Results tagged “Superempowerment”

(I originally posted this at Soob and thought it too generally interrogative and bit meandering for D5GW. A session in thinking aloud, perhaps. And then got to thinking D5GW is a long discussion of theory and theory involves uncertainty and thinking aloud so I had a change of mind and put it down here as well.)

At least in the terms that it's popularly discussed, visions of a "rise" of single human beings who through their actions wreak havoc or great change upon society. A brief look at some of my questions/thoughts regarding this concept:

1. It would seem to presume that super empowered individuals are some new and coming threat as opposed to a rather well documented phenomena that transcends the concepts of war theory, GMW, XGW or otherwise.

2. That the actions of these individuals will be encapsulated by both plurality and yet some method of viral coincidence. The mere concept suggests unilateral action that produces results on a massive scale and the indulgence of colorful adjectives suggests this phenomena will be numerous but not concerted (hence "individual.") Seems a bit like eating ones cake and having it too.

3. Zenpundit, some years ago, noted:

    Previously, such " empowered individuals" were forced to act through some kind of collectivity, be it a Mongol horde or a modern state. In the near future, perhaps today, that will not be the case.


In what context do we place this? Would the Mongol "horde" have succeeded to the extent that they did had Temujin not gone after his newlywed? Would Hitler have ascended without first penning Mein Kampf? Would Alexander have been great without Aristotle? In other words did the empires make the emperors or is it the other way around?

4. To what extent does one have to effect a society to earn such distinction? Certainly the above all acted on their own prior to their ascent to greatness and subsequent marks on both history and their own societies. Do we relegate these to super empowered ideas? Or super empowered luck? Super empowered situations?

5. How do you define super empowerment? Why is it often viewed as a theoretical addition (5GW) to the XGW or the GMW instead of a possible tool or element in the same sense of a tank or rifle? What's the threshold that divides it from, say, the simple criminality of the likes of John Hinckley or Jesse Timmendequas both of whom had a considerable effect on their societies? Are these two SEI's? What of Jim Jones? The DC snipers? Rosa Parks? Karl Marx? 50 Cent?

Link: On Open Source Guerrilla Vanguards

While I am just as suspicious of ye ol' foco insurgency --

In Che's model, when the moral crisis was finally precipitated by the vanguard, an organic uprising would rise to replace it with a morally pure form of governance (without the corruption that the formation of a shadow government and party bureaucracy would entail).

--I think that Robb draws the necessary Manichean extrapolation Manicheans must draw when they draw.

This is a very sharp post, until the final paragraph and particularly the last two sentences:

This open source insurgency will only bring fragmentation and perpetual conflict. The vanguard's role, is merely as a catalyst for its formation.

Perhaps Robb has never read my post, "What Openness (in 'Open Source') Will Really Mean/Do", or the comment I left for PurpleSlog on Meme-Based Networks and Gene-Based Networks.

In one respect, Robb in this post reminds me of Col. Hammes.  The groups of super-empowered individuals are always nihilists, and all technology ends in violence, destruction, and so forth, into perpetuity.  Every other effect of super-empowerment -- and of technology -- is entirely ignored.

(HT: Adam Elkus via Facebook.)

We have no future because our present is too volatile. We only have risk management. The spinning of the given moment’s scenarios. Pattern recognition.

-William Gibson, Pattern Recognition

Wiggins (another name soon due for a "redux"; but that's a different post....) of Opposed Systems Design recently posted that quote from Gibson in a post exploring the ideas and writings of that futurist author:

"More Gibson Reading".

I did not remember that quote from the book, but I was immediately reminded of two other things.

My recent post exploring the subject of SEI's, "Heads, Tails, and Edges", contained this nugget:

The Grudger’s calculations are greatly confused by the complexity of the system.  Anyone who has already come into contact with a Grudger provides that Grudger important data for making future decisions relating to interaction with that other, but mysterious strangers observed at a distance suggest mysterious data yet to be acquired.  In a complex and globalizing system, with waves of ramifications emanating from a distance, the Grudger will suspect that he must analyze the influence of distant others about whom he has precious little data — and also, that he must proceed to act, not wait a minute longer, in reaction to distant others, for his own actions may have ramifications against them.  The Grudger may ask, “Do I help to empower them?  What are they already doing to affect my own empowerment?”

