Sep 29, 2010

Malcolm Gladwell’s article (‘Small Change – Why the revolution will not be tweeted’ – New Yorker) has stirred-up quite a discussion as was to be expected. Gladwell disputes the claims of popular social applications, those that predominantly foster weak-ties, as being effective instruments of social action that involve high risks.

My first reaction to the article was that while it brought to notice distinctions between various forms of social activism, the argument that meaningful and effective social action, particularly where the risk is high, cannot be effected through social-networks based on weak ties and that it necessarily requires hierarchical structures, was questionable.

As I was reading various reactions on the web, I came across this wonderful analysis by Zeynep Tufekci. I agree with what she has to say, though it prompted me to think of the issue in somewhat different terms. Embedded in her post is I believe the notion of systems. She talks about how the challenges we face today are complex and of a global scale. She then argues how these problems cannot be adequately addressed at the local level, and necessarily need structures which include weak ties as well. What I particularly agree with is the notion that these are not either/or issues.

The way I would have articulated that, in systems terms would be as follows. Social Systems, whether they be local groups, teams within an enterprise, corporations or global institutions are ‘designs’, socio-technical systems, which are either designed to accomplish a specific purpose or emerge in response to a given situation. For them to be effective, the designs need to correspond appropriately to the complexity of the problem at hand. In that sense, these social organizations are ‘social computers’ – problem solving entities. When designed to solve a limited range or a well-defined problem, they do not need much flexibility.

I do not like the term ‘Social Computers’ to describe social designs, particularly since they perform two broad functions – Cognition and Coordinated Action. (I am leaving out several other elements such as Learning here for the sake of simplicity). When the problems become very large and complex, such as when the environments we need to make sense of are characterized by Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity, (VUCA), the social entities that process this information need to be structurally open and flexible. Hierarchical structures are not quite capable of such flexibility as is well known. So the case for global challenges being complex and therefore needing the kind of organizational structures which social networks with weak-ties can provide is well made.

What then about being effective in high-risk situations? Here again, the issue can be understood in terms of the appropriateness of the design. When confronted with centralized hierarchical power structures such as in North Korea for example, activists cannot possibly overthrow the regime just through social networks based on weak ties. A critical level of resistance and sustained activism would be required to make any impact. Social networks aided by social applications can facilitate several social processes, including, identifying what works and deepening motivation and commitment. Over a period of time strong-ties among activists would evolve, and if that mass work to grow large enough, it could become effective as well.

Social networks, as has been argued by others, do not exist online alone. Social Designs, are a mix of online and onland networks (and other forms too), which complement and together make the designs work. A good design must be appropriate to the challenge at hand and include an appropriate mix of both. Hierarchical structures, can evoke willing sacrifice or be coercive (e.g. Nazis), and often fail too.