Come the revolution

I had a bit of a ding dong with Conrad Bird, Deputy Director, Government Communication, during a panel at The British Library recently over my use of the title "The Quiet Revolution" for my workshops. Conrad took exception to the word revolution and preferred the use of the more moderate word evolution. The reason I preface the word revolution with "quiet" is that while this thing we are at the start will be revolutionary in terms of how we see ourselves and the world around us I would agree that images of the storming of the Bastille are not really appropriate!

However .....

While this is not a revolution in the sense of being bottom up - those in the middle and the top are in some ways as constrained by the system as those at the bottom - and it is also not revolutionary in the sense of a concerted activities driven by one small group with a particular ideology. It is a gradual, revoltuionary sophistication of how we see ourselves, each other and the world we create.

Reading the section in Here Comes Everybody about the power of self organisation in political contexts, along with watching this video about monetary reform, combined with my previous post on the dangers of right answers all lead me to believe, yet again, that while there may be flaws in the wisdom of the crowds the madness, and misdeeds, of the few are currently a far bigger problem. For every perceived risk of anarchy or chaos I see a benefit in dispersal of the power to misuse or abuse.

Diffuse means collective. We need to see things as shared responsibility and take that responsibility. I am convinced that we will re-invent politics, and hopefully even religion, in ways that enable us to take account of our new found ways of understanding our world and working together to improve it. Capitalism, socialism and the belief in a patriarchal deity all feel like incredibly tired ways of making sense of things. Surely we can do better ....?

Comments

[Patrick]

I have a dislike of the word "revolution": it is used in management-speak when they really mean change.

And revolution comes from the word revolve: and what goes around, comes around...

[George Por]

Better than all according to their talents and capacity, to all according their needs and aspirations?

[Boyd Neil]

The Quiet Revolution was a significant period in Canadian (actually Quebec) history.

Take a look here for a synopsis: http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/events/quiet.htm. There are some obvious parallels; for example, "The first major change that took place during the Quiet Revolution was the large-scale rejection of past values."

[Jon Husband]

Boyd ... All of Canada was changed by Quebec's Quiet Revolution (and yes, it was revolutionary). And yes, Quebec was changed more than the rest of the country.

The point about rejection of past values is important, and plays into the ongoing debate about how much and how fast this web thing is making changes. It seems clear to me that the Web is making much change, quite quickly .. and because there is such a large shift going on, many if not most want "evolution" instead of "revolution". Increased transparency makes systems (and their flaws) more visible, which is just what those who have and hold power in current systems do not enjoy, and so resist in as many ways as they can or know how.

The increased transparency also helps to reveal how much we need each other, and that it is a shared responsibility, as Euan notes, to address our common issues and problems.

[Brendan]

Don't want to be a killjoy, but revolutions tend to be folowed by loud reactionary periods.

But still I agree that this moment in time allows a wonderful window of opportunity if you believe in anarchy and true democracy.

But soon that which frees us can and will enslave us just as fast.

[Alan Bell]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how the sections on self-organisation and the wisdom of the crowd in 'Here Comes Everybody' chime with the arguments in Charles Leadbeater's We-Think? I'm still reading it (and haven't got around to Here Comes Everybody yet) but I'm increasingly convinced by the idea that collective collaboration works best where there is some sort of centre guiding the project, but doing so in a way that pulls in the best the collective has to offer. How that centre is established (self-electing, meritocracy, experience) doesn't seem to matter as much as the fact that it is there. Having some sort of shared and articulated goal (make the best web browser, create a free encyclopaedia etc) seems to be a key factor in pulling the signal from the noise.

[Ben Tremblay]

I like that you've given "diffuse" some nuance (I find myself wondering at its etymology.) but feel the need to raise a cautionary note: certainly complex system find their stability through a dynamic balance rather than some fixity (Heartbeats wander like a staggering drunk and so are flexible and robust!), orbiting around as though a strange attractor.

But the widening gyre always threatens to snap, in which case the orbiting elements are loosed ... random dissipation where there had been the diffusion of information-rich chaos.

I suggested in Stowe's blog that our magpie/blue-jay fascination has us mis-take trivial bobbles for truly social objects.

"Data, data everywhere, and naught a thought to think!"

[Euan W Semple]

I wouldn't argue against the risk of chasing shiny things but would still err towards a "diffuse" process for deciding importance.