The Cheater and the Sucker operate outside of time, in the sense that their orientations remain consistent come what may; but the Grudger is locked in the present (in this complex, globalizing world), always having to shift orientation in order to remain free and empowered.

Very odd how the corollary suddenly appears, since I didn't have Gibson's idea in mind when I wrote that.  I was stretching the limits of my metaphorization, viewing "the present situation" in terms of both, SEI's and the Sucker-Cheater-Grudger dynamic.

I was also reminded, by this corollary, of an old discussion I had with Arherring at my blog Phatic Communion, in which we considered Gibson's Pattern Recognition through the lens of 5GW.  The post has since been cross-posted to D5GW, but without the comments/discussion.

I suppose, now, that the guerrilla marketing referenced by the character Bigend, and the effort to get others to become "aware of something they don't quite yet know that they know" could be tied to the quote given at the beginning of this post.  Such marketing may help to provide the Grudgers with the analysis they cannot already make on their own.  Get them to come to a conclusion about "the present situation," and they can then act -- indeed, they will act, because they must.  It's in their nature.

Hmmmm......

As Thomas L. Friedman describes in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, individuals are ‘super-empowered’ by their access to technology and connectivity, allowing them to act and interact globally. This environment gives them access to an open-source marketplace of ideas and the potential of organizing with others who share their attitudes and ideologies. These organizations may expand knowledge, share music and video, debate obscure topics or act on issues that their members feel strongly about, such as the environment, globalization, religion or politics. With this in mind there is the fascinating possibility for these groups to form and act toward a common goal, possibly becoming practitioners of Fifth Generation Warfare in the context of a decentralized organization.

Imagine a Fifth Generation Starfish, engaging in netwar on a global stage. Imagine an organization that through open-source and parallel design methods incrementally manipulates systems and rule-sets, swarming critical nodes and key decision-makers with multiple, self-organizing attacks that shape responses and influence actions by simultaneously eliminating and offering choices.

I have been working on a new post for the series on "Super-Empowered Individuals and 5GW" begun by Arherring; but his post has inspired thoughts I thought I would break out as a follow-up within the series. I began a comment in response to his, but it has expanded beyond the length of a normal comment and may include ideas requiring exploration separate from those he put forth.

So this post will be in the form of an extended commentary on his.  All quotations not otherwise distinguished are directly from his post.

As globalization economically and socially connects the world , its citizens are paid in the metaphorical ‘coin’ of super-empowerment. However, like a coin, super-empowerment has two sides. You cannot enjoy the benefits of the positive side without the negative flip side. Super-empowerment exploited by the actions of Super-Empowered Angry Men.

Cartoon Heroes by Aqua

We are what we're supposed to be illusions of your fantasy All dots and lines that speak and say What we do is what you wish to do We are the color symphony We do the things you wanna see Frame by frame, to the extreme Our friends are so unreasonable They do the unpredictable All dots and lines that speak and say What we do is what you wish to do It's all an orchestra of strings Doin' unbelievable things Frame by frame, to the extreme One by one, we're makin' it fun We are the Cartoon Heroes - oh-oh-oh We are the ones who're gonna last forever We came out of a crazy mind - oh-oh-oh And walked out on a piece of paper Here comes Spiderman, arachnophobian Welcome to the toon town party Here comes Superman, from never-neverland Welcome to the toon town party We learned to run at speed of light And to fall down from any height It's true, but just remember that What we do is what you just can't do An opera of craziness A bunch of dots that's chasing us Frame by frame, to the extreme One by one, we're makin' it fun We are the Cartoon Heroes - oh-oh-oh We are the ones who're gonna last forever We came out of a crazy mind - oh-oh-oh And walked out onto a piece of paper Here comes Spiderman, arachnophobian Welcome to the toon town party Here comes Superman, from never-neverland Welcome to the toon town party You think we're so mysterious Don't take us all too serious Be original, and remember that What we do is what you just can't do What we do is what you just can't do What we do is what you just can't do What we do is what you just can't do What we do is what you just can't do We are the Cartoon Heroes - oh-oh-oh We are the ones who're gonna last forever We came out of a crazy mind - oh-oh-oh And walked out onto a piece of paper There's still more to come And everyone will be Welcomed at the Toon - Toon Town - Town Party

---

See also:  "On the Barnettian 5GW" and "Follow-up: On the Barnettian 5GW" ;)

From TPMB

Thomas Barnett responded to my post "On the Barnettian 5GW" with "Nice post by Curtis on 5GW."

