 | Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
|
If the ideal of the group is to have everyone think the same way, and the ideal of the network is to have diversity, does one subvert the other? I see the groups at my institution (Council, administrators' groups, committees) continually subverted by networking. Similarly, when networks form (and are effective) they tend to work best by subverting the directed purpose of the groups. Similarly, when groupthink enters a network, is it destroyed? if so, doesn't that mean it's more fragile? Networks do indeed seem to be more fragile, more designed to the purpose. The forceful conformity of groups seems to guarantee longer staying power, which many times prevails. Networks, however, are more flexible, more maneuverable. Another way to phrase this question is whether the ideal must translate into operational reality, or whether it's possible for one to operate like the other without losing its ideal form. So the Spanish Armada was a group, but it was defeated by the English ships (organized as a group, but working like a network). Nations are groups, and can be harmed by a network of terrorist extremists, who think like a network but are capable of occasionally operating as (small) groups as the opportunity arises. Some of the terrorist networks, while having the formation of a network, have groupthink. So to what extent must the ideal translate into action? |
 | Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
|
Terrorists aren't necessarily the best example of a group - because of the way the modern world works, quite often terrorist groups act autonomously of each other even though they have the same goals. In the late 80's former Klan leader and later head of several right wing militia groups Louis Beam coined the term "leaderless resistance", which was a series of tactics to reduce the connections between the various white power groups so as to limit their legal responsibility of the group members actions. Certainly these cells were members of the group, but acted "autonomously" when the group was questioned about it. Modern terrorists act this way as well - there's a connection between Al-Queda and the first WTC bombing attempt but it took years to uncover them. I don't necessarily know that networks subvert groups, because when I look at large groups, they have smaller networks within the groups - for instance the large group may have a marketing group connected to the advertising group who might both be connected to the legal group. All three have their own goals, but each sub-group has it's own goals as well. Maybe networks subvert the power of the group? |
 | Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
I still think that network is a metaphor, a way of thinking about things, rather than an entity. We might think about an organisation's local area network as an entity (becomes a group when we add in all the organisational stuff) or an individual's personal network (with them at the centre) as a perspective on a much larger set of nodes and connections. We might also think about networks of knowledge in a particular area (say Open Educational Resources) but these will soon start to gather 'hard stuff' like CC licenses, standards, etc. around them, to make them work better and be more valued (some black-boxing going on here  ).So Lisa, can networks have ideals? I like your point about the ephemeral nature of some networks. So do networks have common values, plots, plans? or emergent properties? |
| Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
| I don't know about the networks themselves having ideals, and I suppose they are emergent. But there does seem to be an ideal network, a place of interactivity and diversity: Downes wrote, "It wouldn't be a network without diversity." If a network did have common plots or plans, wouldn't it then become a group instead? |
| Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
|
No I don't think networks have ideals (but see your previous post). Are you raising the idea of network as an 'ideal type'? I agree that a network with plots and plans does begin to look a bit like a group |
 | Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
| Why can't networks have ideals. Even though it is a mindless entity that only exists because of it's members, its members have ideals and support what Networks mean to them. It represents, openness, freedom, innovation, individuality, all of which are ideals. It may not mean to support or promote these ideas, however many things change as they are utilized... |
 | Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
Frances,"I still think that network is a metaphor, a way of I was attracted to the ephemeral quality of your characterization of the network as a "metaphor." My take on this was... A group can be described as a substance, touchable, definable, contained more permanent... A network can be characterized as a medium in which ideas, knowledge, emotions temporarily exist. For example, The air in which smells, sounds, currents, and light are transferred - float. B-ob |
 | Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
|
