Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Human networks rule because we are fundamentally creatures of community

By Mark Randell - posted Friday, 2 May 2003


We shape our tools, and our tools shape us. Often the shaping is at a social (group) level, rather than an individual one.

Consider the changes in management practices, and in society at large, over the past, say, 40 years. The general tendency has been to a flattening of hierarchies, and a more "network" style of management - this has been reflected in society.

Correspondingly - and who is to say which followed which - the principal tool of our modern world, the computer, has shifted from an individual tool available only to the elite, to a networked tool available to all (well, nearly all).

Advertisement

"The network is the computer," said Sun Microsystems, in one of the most prescient marketing slogans of all time. And so it was. Management gurus discovered the same idea - hierarchies are not the way, the way (that can be followed) is flatter, more peer-to-peer, more networked, less hierarchical. Our social and managerial practices mirrored our technologies, our tools. As the computer networks grew, we moved to a more egalitarian social model.

Are our technologies (ie. the computer) and our social organisation driven by the same principles? Do both reflect a shift from "nodes" (the power of the individual) to "networks" (the power of relationships)? Is this only a feature of Western models, social organisation and technology use?

The answer to the last question is probably: "Partly." There is some evidence that Westerners and those of "Eastern" descent tend to deal with the world differently. Whereas Westerners tend to see things in terms of categories (father), "Eastern" peoples see things in terms of relationships (father-of). "Eastern" philosophies have long emphasised the relatedness of all things, rather than the things themselves.

The answer to the earlier questions, in my opinion, is "probably". There would seem to be myriad pieces of evidence that we are beginning to move away from concentration on the "thing" to the "relationship between things" in almost every aspect of our environmental, economic and social behaviours. "Putting a human face on our technologies" consists, then, at least partly of this recognition - that we are related beings, not individual ones.

As a first example, the entire phenomenon of "groupware" - software designed to enhance collaborative work - springs to mind. Groupware has been one of the fastest-growing categories of software in the last decade.

The rise of the Internet is perhaps the most visible example of our new emphasis on the network - with vast consequences for software companies from Microsoft down the economic tree. Human consequences - layoffs, the downturn of whole regions - have followed our shift from the individual to the networked.

Advertisement

In the social arena, the move of "community development" out of the local government arena into property development, mining companies, and other commercial groups, is an obvious example of our new-found (at least in the West) devotion to the group, the community. With it has come a whole new vocabulary: social capital, community capacity, community of interest, and so on.

And here's the rub.

In our move from concentration on empowering the individual to making the most of networks and networking, we have overshot our empirical base. There is a paucity of models on which to base, for example, community development, leaving our activities searching for a theory to act within. The end result is diversity of opinion on what "community development" is, how to "build community", what exactly "social capital" consists of, and so on.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Randell is the Principal of Human Sciences, a community development consultancy based in Fremantle, WA. He has worked in the commercial, government and academic sectors.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark Randell
Related Links
Human Sciences
Other articles by Mark Randell
Photo of Mark Randell
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy