Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] hierarchies and networks

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [permaculture] hierarchies and networks
  • Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:54:09 -0700

One subject we touched on in the recent certification thread was new and old
tools for change, and the difference between hierarchical and decentralized
organizations and tools. I'd said that I once had high hopes for
decentralized leadership tools, like consensus, but was disappointed by how
rarely they live up to their promise. I've been skeptical of the value of
these and similar methods to actually produce change, and have found the
older tools--strong leadership, old-style voting--at least as effective
(though I still prefer inclusive versions of these tools to exclusive).

I was catching up on a stack of New Yorker magazines this morning, and in the
Oct 4 issue there's an article that fits right in to this conversation,
"Small Change" by Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell is known for his book "The
Tipping Point" and in general being a whole systems thinker. He's made the
points I would have liked to have made. I was intrigued that he feels network
tools aren't good for doing design, and that they are better at preserving
the status quo than changing it. So here's a quote from the article.

"Unlike hierarchies, with their rules and procedures, networks aren’t
controlled by a single central authority. Decisions are made through
consensus, and the ties that bind people to the group are loose. This
structure makes networks enormously resilient and adaptable in low-risk
situations. Wikipedia is a perfect example. . . .

"There are many things, though, that networks don’t do well. Car companies
sensibly use a network to organize their hundreds of suppliers, but not to
design their cars. No one believes that the articulation of a coherent design
philosophy is best handled by a sprawling, leaderless organizational system.
Because networks don’t have a centralized leadership structure and clear
lines of authority, they have real difficulty reaching consensus and setting
goals. They can’t think strategically; they are chronically prone to conflict
and error. How do you make difficult choices about tactics or strategy or
philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?

"The Palestine Liberation Organization originated as a network, and the
international-relations scholars Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and Calvert Jones
argue in a recent essay in International Security that this is why it ran
into such trouble as it grew: “Structural features typical of networks—the
absence of central authority, the unchecked autonomy of rival groups, and the
inability to arbitrate quarrels through formal mechanisms—made the P.L.O.
excessively vulnerable to outside manipulation and internal strife.”

"In Germany in the nineteen-seventies, they go on, “the far more unified and
successful left-wing terrorists tended to organize hierarchically, with
professional management and clear divisions of labor." . . . They seldom
betrayed their comrades in arms during police interrogations. Their
counterparts on the right were organized as decentralized networks, and had
no such discipline. These groups were regularly infiltrated, and members,
once arrested, easily gave up their comrades. Similarly, Al Qaeda was most
dangerous when it was a unified hierarchy. Now that it has dissipated into a
network, it has proved far less effective.

"The drawbacks of networks scarcely matter if the network isn’t interested in
systemic change—if it just wants to frighten or humiliate or make a splash—or
if it doesn’t need to think strategically. But if you’re taking on a powerful
and organized establishment you have to be a hierarchy . . . .

"But [network-based activism] is simply a form of organizing which favors the
weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie
connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It shifts our
energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity
and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it
easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to
have any impact. The instruments of social media are well suited to making
the existing social order more efficient. They are not a natural enemy of the
status quo. If you are of the opinion that all the world needs is a little
buffing around the edges, this should not trouble you. But if you think that
there are still lunch counters out there that need integrating [Gladwell
mentioned civil rights activists] it ought to give you pause."

The full article is at
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page