The Illusion of Authority Or The Allegory of the Cave Dweller

On 2014 Planet Earth it seems to be a given that there are some people and institutions that are generally acknowledged to have "authority" over certain persons and people groups. In other words, have the legal right to exercise power over people. Why? Who gave them the right to exercise physical, economic, and even psychological force upon another person? Where is the natural autonomy of the individual? When and how do these natural rights conflict with the constraints of living in a civilization? Can a person be free in 2014? In this short piece, I would like to evaluate and challenge the nature of "authority" and its current role as judge and jury in society. It is my hope that by the end of this entry you will not accept any "authority" simply because it exists, but instead question everything because it is your right and your responsibility as a naturally free person.

I feel like I need to be upfront. I am not writing this entry in a vacuum; this subject did not just swipe across my mind like an idea on InspirationCupid. I have dealt with it my whole life. As a child, I never understood why I should just do what someone told me because they told me to do it. As an adult I have never lost this tenacity to always ask why? It has not always been the easiest road, but I have felt compelled in school, church, the workplace, and in society to ask for an accounting of why things are the way there are. However, I have found that people and institutions have always been taken aback by my relentless pursuit of accounting. Even in the business world—which western civilization seems so keen to idolize—critical thinking and innovation are lauded and praised; yet questioning of authority is punished. Are not innovation and "insubordination" based on the same idea? Furthermore, is not democracy based on the idea of ideological synthesis? When one idea becomes outdated, archaic, or unuseful then should it not be scrapped for a new more appropriate idea? However, this process cannot take place in a world where power is maintained out of fear of change. Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; and hate to suppression. Conversely, dissent leads to dissatisfaction; dissatisfaction leads to innovation; innovation leads to progress. This is the purpose of my piece: to dispel with the theory that challenging "authority" is a bad thing. On the contrary, I plan to argue that "authority" is simply an illusion based on fear and perceived power. My thesis will also lead to a suggestion: rebellion in every corner of society for without dissent progress is impossible.

Let's start with a story:

Once upon a time in a land probably not too far from where you are sitting there wandered a group of hunter-gathers. Every day or so a couple of the folks in the group would go out on a hunt and bring back a kill for everyone in the group to share. However, at some point two of the hunters—let's call them Jeff and Dean—were sitting around a campfire with the kill in between them. One of them, Jeff, had been the one who thrust the spear that killed the deer. Jeff wasn't always the one who threw the killshot but on this occasion he was. Most of the time it was someone different and no one bothered to squabble over who had done what. The basic narrative was "we gotta eat" so everyone pitched in. On the day in question though something changed.

On that day Jeff felt like he should be entitled to more of the kill. He may have felt this way for a number of reasons (fear of not having enough next time; jealousy at how much someone else had taken by sheer coincidence; or simple black and white greed, among other possibilities), but when it is all said and done Jeff felt privileged and wanted to keep the booty for himself.

He picked up the carcass and started to drag it off to a cave when Dean stopped him and looked at the kill and then back at Jeff several times before realizing what he was doing. No one had ever tried to keep something back for themselves before so he had no point of reference for Jeff's actions. So, since Dean was hungry he reached for a piece of the meat only to have Jeff raise up to full height, pound his chest, and scream at Dean, intimidating him to back down. Dean being the smaller of the two knew he was no physical match for Jeff so he let him go and joined the others who looked on with wonder as Jeff climbed a hill to the nearest cave to store his treasure in a defensible area.

The other folks of the group did not understand what was going on either so they ascended the hill of Jeff's new cave dwelling and attempted to enter to obtain some of the meat; they were hungry. When they got close Jeff again raised up to full height and intimidated them with his strength. Jeff, though he had always been the most strong of the group, now positioned himself as the lone alpha; the one in charge because everyone else was either too afraid or too hungry to challenge him.

After the others realized that they are not going to get any food from Jeff they simply organized another hunting party without him. Like every other hunt they went out into the wildlands, captured their prey, and brought it back to camp to share with everyone. However, when they came back they found Jeff waiting for them.

In all his time on the mountain Jeff had started to look down on the rest of the group—literally and figuratively. Since he had a steady supply of food he did not need to joint the hunt (thought I suspect the others may have been wary about him joining anyway, considering his previous actions). When he started running low Jeff had an epiphany: It was his strength of intimidation that had won him the carcass last time; maybe he could do it again. When the hunting party came back to shouts of joy and thankfulness from the rest of the group, Jeff was waiting at the edge of the clearing with a devious smirk on his face. He moved to take the meat. Again, the others were not used to selfishness so they thought they maybe he was simply trying to help them carry it back to camp. However, it did not take them long to realize that he was dragging it back up to his cave again to hide away and gorge.

