permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>]

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