Love or hate them, Bob and Bono changed the context

Everywhere from the New Statesman and the Guardian to columnists in this newspaper, serious questions have been raised about the movement that Bob Geldof and Bono are spearheading. Allegedly, Bono and Bob are merely the bards at the court of Bush and Blair. They are giving respectability to the disreputable.

George Monbiot of the Guardian fears the duo will "sell us down the river." He does concede they have helped to "secure debt and aid packages worth millions of dollars".However, none of this protects them against Monbiot's charge of being "collaborators" with oppressors, and of doing more harm than good.

Some jaundiced reactions are understandable. Two middle-aged rock stars who prance in and start acting as if they know it all can be deeply irritating.

At times, Bono's enthusiastic reactions are somewhat cringe-making. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as the John and Paul of the global development stage? That is, if you take Bono at face value, and forget that he is Irish, with that ability to slag at the same time as he is praising.

And certainly the G7 deal on debt relief is far from perfect, tied as it is to neo-liberal trade policies. It is also unclear whether the proposed plan will result in a reduction of aid by the same amount as the debt relief. It would be truly appalling if the G8 were to give with one hand and take away with the other.

It is also indisputably true, as Monbiot states, that there is something obscene about the world's richest nations determining the fate of the poorest. Yet the fact remains that there is much more room to discuss the value or otherwise of the proposed G7 deal because of the actions of people like Bob Geldof and Bono.

Maybe critics should get their hands on an international bestseller called The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell.

He is interested in what causes "social epidemics". Why do things become trends and fads? Why can massive social change happen very quickly? He dubs the "one dramatic moment in an epidemic when everything can change all at once" as the "tipping point".

His main thesis is that social epidemics happen in the same way as medical epidemics, and they are dependent on three factors: "The Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context."

Gladwell believes we are not as autonomous as we think we are. He claims that sudden change is driven by "the efforts of a handful of exceptional people - the few".

They influence us far more than we are willing to admit by their social connections, energy, enthusiasm and personality.

He names the few the Connectors, Salesmen and Mavens - "databanks".

Bono is a classic salesman. He has been derided for associating with the like of arch-conservative Republican Senator Jesse Helms.

While a purist might be repelled by Helms, Bono, the canny salesman, sees him as another way to reach and influence an audience. Salesmen have charisma, energy, charm and the ability to connect with people. They change our minds. Without salesmen, ideas languish.

Odd though it may seem for such a grumpy, unshaven and foul-mouthed individual, Bob Geldof is a connector, someone who can lift the phone and get a Live Aid concert under way, for example.

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, is cited in The Tipping Point as a classic example of a connector. One would think that the founder of a religious movement would be a deeply charismatic preacher. Apparently, someone called George Whitfield was the best preacher of that generation.

Wesley, however, was a connector. He covered as much as 4,000 miles a year on horseback, ceaselessly visiting the small groups he had set up, where people were required to attend weekly meeting and adhere to strict codes of conduct.

He made the message "sticky", in other words, by connecting it to membership of people's social grouping. Bob and Bono have made the message "sticky" today, by moving it into the arena of music, often a more powerful social connection for young people than religion.

Interestingly, Methodists and other Christians of Wesley's time were to the forefront of another movement which people said would never succeed.

They sought the abolition of slavery in the British empire, and they used all the methods which people use today, just without the benefits of information technology. They informed people about the drastic conditions slaves endured, and how many of them died on slave ships.

They used existing networks, such as Methodist and Quaker meetings, to spread knowledge and rouse public concern. They enlisted public figures, like William Wilberforce, the Conservative MP, to press for change. It worked.

The weakness in Gladwell's thesis is that he underestimates the amount of sheer work that is involved, often by nameless, un-remembered people, before a tipping point can be reached. Yet the power of context is also vital.

Love them, hate them, or cautiously respect them, Bob and Bono have changed the context. No longer is development an arcane subject, suitable only for discussion at high-level international conferences. They are on the way to bringing public awareness to a point where, just as in the case of slavery, people say: "This is intolerable. This must change."

Gladwell's book ends with these words about the world: "It may seem like an immovable, implacable place. It is not. With the slightest push - in just the right place - it can be tipped."