the course reader]
Humboldt, Wilhelm Von. “On The Historian’s Task.” Classics in the Philosophy of
History. 57-71 [from the course reader]
Jahn, Klaus. The Philosophy of History. class notes. University of
Toronto, 2003.
Popper, Karl. The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge, 2002.
14