Nodal
Politics
by Jon Lebkowsky
Nodal
Politics is the first in a series of essays that led to the creation of Jon
Lebkowsky's upcoming book, Virtual Bonfire. He invites feedback - please
send to jonl@mindjack.com.
"Organizing at a deeper level, however, is more difficult.
While the internet gives us the tool to do this, it does not solve the
underlying problems that have historically made organizing difficult: different
concerns, inter-group rivalries and competition for scarce resources, mistrust,
etc. Still, I for one am very hopeful."
-- Margarita Lacabe of Derechos, to Global Internet Liberty
Campaign's email List, 1/26/98
The
Grassroots
Grassroots organizing is about networking to build political
presence, creating influence in the democratic sense, where sheer numbers are
assumed to have relevance. Virtual politics adds a new dimension to this kind
of networking. Organizing efforts are mediated by technology, as organizers
employ computer networks to facilitate the instantaneous flow of information to
diverse, broadly distributed nodes.
Does computer-mediated communication truly enhance our ability
to organize? Enhance, yes. Any medium that allows you to collect
115,00 signatures on a petition over a relatively short period of
time with almost no legwork or expenditure of money is clearly an
enhancement. However much of the presumed value of the Internet
is in the cheap and relatively easy distribution of alerts and updates
through email, newsgroups, and web pages. The value added here is
limited: you can push information to thousands of constituents without
appreciable effect, if the receivers do nothing more than acknowledge
without acting. The technology is no clear plus without a set of
'best practices' to facilitate complementary virtual and physical
organization. It's important to recognize that your virtual organization's
worthwhile only if you have people on the ground. And there are
still the inherent issues of rivalry and resource, which were mentioned
in the quote that opens this chapter.
Electronic networks do have an impact on power structures. I
would argue that in business, in politics, and within the growing number of
non-government organizations formed to influence policy, we are evolving away
from traditional top-down organizational structures to information-saturated
laterally distributed organizations which are flatter, more distributed, and
potentially more inclusive. The change in prevalent organizational structure
follows a change in the way information flows.
The traditional flow of information within an organization
follows rigid lines of authority from the top down. At the top of the hierarchy
is a president or CEO who gathers information from various formal and informal
sources, performs validation, makes decisions, and assumes authority over the
organization. In larger organizations viable span of control is an issue, so
through delegation the "top" becomes more distributed...the boss shares info
and interpretation with his assistants, and delegates some of his power and
authority. Knowledge is a political commodity, closely held at the top, and
shared downward after filtering and "spin control" according to the goals of
the powers that be.
Distributed communication, compulsory education, and
evolving democratization are changing this topography, influencing the
structure of power and the application of authority. An evolving sense of
individual empowerment is an inherent characteristic of net-based political
thinking; I argue that this is related to the Internet's open, distributed
knowledge-sharing environment.
Today's typical citizen has access to information from
thousands of formal and informal sources, and sufficient education to make at
least a reasonable interpretation of the signal-noise jam. This late 20th
century knowledge revolution is a major force in producing a widely
acknowledged paradigm shift, or change in the fundamental model of
sociopolitical reality. Other factors include changes in scientific and
sociological perspective, and an increasing democratic tendency in developed
nations.
On the face of it, these developments sound inherently
positive, but they create a complex environment for creating consensus and
establishing policy. Where there are many voices in the conversation that
precedes decision, and where these voice express diverse viewpoints and
experience, it is significantly more difficult to establish a clear sense of
direction. There is also the potential for backlash from those who place a
higher value on social order than on inclusive consensus. And there is the fact
that a majority of the peoples of the world live in underdeveloped countries
that derive little benefit from new technologies.
Nodes
Computer networks route information laterally through nodes
or routing points. This makes for a distribution of information that is from
many to many with no single, established point of origination. Information can
originate from any point in the network, and virtually explode in all
directions.
This ultimately changes the way that we experience
information, and a change in the distribution or flow of information has a
clear impact on power structures and the way that those structures work. The
nodal model acknowledges and facilitates complexity. It allows for an
accelerated "word of mouth": a single email message can be replicated to
thousands of recipients in a matter of minutes. Each recipient in turn can
replicate to thousands more. Given effective networks you can quickly reach
millions through email and Web technologies.
