Politics, Activism and the Net
Many of this week’s reading discuss the ability of the Internet - decentralized networks, and their functions - to facilitate democracy and activism. However, a common anecdote among the articles is the particular failure of a political campaign structured in large part on decentralized networks.
Johnson bases his paper on “emergence” on the functional differences between clustering and coping mechanisms. Clustering, or intelligent crowd forming as he defines it, seems to have a magnetic affect of attracting individuals for a united cause or purpose. This can be effective in developing initial constituencies, and at drawing in contributions, a necessary and effective buzz for a political campaign - the “snowflake” analogy which Johnson refers to. But effective campaigning must be dynamic to be effective - it must have leadership, as well as feedback loops from precincts, communities, etc. upwards. This would be coping mechanism, which Johnson identifies as being absent in the Dean campaign.
Bennett finds similar challenges in decentralized networks. While such organizations are capable at bringing together diverse groups in effective activist campaigns, their unifying ideology does not translate into cohesion. As the issue of focus changes, groups or individuals may become satisfied, and depart the activist network, while others may remain seeking different ends. In a larger context, a common enemy - or opposition to a certain entity or policy - may be the only common trait. In the case of the Dean campaign, there appears to have been network organization more focused on opposition - to the relection of President Bush, war, or a status quo Democratic party - rather than unity around the candidate itself.
This theme is ultimately echoed by Farrell. Dean, he notes, “was attractive because he claimed to represent the ‘Democratic wing of the Democratic Party’”. He also cites Kos and Armstrong: Dean “tapped into frustration over the lack of opposition to Bush”. Thus, the Dean supporters were firstly, to large extent, against Bush, against centrist-capitulation, and only then, for Dean. Since “the netroots conceive of themselves as a non-ideologial movement” they lack the capacity to define and achieve the ‘big ideas’.
So, there is a thread of argument that the Internet - evident in netroots and blogging, decentralized networking, or activism organizing - can be effective in clustering tenuously-united individuals and groups in oppositional campaigns. Each ‘node’ can take up its efforts in the campaign at its own pace and its own fashion, come and leave as they choose, and yet the organization can still maintain a critical mass. The organization also has little to lose - either status quo remains, or positive change occurs. But in a poltiical campaign, where timeframes are defined, the stakes greater, and there a definite ‘loser’, feedback and coping mechanisms are required. Organizing won’t suffice - management is needed. There would seem to be a limit to the ability of the decentralized network to be effective - it can unify in opposition, where there is nothing to lose, but is not sufficient to sustain the rigors of a election.