This time the group confronted him, but Jeff—having an excess of nutrition while the others starved—had a size and energy advantage and intimidated them into submission. The others would continue to starve while Jeff gorged on his booty by virtue of his brawn.

Though the group tried to get around Jeff's notice time and time again, he always inevitably came for his due. After a while others started hoarding resources too in order to keep them from Jeff. They even took to the hills to protect their food from Jeff's and consequently each others' (they now started to doubt each other too) evil grips. After performing this grift several times Jeff started to feel entitled—not by his strength—but by right. However, Jeff had come to realize that this wedding feast couldn't last forever (a few of the others had started giving him contemptuous looks) so he invented a system by which people felt obligated to feed him with their labor in exchange for his good graces.

"It's the natural order of things," he would say. "I am the chosen one to preside over the food. If you will bring me all of the kills then I won't kill you. However, I am a just ruler; I will give you a piece of every kill you deliver."

The people out of their fear of Jeff's brawn and status as the Cave Dweller accepted the deal. So, from then on out Jeff had "authority" over the food to divvy out as he saw fit. He had no natural or divine right in reality, but had scared the people into believing that he had some special status because of… well, whatever he chose to tell them. My guess would be the blessing of the stars or gods. In reality he was just bigger than them and had scared them long enough that they thought he deserved it by right.

Eventually, the group would grow so accustomed to their new master lording their own labor over them and being malnourished that Jeff would be able to swindle a few of them into increasing his stock in brawn. Jeff realized that he could amass such a wealth of meat that it would not hurt his gorging feasts one iota if he were to break off a little bit of sinew and tendon here and there in exchange for increasing his dominion. So, he goes into the group—as they now bow the knee to the master of the meat—and chooses the five biggest and strongest people to come with him back to his cave. They look at each other apprehensively—for they were all even more scared of Prophet Jeff than they were of Strongman Jeff—yet they eventually marched up with him.

When they arrived he set out a hunk of meat for them five times the portion of the normal ration. They had been so hungry that their mouths watered at the sight. Jeff beaconed them to feast. After they had feasted they sat down against the cave walls satisfied with their "blessing." Jeff was also satisfied but for another reason. He then gave a speech…

"My friends," he began. "You are such a noble group among those swine down there in the group. Your muscles are strong; your legs swift; and your hunt reliable. You are clearly blessed by the gods and deserve to be up here with me on high, not down in the pits with the pissants."

They all looked at each other questionably. They had never considered themselves qualitatively in relation to the others before. It was really everyone else and Jeff at this juncture in human history. However, they felt so satisfied with their 5x portions and their greedy sides liked that they could look down from the top of the mountain at the others (who were coincidentally at that very moment glaring up at the cave wondering what had become of the five). By virtue of the place that Jeff had put them they indeed felt "above" the others; they belonged there. They agreed.

"Excellent," Jeff glowed "You are the peacekeepers of the cave. You are in charge of protecting the meat and me from any predator foreign (other animals) and domestic (other humans in the group). In return for your services I will give 3x the normal portion of the hunt!" He said the last part like it was a great blessing and showed them their bounty.

"That 3x portion doesn't look as big as what you just gave us," one of the brave newly dubbed guardians piped up.

In reality, Jeff was being greedy and trying to keep the extra 2/5 to himself, but he was a sly devil… "That extra portion is for the gods who have demanded a sacrifice."

"Why do the gods need meat?"

Jeff smacked the warrior. Though Jeff had put on a considerable amount of weight since the beginning of his grift, he was still the biggest person in the group.

"Because they demand it."

Again, Jeff had intimidated his "subjects" into obedience. Only this time he retained their loyalty out of fear and reward.

For the rest of his life Jeff sat on his hill fattening himself off of the labor of the group. He sat in his cave dwelling "communing with the gods" (which really meant he was eating, eating, eating) while his band of brothers met each hunting party at the edge of the clearing to take in their take to bring back to the cave.

(Jeff had long since abandoned the whole "take the whole carcass and divvy a portion out among the group" scheme. He had made it much more efficient. Now, the hunting party simply had to turn over 3/4 of the kill. They could keep the last 1/4 for the group. After all, they'd earned it, Jeff would assert. Jeff then gave a small portion to his guards and stored the rest away for himself.)

As the years went by Jeff grew older and his appearance was matched only by his mystique. In his old years he never left his cave. Year after year he received his due as the gods commanded and the rest of the group shouldered his lavishness with their labor and hunger. Eventually though, Jeff came to his deathbed. By now he had come up with a fantastic group of rituals that he “received from the gods” that were performed on him day and night by his band of brothers, but he was still dying. One day he died and the group became at a loss: What would they do without their leader? How could they function if there was no one to divvy up the hunt? Who would tell them how much to eat? To whom would the band of brothers be loyal?