Shane's right in his comment: I do agree with the vast majority of the post, to include its criticism that my vision to date has relied a lot on stock characters (nations, militaries, corporations).

The reason why I don't just elucidate the super-empowered masses is two-fold:

[TPMB]

Very thrilling to have a response like that, although I must admit I did not expect it.  I didn't expect any direct response, mostly because I know Tom is a very busy man and I'm just a blogger on the sidelines trying to make sense of things -- in my own peculiar way.  So it's also thrilling to have my "take" on Tom's vision validated.  I mean, I made some metaphorical, logical, and horizontal leaps in that post.

Tom's reason behind his lack of elucidation is two-fold.  You can go read it, if you like.  I left this response:

After writing that post, I began to realize my own paradox: Given the stress made at D5GW on secrecy in 5GW operations, my criticism that you haven't outlined the street-level 5GW approach seems a little silly. Of course you haven't. I've been contemplating the ways that much of that outline could be incorporated into your Book III -- even before your response here. In any case, I also realize that your primary audience has thus far matched your prior approach (as well as matching your experience) and that many seeds must be planted for any 5GW endeavor before the flowers can bloom. Anything I've written on the topic, even criticisms on your Core/Gap strategy, has been greatly informed by your work. If I'm co-opted, I would expect my criticisms to be part and parcel of your overall game plan!

BTW, I very much like "the tale of 5GW can only be told in mosaic." I'll probably have to steal that metaphor.

I'm also looking forward to your collaboration with Steve, even if I have to work my way there through #3.

[CGW]

When I mentioned in comments under the original post on D5GW that Tom often speaks in parables, I was not far off in my analysis, I see.  His experience, his connections, his audience, have gone to shape his message thus far; and the superempowered individuals are hidden behind the parabolic figures, "nations, militaries, corporations."  I knew that when I wrote that post.  As part of my own peculiar on-going effort here at D5GW, the analysis of those parables requires elucidation -- but as PurpleSlog once commented, Tom's effort to sell his vision may be 5GW even if the particulars he has thus far outlined are pre-5GW operations when considered in isolation.  That's something to keep in mind.  To the degree that others-who-are-not-Tom take his ideas and run with them, altering them, elucidating them, we might wonder if they are in fact co-opted without knowing they are.

From the ZenPundit

Mark Safranski highlighted my post and Tom's post with "Globalization's Superempowered Societies."

I don't think Curtis' use of " relative equalization of individual empowerment" is actually as oxymoronic as it seems. This is an astute normative economic observation on Week's part. Instead, it illustrates the aggregate effect of Schumpeter's creative destruction rippling across the globe as the spread of economic connectivity and information technology proceeds apace. The spread, of say, cell phone-based wifi internet access to states with sketchy (at best) landline telephone service, is a quantum leap forward for equalization of empowerment on the macro- scale even as certain small networks or individuals of those states on the micro- scale, possess the ability to leverage still greater levels of empowerment to become "more equal than others".

This seeming dichotomy are flip sides of the same coin in any true market action and is always ongoing to some degree, provided the market is permitted to function. Unless the comparative advantage is artificially locked in by force ( this is what tyrants of disconnectivity, like Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il, do - force everyone else to remain still in order to retain their own local "super empowerment"), any individual or entity's "super empowerment" is apt to be a fleeting condition unless constantly maintained by adaptive improvements.

[MS]

If my grasp on complex economics were as good as Mark implied in the first paragraph, I'd have an easier time addressing my uneasiness with his analysis.  On the surface, I understand this completely and somewhat agree; but I'm leery of the subject of 'free markets,' given the fact that even capitalism within democratic societies is certainly not 'free.'  It can't be free, or it wouldn't be capitalism.  For instance, the truly superempowered within a capitalistic society will by definition be the best at adapting to maintain that superempowerment.  Am I wrong?  Then again, the sort of inheritance system we have in America may enable an American bin Laden to emerge one day:  How much time should we give to "the system" to correct such an emergence, given the sort of destruction such an individual could wreak before we realize the nefarious turn?

I suppose I could rephrase those questions and ask:  What keeps the greatly empowered and, especially, the superempowered from tweaking the system in order to "lock in" their relative wealth/power?

