Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] hierarchies and networks

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Holger Hieronimi <holger@tierramor.org>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] hierarchies and networks
  • Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 06:47:26 -0600

Interesting & important topic

Feel familiar with your musings... I have gone all the way from defending networked, consensus-based, "leaderless" stuctures to also (at least sometimes) apreciate hirarchies, and more centrally structured (decision making) organisms...,

who was the college who said "The opposite is also true" ???
Its one of my favotite mantras recently

but the examples (PLO, German RAF, or Al Qaeda) aren´t really that motivating...

of course we have to find balance-
and the networked structures simply have more resilience in an energy descent future
we will hate them, but with less energy we have to work with them
good that we have some practical experiences from our activist times...

nevertheless, I´m surprised, because the more networks seem inevitable, the more people in "mainstream societies" are crying for "strong leadership"... of course, the opposite will happen, because central control needs energy...

and we permaculture dissitents are talking about the advantages of those structures, that we ignored ore rejected for a long time

interesting...another topic for a filosofical debate...

regards from Mexico

holger


El 01.11.2010 05:30, permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org escribió:
Asunto:
[permaculture] hierarchies and networks
De:
Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
Fecha:
Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:54:09 -0700

Para:
permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>


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