(A down side of this capability is the proliferation of bulk
email programs that facilitate the distribution of unsolicited commercial
email, commonly called "spam." Junk email is a significant problem, and for
some users any unsolicited mail is suspect. Activist messages could become
another form of junk email if distributed too broadly using the bulk email
approach. Activists should take time and care to establish email networks to
ensure that message streams are reaching only those who are voluntary
participants.)
net.activism
Activism is the focused and active support of a social or
political agenda, the success of which depends either on an ability to use
power directly, or to influence the powerful indirectly. A change in the
configuration of power structures holds both danger and opportunity for the
activist; so much depends on a thorough understanding of the social and
political environment before and after the change.
An activist's role is to influence policy at whatever level
is relevant (local, state, national). To do this it is important to understand
the policy-making environment: how legislatures work, how the administrative
and political aspects of governing differ, how the interests of individuals and
groups are expressed and how they are served by existing political
institutions. It is also important to facilitate the public conversation. We
arrive at consensus by getting to know one another, talking about our problems,
finding shared understanding, debating issues over which we can't seem to
agree. Participatory democracy succeeds or fails on the conversation that
precedes decision. A vote is meaningless if it is not preceded by meaningful,
vital social interaction.
Interactive discussions of politics and social issues appear
in various forms on the Internet. There are discussion groups, online
communities, conferences and forums, email lists, and chat sessions. It's
problematic that these tools are not more widely accessible, true, but that's
another activist issue. Proponents of universal access and community networking
are working to make Internet-based tools accessible to "underserved"
populations.
There are many ways to reach what Wired Magazine calls
netizens. The ability to get a political message into many hands very quickly
is a plus, but a down side is the inability to ensure that the message is
clearly understood by all recipients. There are barriers to understanding that
are inherent in the technology: online we tend to read fast or scan, and avoid
finishing messages longer than a paragraph or two. There's only so much
understanding you can pack into a brief message, and (so often said about
online text-based communications) visual cues and feedback loops are missing.
What's needed on the receiving end is someone to interpret and explain, to
establish a context for understanding the messages. Distributed "nodes" are
focal points for contextual development, functioning not only as routers but as
interpreters, and this is an essential point.
Nodes and
Chapters
A "chapters" organizational model provides a structure for
the dissemination of information, the demonstration of an effective show of
support for the organization's agenda, and the facilitation of a deeper
understanding of the organization's goals and issues through face to face
meetings. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Sierra Club are offline
examples.
Chapters and the "nodes" that I have described are similar,
however chapters relate to a centralized organization, whereas nodes are more
decentralized, and are networked with other nodes, sharing information
laterally rather than hierarchically.
Within nodal networks, the information flow is diffuse, a
disadvantage where more focused communication is required. Committed membership
is replaced by ad hoc advocacy with no particular loyalty to the group. In
periods of adversity and disagreement a splintering effect is probable.
Members
It may seem strange to ask whether an organization should
have members, but Voters Telecommunication Watch (VTW) was quite successful in
organizing support for its agenda with no formal membership structure. VTW was
operated by a small, dedicated group of activists based in New York. They saw
that no online group was organizing registered voters to influence policy
decisions. VTW built a strong base of support without members.
At a recent Board of Directors meeting EFF-Austin, an
organization I helped found, discussed the membership model vs. the VTW model.
Membership organizations must track member participation, bill for dues, and
provide member services. Did we want to create a larger membership
organization, and be more democratic and inclusive, involving our members more
in our operations? Or did we want to focus more on operating as a small core
group, retaining a membership base but keeping the dues low and not doing
outreach or maintenance? More recently EFF-Austin dissolved and a new statewide
group, EF-Texas, was formed. EF-Texas will be a member organization, but
without the overhead of membership maintenance. Interested participants will
become members by signing onto an email list. They will not be required to pay
dues, and they will not receive physical paraphernalia associated with
membership.
