Recently, the
BBC broadcast a series of films by Adam Curtis, the eminent British documentarian. These films were broadcast under the title,
All watched over by machines of loving grace, and, in general, all focused on how models of computation and systems have been applied to the world around us.
Curtis is well known for his sharp journalism, particularly in areas pertaining to the politics of power.
All watched over... differed from his previous documentaries owing to its focus on technology, computers and systems, but the theme of power was nevertheless omnipresent, as was the sharp journalism. I thought some of Curtis' ideas were worth further comment here.
In part two of
All watched over..., entitled
"The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts", Curtis focused on
cybernetics and
systems theory. Since ex-members of our team were experts in cybernetics I was particularly interested in what he had to say. Curtis examined how cybernetics and systems theory came to be applied to natural ecosystems, and how this gave rise to a distorted view of how nature worked in reality. The very fact that ecosystems are termed "eco-
systems" suggests the extent of systems thinking in nature. Indeed,
Sir Arthur Tansley, the celebrated ecology pioneer, coined the term in the 1930s. Tansley was fascinated by Freud's theories of the human brain and, in particular, his theory that the brain was essentially an interconnected electrical machine carrying bursts of energy around the brain through networks, much like electrical circuits. As an ecologist, Tansley became convinced that such a model also applied to the whole of nature believing that the natural world was governed by a network of machine-like systems which were inherently stable and self-correcting. These theories of ecosystems and cybernetics were to fuse together in the late 1960s.
One of the earliest pioneers of cybernetic systems was
Jay Forrester. Prof. Forrester (or Emeritus Professor of MIT as he is now) was a key figure in the development of US defence systems in the late 1940s and early 1950s and with his colleagues he developed theories of feedback control systems and the role of feedback loops in regulating – and keeping in equilibrium – systems. The ecology movement assimilated this idea and increasingly viewed the natural world as complex natural systems as it helped to explain how stability was reached in the natural world (i.e. via natural feedback loops). Forrester's experience of developing digital combat information systems and the role of cybernetic systems in resolving such problems inspired him to explore systems difficulties in alternative domains, such as organisations. This would become known as
Systems Dynamics. As the
Systems Dynamics Society note:
"Forrester's experiences as a manager led him to conclude that the biggest impediment to progress comes, not from the engineering side of industrial problems, but from the management side. This is because, he reasoned, social systems are much harder to understand and control than are physical systems. In 1956, Forrester accepted a professorship in the newly-formed MIT School of Management. His initial goal was to determine how his background in science and engineering could be brought to bear, in some useful way, on the core issues that determine the success or failure of corporations."
Forrester used computer simulations and cybernetic models to analyse social systems and predict the implications of different models. As Curtis notes in his film, Forrester and others cybernetic theorists increasingly viewed humans as nodes in networks; as machines which demonstrated predictable behaviour.
Curtis is rather unkind (and incorrect, IMHO) in his treatment of Forrester during the 70s environmental crisis. Forrester's "world model" - created under the auspices of the
Club of Rome and published in the seminal
"Limits to Growth" - is portrayed in a negative light in Curtis' film, as is the resulting computer model. Yet, systems theory is supposed to provide insight not clairvoyance. This isn't reflected in Curtis' film. Forrester's model appears now to have been reasonably accurate and was later amended to take account of some of the criticisms Curtis highlights. And few could argue with the premise that destiny of the world is for zero growth; to maintain a "steady state stable equilibrium" within the capacity of the Earth.
Anyway, summarising the intricacies of Curtis' entire polemic in this brief blog posting is difficult; suffice to say the aforementioned intellectual trajectory (i.e. cybernetics, ecosystems, etc.) fostered a widespread belief that because humans were part of a global system they should demonstrate self-organising and self-correcting properties, as demonstrated by feedback control systems and most potently exemplified in the natural world by ecosystems. In particular, these ideas were adopted by the computer utopians (
The California Ideology) who dreamt of a global computer network in which all participants were equal and liberated from the old power hierarchies; a self-organising network, regulated by data and information feedback loops. Of course, the emergence of the Web was considered the epitome of this model (remember the utopian predictions of the Web in the mid-90s?) and continues to inspire utopian visions of a self-organising digital society.
The inherent contradiction of the self-organising system is that despite rejecting hierarchical power structures such systems in the end actually foster concentrations of power and hierarchy. Curtis cites the failure of the hippie communes, such as
Synergia which implemented failed "ecotechnics", and the relative failure of revolutions in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Iran, all of which were coordinated via the Web. And, I suppose, we could extend this to examples in the so-called Arab Spring where the desire for change during the revolution, often orchestrated via Facebook and Twitter, has not always been replicated afterwards.
On this count I feel Curtis is probably correct, and aspects of his conclusion extend further. Indeed, the utopian vision of egalitarian self-organising computer networks continues and has been rejuvenated most recently by social media and "new tech", or Web 2.0 as it is now unfashionably called. Even examples which epitomise the so-called self-organising principle, such as
Wikipedia, have morphed into hierarchical systems of power. This is partly because not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia can be as trusted as the next; but it is more because groups of users with a particular world view coalesce to assert their views aggressively and religiously. Editing wars are commonplace and new article rating systems have been introduced, both of which are prone to John Stuart Mill's theories on the tyranny of the majority - all within a Wikipedia ecosystem. Contributions are increasingly governed by a hierarchy of Wikipedia Reviewers who wield their powers to scrutinise, edit, and delete flagged articles. (Ever tried creating a new article on Wikipedia? It's not as easy as you think. Within seconds you will contacted by a reviewer. They relish their control over the type of knowledge Wikipedia publishes, and they make sure you know it…)
But the same erosion of self-organisation can be applied to the disproportionate growth of particular topics within social bookmarking systems (which are supposed to provide a self-organising and egalitarian way of organising information), or those who have come to dominate the blogosphere or Twittersphere. Even a social networking behemoth like Facebook is, in itself, a quintessential mechanism of control and power. Hundreds of millions of users subjected to Facebook's power and the control over personal data that it implies. So while some users may feel liberated within the Facebook ecosystem, aspects of their identity and, perhaps, their economic and political freedom have been relinquished. I'm not sure this is an issue
Clay Shirky addressed satisfactorily in
his recent monograph, so perhaps he and Curtis should arrange a chat.
Yet, it is incredible how pervasive the ecosystem metaphor has become. Discussing the new tech bubble
on BBC News recently,
Julia Meyer rationalised it as "ecosystem economics". Says Meyer:
"...very distinct "ecosystems" have emerged during the past half-decade […] Each of these camps are deeply social - there is a network at its core.
"Companies like LinkedIn and Groupon have significant and growing revenues. While these may not entirely support their valuations, they clearly point to the fact that business models plus their understanding of the network-orientation of all business is on the right track. For those of us who finance entrepreneurship in Europe, what this means is we're mostly going to help build "digital Davids" - companies who understand how to re-organise the economics to create robust and sustainable businesses where everybody wins - customers, retailers and ultimately of course, investors.
"So why are firms like Groupon worth billions? How can something as simple as organising a group discount be so powerful? Because ecosystem economics is at play."
Huh. Ecosystems? Networks? Sustainability where "everyone wins"? Re-organising networks? I smell something dodgy – and I'm not referring to the men's lavatory in the John Foster Building.
This is a bit of a tangent but a relevant and useful one!