The forceful conformity of groups seems to guarantee longer staying power, which many times prevails. If someone is forced to conform, are they more likely to maintain staying power? For me, if I am given some level of autonomy and feel like there is space for me to actively participate within the group, network, community, etc. I´ll be more engaged in creating stronger ties with other participants, thus increasing my knowledge and influence - at the same time increasing the knowledge and influence of the network as a whole. Using George´s description of individuals, group collectives, and connectives - all being distinct types of networks, I believe that guaranteeing longer staying power requires a shift from the collective to the connective. If individuals are given the opportunity to thrive, for the betterment of the group, then most would be more motivated to continue that practice over the long run. Dewey makes a distinction between educative and non-educative experience by defining the former as an experience that is relevant (authentic) and meaningful (for the learner) and also serves some future benefit to the learner. To counter the "argument" that training to be a thief could be considered an "educative" experience, Dewey also adds that the experience should also enhance society. In my view, this is along the same lines as what George defines as connectives. |
| Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
| Benjamin, I'm not sure the individual maintains staying power, but the group can -- it will just go on without you. So yes, a network or collective is more motivating for individuals, but may not last as long. |
 | Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
|
Lisa, I consider myself a team player, willing to go the extra mile, picking up slack, being conscientious, not working behind anyones back, cooomunicating well about progress, helping out etc. However, despite being on a team or project, I do not consider myself a group thinker. I have occasionly been burned when asked to compress timelines when my gut said no, it woun't work, and then to find my gut was right. I caved to group think, but it was really about trying to appease a non-critical issue. I like to think I get paid to be blunt, be the nay-sayer, etc. However, I have learned to realize that sometimes, my issues might only be tiny compared to the big picture, so I am better to "network" after the meeting, find out if my concerns are valid, then write the inflammatory email I think we all have workplace networks that allow us to get things done when the group wont' let us do it easily. And yes, I have seen bad groupthink kill a perfectly good work environment by imposing sometimes silly thinks such as parking rules and dress codes or demanding a year long retrenchment process when moving forward should have been the avenue. Again, it is because someone has gotten lost and focussed on a non-critical issue. And I have seen grassroot networks mock the groupthink to the point where the CEO/President wonders what is going on (usually by getting "network-based" feedback) and calls an end to the silliness. |
 | Re: Strategy anyone? |
|
I'm puzzled: Is it not possible to distinguish a network that has a particular, predetermined purpose from a network that is open to new possibilities? Surely all guerilla movements (from the colonial days onwards: the Boer War comes to mind, as does the Anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa, and there are numerous examples elsewhere, like Al Qaida) are organised, strategically as networks - anti-hierarchical, lots of redundant connections, few if anyone knows the whole picture, on a need to know basis? The same groups, facing different strategic imperatives, after the war has been won, when they have to 'win the peace' , often choose to consolidate their endeavours in quite different organisational structures. They might still, in the 21st century, use the new technologies, like social networking, but these might be subordinate to more cohesive, hierarchical structures, no? Or the US Presidential campaigns: they are focused, one-issue groups, but they often add substantial open network features and functions to their campaigns, no? Question 1: Can we define groups, as "task oriented communities of practice at the level of strategy", separately from their tactics, which might or might not include open network functions and networks as well as hierarchical structures? Is it possible to 'mix and match'? Question 2: Are there particular functions that can only be carried out in open networks, such as global finance and global terror? (You might say, ferral Islamists, and ferral Capitalists, but that wouldn't change the argument, or would it?) Question 3: Do particular kinds of network-enabling technologies (social software for instance) inherently tend to displace and even replace certain types of organisational structures, e.g. for learning (as opposed to accreditation and certification)? |
| Re: Strategy anyone? |
|
Roy, now I'm puzzled too, by: > "a network that has a particular, predetermined purpose" does that not become a group? or is it a network using a group function? So "strategic organization" is what I would call the reality, as opposed to the ideal. Do guerilla movements go from being a network to a group (top of the hierarchy) if they win and take power? In the case of campaigns and networks, these are indeed groups using a network function. Maybe we should include functionality in the "reality" of the distinction? We can say the ideal is that networks are open, but sometimes they don't function that way. We can say the ideal is that groups are closed, but sometimes they don't function that way. Does that work? Lisa |
| Re: Strategy anyone? |
|
Lisa, I think most networks do become groups (in Stephen's perjorative sense - watch out for the deconstruction here) when they take power, but that doesnt have to be the case. It happened in South Africa, where the Politbureau disocurse of the exiles triumphed over the networked discourse of the internal movement, and its looks like its even more downhill the last few months. Your 'ideal type' analysis is neat. But I smell a rat or two here - I dont know if we have done enough conceptual work if we just say closed = bad, open = good. That's a bit too easy. Oppositional networks can be very unstructured and 'connectivist' in a complex adaptive systems sense, but they are only 'open' within a fairly tightly defined and controlled group, otherwise they get destroyed by the state. And Wenger's Communities of Practice are often 'groups' technically, but networks operationally. This is difficult, and I am aware that I am not answering my own questions clearly here, and I think its because we need to add a lot of grey shades to the rather stark, and prejudicial (?) way the debate has been set up, no? |
