Hierarchy in Distributed Networks
- Article: Hierarchy in Distributed Networks. By David de Ugarte.
Excerpted from the book: The Power of Networks
Text
David de Ugarte:
“The capacity to transmit is the capacity to bring people together, to summon up the collective will, to act. The capacity to transmit is a precondition for political action.
And in every decentralised
structure, such a capacity
really is exclusive to very few nodes.
In distributed networks, by definition, nobody depends
exclusively on anyone else in order to send his message to
a third party. There are no unique filters. In both kinds of
network “everything is connected to everything,” but in
distributed networks the difference lies in the fact that any
transmitter doesn't have to always go necessarily through
the same nodes in order to reach others. A local newspaper
doesn't have to sell its version of an event to an agency
journalist who has just come to the area, and a local
politician in a village doesn't need to convince all his
regional and provincial colleagues in order to reach his
fellow party members in other parts of the country.
Don't distributed networks have political forms of
organisation then? The thing is that we have become so
used to living within decentralised
power networks that
we tend to confuse the organisation of representation with
the organisation of collective action. The perversion of decentralisation
has reached such a degree that “democracy”
has become synonymous with electing representatives –
that is, filter nodes.
What defines a distributed network is, as Alexander
Bard and Jan Söderqvist say, that
every individual agent decides for himself, but
lacks the capacity and opportunity to decide for
any of the other agents.
In this sense, every distributed network is a network
between equals, even though some nodes may be better
connected than others. But what is important is that,
within such a system, decision making is not binary. It's
not a matter of “yes” or “no”. It's a matter of “to a greater
or lesser degree.”
Someone makes a proposal and everyone who wishes
to join in can do so. The range of the action in question
will depend on the degree to which the proposal is
accepted. This system is called a pluriarchy, and,
according to the same authors,
it makes it impossible to maintain the fundamental
notion of democracy, where the majority decide
for the minority whenever there are disagreements.
Even if the majority not only disagreed with a
proposal, but also acted against it, it wouldn't be able to
prevent the proposal from being carried out. Democracy is
in this sense a scarcity system: the collective must face an
either/or choice, between one filter and another, between
one representative and another.
It is easy to see why there is no conventional
“direction” within pluriarchic networks. But you can also
see that it is inevitable that groups will arise whose aim
will be to bring about a greater ease of flow within
networks. These are groups that specialise in proposing
and facilitating group action. They are usually inwards rather
than outwards-oriented, although in the end they are
inevitably taken for representatives of the whole of the
network or, at least, for an embodiment of the identity that
defines them. Members of these groups are netocrats
within each network – in a certain sense, network leaders,
as they cannot make decisions but can use their own
careers, their prestige, and their identification with the
values of the whole or a part of the network to call for
group action.
What happens when a distributed structure clashes
with a decentralised one?
The decentralised structure has
the upper hand when it comes to mobilisation capabilities
and speed. In recent years, there have been plenty of
examples of rulers who have thought that controlling
traditional filters (i.e. press and TV) would be enough to
condition the citizenship by ensuring that only the most
convenient pieces of news reached them. However, the
emergence of the new information networks led them to
come up against thousand of citizens who had taken to the
streets. In some cases (Philippines, Spain, etc.), it has led
them to resign. But what matters most is not so much the
result of those demonstrations as what they were
symptoms of.
Thousands of pages have been written trying to
fathom where the power of text messages, the electronic
“word of mouth”, lies, but that is really only the tip of the
iceberg. The truth is that these cyberthrongs would have
been unthinkable in the absence of a new distributed mode
of communication.”
(http://deugarte.com/gomi/the-power-of-networks.pdf)