It didn't take long for the band of brothers to realize that they were now in power. They were the ones that the group was coming to for their answers and so they all separately got it into their heads that they each should be the new Cave Dweller. So, they all sat around a campfire and chewed on a piece of meat to try to figure out who should be the new leader. When their shares ran out and they had not yet figured out whom the new leader was, one of them—Abed—picked up another chunk from the stockpile.

When the others reached for the carcass as well Abed stood up full height, stared them down, and intimidated them with a primal scream and a show of brawn. A second man tried to scream back, but was shouted and then pushed down by Abed. The others were also invigorated to challenge this would-be-meat-hoarder yet none—out of their fear—rose to the task. Thus, the next Cave Dweller was chosen by strength of arms—literally.

This cycle continued until someone realized that the same process kept happening over and over again. Apparently, there was something systematic and consequently—in the mind of the brainwashed—natural to this order.

Fast-forward a few millennia...

Jeff and Abed's successors do not need to bother themselves with storing meat away in caves anymore. They have factories all over the country producing so much pork that the pig feces are in endangering the water supplies. And they don't live in caves anymore. Now they take their booty up private elevators to their posh penthouse suites in Manhattan or DC. The setting has changed, but the game stays the same.

You will recall that Jeff's whole "authority" structure started out of fear. The cooperative environment that the Cave Dweller was born into was harmonious; everyone had his or her fare share of work and reward. There is no difference today. Though the complexities of sustenance have changed, the principles have remained the same. Instead of a small group going out into the forest to hunt, individuals trek from their individual homes to their workplaces where in exchange for their labor they are given pieces of paper that Jeff's successors have assured them can be exchanged for anything they need if they have enough. However, Jeff's successors also create the rates at which these exchanges can be made.

The successors also have developed their own band of brothers, which they use to shield themselves from the group down the mountain (the workers from the previous paragraph). Instead of finding the five strongest warriors they have created systems to create the strongest warriors. By teaching their intimidation techniques to people who will trade their allegiance from the rest of the group to the successors, they are rewarded with more pieces of paper for trading and also societal rules that make it a punishable offense to fight back. Thus the military and police forces of today are given not only great rewards and guaranteed safety in return for their allegiance, but also a piece of the inherited "rights" of Jeff's successors.

The People in this story have faired no better than their hunting-and-gathering ancestors. As a matter of fact, their plight is much worse. Instead of trying to deal with one despot and his cronies hoarding their labor, we are left to deal with a system that produces despots and lionizes the tenants that create more cronies in a circle of violence, abuse, and corruption. The lustful spoils of such evil even inspire envy in some, producing wanna-be strongmen in the home, school, and workplace all motivated by the same factor—fear.

Jeff and his crew lorded over the rest of their fellow humans in the same way that bankers, politicians, bosses, gangsters, "private security", military commanders, cops, and domestic losers do now: out of fear, intimidation, greed, and selfishness.

"Authority" in the hierarchical top-down model that is practiced today from Presidents to Paupers is designed out of fear to use intimidation to keep control over the means of social stability. The world could function just fine in a cooperative model where everyone chips in and reaps the rewards equally, but it is kept divided by those who would hoard the abundant resources of the good Earth as a means to control how those resources are distributed. Such figures have been sly for millennia, convincing us that they deserve the responsibility (and reward) by virtue of their blessing as being divinely inspired, democratically chosen, or—worse still—a conquering ruler.

This privilege is an illusion based on the ignorance of the People and the willful deception of those in power. There is not one "authority" figure on Earth whether they be a King, CEO, or Police Commissioner who does not know deep down in the back of their consciousness that they are one uprising away from usurpation or the gallows.

Part of the blame lies with those first humans who let Jeff wander off with that first carcass. Had Dean picked up a rock, bashed him over the head with it, and put the meat back out for the group then maybe civilization would not have (d)evolved into a society of have's and have-not's. If the group had come together and decided amongst themselves that this "authority" thing wasn't working out for them and gave Abed and the band of brothers the same fate, then maybe we wouldn't have a militarized police force deciding who are the patriots and the terrorists. Today such a democratic coup de tat is not so easily accomplished. Jeff's successors have done a fantastic job of dividing the people down the mountain by race, class, and creed. They has so convinced the people that they are different that the have forgotten that they are one—and always have been—under the boot heel of Jeff, Abed, the band of brothers, and their kin.