 | Re: Strategy anyone? |
|
I think there is a natural tendency for 'closed' groups (or at least, sub networks with fairly well defined boundaries) to form within any network. If an idea becomes prominent (resonates) for a selection of well-connected individuals, they will tend to focus more energy on communicating with each other, and on taking an idea to fruition. This will tend to give them closer ties, produce a 'common belief' and provide some degree of isolation from those around them. The formation of a lingo (jargon) by the group will help increase the effect. I don't think that that is necessarily a bad thing, mind you - the group is able to focus on a desired outcome better than the more nebulous network. Ideally the group will also maintain links with the broader network, and the boundaries will drop again once the processes which formed it have born fruit. |
 | Re: Strategy anyone? |
| Are groups an emergent property of networks? |
| Re: Strategy anyone? |
|
Minh, very interesting. If you follow the definitions, no. If you follow the examples that I put forward, yes, they CAN be emergent properties "arising out of networks" - not "of networks" - which is not what one would expect. |
 | Re: Strategy anyone? |
|
An interetsing question... But, groups are 'properties', they are entities. A 'property' is a quality that something has, like being round, or being red, or being large. To be a group is to be a type of thing, not a quality like roundness, etc. |
| Re: Strategy anyone? |
|
I think it's good you are talking about shades and gradations. There is a horrible fetishizing of groups now with Clay Shirky, Beth Noveck, Jay Rosen, the whole "Personal Democracy" gang claiming that groups are now going to take power and displace these ostensibly corrupt and outmoded institutions. It's a horrible shill, because it turns out to be the same people running everything. We are very, very far here from the writings of E.P. Thompson in the UK or Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia in the 1980s who wrote so enthusiastically about groups. E.P. Thompson said in one of his peace brochures, "We must be loyal not to East or West, but to each other." He conceived of groups and movements of citizens forming across the Iron Curtain, and working outside the strictures of the exterminist regimes -- the governments on both sides with their Mutual Assured Destruction. To some extent, it worked. But then it goes wild. The non-state actor becomes a threat as well as an opportunity, destructive as well as constructive. Even Clay Shirky will admit that all the Myspacing turns up groups of anorexics not helping each other to overcome their illness but glorifying it and egging each other on to starve. And this is where the absolutism and fetishizing of groups comes into play, because they are indeed weak mechanisms for ensuring the rule of law -- which is needed for the public commons and openness to thrive (contrary to the idea that you would just need anarchy for these values to thrive). |
 | Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
|
Interesting question Lisa. Often large Institutions create structures, policies and practices which discourage collaboration and sharing - networking if you like, as this may lead to some loss of competittive advantage. Yet the individuals within those organsiations subvert those "edicts" by developing and sustaining the networks they need to get their jobs done. |
| Re: Subversion - Groupthink - Ideal vs Reality |
|
I'm going to repeat what I said in the other thread "closed vs. open": I think this bifurcation of closed/open and trying to apply it to groups/networks is an artifact of the way Stephen Downes keeps discussing it. But it is probably better to think of the properties of an open or closed society as being on a sliding scale, with any of its characteristics able to apply to either networks or groups, depending on type and situation. Why would the ideal of a group *have* to be "having everybody think the same way"? I could work in a group on say, climate change, or a local committee to, say, prevent a parking lot from being built over a park, without having to share the religion and politics of everybody else in the group. Only if you are trying to keep groups rigidly orthodox, and controlled by those one or two or three influencers never admittedly "in power" (because we're all supposed to have loose and free and flexible groups run things now, and not evil institutions), would you have to worry about networking "subverting" the group. In fact, networking could link this group or that group, working on this issue or a similar issue here or there -- again, without rigid orthodoxy. Terrorists aren't open societies, and aren't networks in the sense of working openly and freely. They are highly orthodox and rigid ideological groups -- cults, even. Linkage of groups or cells in a party or extremist group could only be said to be "networking" in some common parlance -- i.e. finding recruits at meetings. But if you are going to posit that networks are the open and flexible entity, and groups are the closed entities (which BTW I'm not for doing), then the terrorist is always and everywhere rigidly bound by his ideology or his violent cynicism and drive for power, and isn't going to "change". |