EFF-Austin and similar groups can be content generators, and
at the same time function as nodes for routing information disseminated by
groups like VTW. A network is evolving with groups like VTW, EPIC, CDT, and EFF
at the conceptual center, generating content and distributing it through
various distribution nodes using email, usenet newsgroups, and the World Wide
Web. That information is forwarded to organizations and individuals, who
forward to their own respective lists, so that ultimately thousands of people
are exposed to these communications. Many make active responses, such as the
50,000+ who signed onto the CIEC petition. (CIEC stands for Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition, formed using an intake form on CDT's web page to gather
names for a petition opposing the Communications Decency Act.)
I should re-emphasize, however, that this is a scattergun
approach. We know that messages from the above sources reach many mailboxes,
however we can't ensure that they're read and understood. In an
information-saturated environment, it's essential to contextualize and explain
information so that it is meaningful to those who receive it. Real
understanding of a subject is best facilitated by face-to-face interaction,
give-and-take discussion with a full set of visual cues. It is crucial to form
local groups with physical meetings at least monthly. Chapters organizations
like ACLU and the Sierra Club have always done this. Each chapter of these and
similar organizations is a satellite that extends the primary group's
organizational wisdom into its surrounding community. Had EFF become a chapters
organization, this is how it would likely have worked.
To summarize, nodal politics means decentralized
organization wherein individual groups can establish or participate in networks
but retain full autonomy, distributing organizational wisdom through coalitions
that are not dominated by any one organization's world-view. Any individual in
any community, using this model, may be empowered to create a group dedicated
to online civil liberties and other issues according to local mandate, without
having to satisfy the requirements of a central authority. When many such
groups have formed, networked formally and informally, and established ad hoc
coalitions, we have a structure for popular conversation and debate with
broader participation than ever before.
Such a model has pros and cons. As Winn Schwartau, the
Infowar specialist, once noted, flattened hierarchies create a two-dimensional
structure, and the lack of hierarchy can mean a lack of leadership. Decisions
are more difficult to make. Democratic consensus is more difficult and
time-consuming than oligarchic mandate, and as Robert D. Kaplan wrote (The
Atlantic, December 1997), "...the differences between oligarchy and democracy
and between ancient democracy and our own could be far subtler than we think"
and "...productive anarchy will require the supervision of tyrannies - or else
there will be no justice for anyone" because democracy, an expression of
majority will, does not inherently support fairness or minority rights.
Consensus
Governance
Working from consensus or general agreement, the group can
acknowledge and respect minority opinion in the decision-making process. My
definition of 'consensus' is a process in which everyone is heard, and no
decision is final without a everyone's commitment of support. This is not to
say that everyone agrees what's the best decision, but that everyone has
contributed to a decision that all can accept.
Resolutions and decisions that are made by consensus can
take much longer than arbitrary individual decisions. However by the time a
decision is reached, all stakeholders' perspectives have been accorded a
hearing, and have been discussed at length. A consensus decision is an informed
decision modified along the way to accommodate diverse concerns within the
group. I have worked with global activists preparing action alerts on specific
issues, and the process of consensus has been a process of discovery. It's
difficult enough dealing with different perspectives within the same culture,
but a whole magnitude of difference more difficult when you're working across
cultures. However a document resulting from consensus within a group like this
has been filtered through multiple cultural perspectives, therefore transcends
individual cultural biases in favor of a more universal approach. Though there
are clear disadvantages in working toward a broad consensus among numerous
diverse stakeholders, it is the one way to ensure that complex differences have
been acknowledged and addressed. The process can be slow and frustrating, can
lead to internal conflicts within the group, and can result in loss of focus if
not managed well.
b i o : Jon
Lebkowsky, Director of Web Technology for WholePeople.com, was Whole Foods
Market's "Internet Guy" (Internet Projects Manager) from June 1997 through
September 1998. He's been soaking in Internet culture and community for the
last decade. He has served as an online host for the WELL, Electric Minds, and
HotWired. He has written articles for Wired Magazine, Whole Earth Review, The
Austin Chronicle, 21C, Factsheet Five, Mondo 2000, and other publications, and
was the "consciousness" sub-domain editor of The Millennium Whole Earth
Catalog. As co-founder and former CEO of FringeWare, Inc., he was a pioneer in
electronic commerce and its relationship to online community. He has two grown
children and three boisterous grandchildren. |