On Thu, 27 May 1999, Tom Walker wrote:
>Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>I think this is where the discussion needs to begin: 1. can networks be
>co-ordinated without being SUB-ordinated?
Comms networks certainly can, that is the definition/magic of the
Internet!
>
>2. could such co-ordinated networks serve as a good model for the state?
>The historical evidence suggests "sometimes" and "no".
>
>The reason networks don't serve as a good model for the state is that
>participation in a network presupposes and rewards conformism to a higher
>degree than does hierarchy. Your boss may order you to wear a suit, but your
>colleagues will ostracize you for wearing the wrong brand of running shoes.
>More to the point, they will ostracize you for being either too articulate
>or inarticulate. As Groucho Marx said, "I wouldn't want to be a member of a
>club that would have me as a member."
>
Actually, I would have thought that exactly the opposite was true... It is
in hierarchical organizations where conformity is most
enforced/enforceable... Dispersed networks allow for diversity precisely
because they are dispersed and the co-ordination of the network is done
only through limited areas of agreed upon conformity (language, standards,
addresses)...
>regards,
>
>Tom Walker
>http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
>
M