And yet, to the degree that those superempowered rely on "the masses" for their power and give "bread and circuses" to the masses, the masses may remain content with the disparity. Something besides the "anti-lock-in" is at work.

Mark makes an excellent point in reference to Tom's "accent on [SEI's] positively remaking the world" --

Numerically speaking, most highly intelligent, energetic, creative and task persistent individuals who function as change agents are overwhelmingly positive actors.

[MS]

-- while cautioning us not to grow complacent given that fact. "Negative super empowered individuals" may emerge.  I particularly like Mark's addition of a potential third ingredient for building systemic resilience capable of surviving and even thriving despite the perturbations a superempowered actor might cause:

Steve's Development-in-a Box paradigm at Enterra is one effort to begin comprehensively addressing these deficits. Tom's Sys Admin is another. Building new, highly decentralized, "Wikinomic" mass-collaborative platforms from scratch, may be yet a third.

[MS]

Where's John Robb?

Ah, there he is.  Should've expected that.  Not exactly a response to my post, but...

Here's the latest entry on his personal blog, short and sweet:

Brave New Peace?

Working on the ideas for a second book (in the proposal stage) on superempowered individuals and their ability change things for the better. It picks up on the last section of BNW on rethinking security and runs with it.

[JR]

It also runs with Mark's and Tom's posts, right on cue.

My initial reaction was the above; then, I thought, Hmmmm...Maybe someone's 5GW is coming together.

And then I thought something even better:  We may one day in the not-too-distant future find Tom, John, and Mark operating in close harmony (with the occasional skeptical remark from CGW lobbed over the fence.)  Essentially, my post exploring the Barnettian 5GW, though it carried the familiar criticism of Robb's GG theory, was critical of Barnett's theory precisely where Robb takes up; that is, at the street level, far below the parabolic national, military, and corporate level.

We will see.

I'm bumping up a comment I left in another thread...

And this is where 5GW on a grand scale may diverge from the current Robb/Hammes approach, which emphasizes one superempowered individual as opposed to generating empowerment across an entire society.

[Steve, commenting on "Kilcullen on Narratives in Iraq."]

Yes. I once included a consideration of the two types of superempowerment when contrasting Barnett with Robb. It would seem that Barnett's approach (which we at D5GW have often labeled "5GWish") requires the general superempowerment of individuals across the spectrum, as an antidote to the Robbian one-man-killing-crew. With regard to some recent considerations on the idea of kinetics, this means creating more routes for the channeling of powers, not only as a distracting maneuver ("jobs" vs "guns") but also as a method of equalizing the kinetics across the system, or forcing kinetics into indirection. It is a kind of perpetual, systemic, mass deflection.

[CGW, responding]

This is a long post, so I'm putting the rest below the fold......

Super-Empowerment of Individuals is one of the drivers of 5GW theory.

John Robb has a new post on a conversation he had on the subject with T.X Hammes entitled: CONVERSATION: TX Hammes on Catastrophic Superempowerment

It is worth the quick read and has a growing comments section.

In a look at "4GW Christianity Around the Blogosphere" Dan recently highlighted some 5GW-related thoughts from Thomas P.M. Barnett's post "Why the yin disconnects from the yang" which are fertile ground for 5GW theorists.  I'm going to break apart the ideas and respond to each in turn with my own take.

I am leaping ahead in this post to a summarizing look at John Robb's Global Guerrillas, fueled by my own thoughts concerning the recent Barnett-Robb 5GW debate as well as a bit by Mark Safranski's thoughts on the matter.  Mostly though, I see that some of my most recent characterizations had latent within them a possible answer to the debate, something I find intriguing enough to justify this leap.  Anyone who has not followed the debate is encouraged to read my last Barnett-Robb post and follow the links from there to the pertinent entries on either man's blog.

Perhaps it is the Zen in the ZenPundit that has led Mark Safranski to ask, "5GW Emergent -- But What is It?" while maintaining neutrality between the opposing views.  Neutrality is of course the wrong word, since he views both approaches with interest and not a little agreement either way.  However, it is Mark's addendum on system perturbations -- and addendum #2, linking to Arherring's consideration of system perturbations here on Dreaming 5GW -- that holds the first key for linking the opposing points of view under the heading "5GW"......