Jeff and his successors have been smart. Rocks to the back of the head don't work anymore for when you cut the head off of one of these serpents two more sprout up in their place by virtue of the systems they've created. However, I am convinced that if the people came back together from their disparate caves and decided to work together that they could replace Jeff and his successors' dirty schemes with more natural and cooperative systems that make sure that everyone has access to the booty of the good clean Earth and not just a few who hide their spoils away in some god-blessed cave on Wall Street or Capitol Hill.

Authority is a powerful illusion, but it is a mirage nevertheless. We can remove it...one "disobedience" at a time.

On Social Media PART V: The Yin and The Yang Or The Fifth Limb and The Third Eye

So we come to the end...

I have spent the last month dissecting, analyzing, and qualifying the social media experience into four digestible blocks in order to evaluate its utility and place in the world. From conjecture to personal experience I have tried to present social media as a tool that can be used for good and a digital drug that can addict a person into complacency—at best it ignites revolutions and at worst it incapacitates. In my fifth and final installment, I would like to analyze one more aspect of social media that I think is overlooked before moving on to judgment— its medicinal value. By creating a digital space free of many of the constraints of the "real world", the Network has given a voice to some of the voiceless; access to people, places, and ideas otherwise inaccessible for those who are differently-abled; and removed many stumbling blocks of communication and learning for the otherwise challenged. 

The Internet has facilitated a stupefyingly rapid shrinkage of the world. Destinations and cultures that are half a world away have been brought near with the click of a mouse and knowledge that was once reserved for the privileged is now quickly becoming accessible to even the financially poorest human with access. It has also created similar near-light speed-fast access to other humans.

People who once were far off are no longer incommunicado thanks to the Network. It used to be a great privilege to phone someone in another state, but now, voice and video services from Facebook to Google allow for instant calls and even video chats with people across the globe… for free. Communication has become so accessible that we don't even need a specific person to contact anymore; we even meet new people online.

Such instant access is a tremendous blessing for a lot of people. Physical travel between two places is a great impediment to some and impossible for others. These inhibitions make it less likely for some differently-abled folks to participate in certain realms, sometimes even in simple ways that we may take for granted like communicating at all. However, the Network shrinks this gap. Modern technology allows for a variety of ways to get ideas from the neural pathways to the electrical ones.

It may not be as instant as the (dys/u)topian Matrix that I described in PART I of this series (yet), but thought-to-type apparatuses are not science-fiction anymore; the hearing-impaired can read chat boxes in the same way a person with "normal" functioning ear drums; the mute can communicate their ideas with relative ease with folks who might not know sign language with a few clicks of the keyboard; and most importantly (IMO) when engaging online one would never know anyone with any of these or many other conditions is any different than themselves. Any assumption one makes of anyone else while in the Network comes from her or his own preconditioned biases. In the Network, our avatars are all created equal; anyone is free to share ideas, organize campaigns, entertain, and validate herself or himself just like anyone else with access.

If the great disease of humanity is hatred based on perceived difference, then the Network is its medicine, because we are all 1's and 0's in the digital world.

- - -

It has come time for my judgment.

I do not claim to speak for anyone else nor think that my opinion is deserving of any sort of special recognition or validation. I simply offer it as a thinker who has by the good grace of the Cosmos been blessed with the time, freedom, and access to ponder the nature of human character and Her creations. I have spent the past month pouring and musing over the question of whether social media and the digital Network that it is creating is a good or bad thing: Is it helpful or hurtful? Is it creating opportunity or destroying community? Is it igniting human creativity or suppressing it? Is the Great Democratizer or Big Brother?

When I began this series I thought I would have an answer to those questions. I honestly thought that I would unmask social media for the Soma-of-the-Brave-New-World-of-the-21st-Century that it is. However, in the time that I have spent ruminating on it in private and publicly here with you, I have realized the yin and the yang of social media; the blessings and the curses. Even now, as I write this, "Google Now" is being unveiled and lightning storms of new possibilities are striking in neural pathways and computer chips all over the world. Google is offering you and me an easier and more connected life, but it comes at a price— it wants our location at all times. It wants us to open our hearts, minds, wallets, and privacy and in return it will tell us how to destroy just enough space/time to maximize our enjoyment in life. It promises us heaven on Earth in return for our allegiance.

Like Andromeda and the Milky Way galaxies in a billion or so years, the “real world” and the Network are merging. Only at this scale they are merging at a quantum level. Every day we are faced with a choice of whether to sacrifice some of our "real world" and ourselves for an idealized representation of it and us online. The Network offers the potential to cure our ails; set us on equal footing with every other human; and enwrap us in digital ecstasy. Yet, it comes at a price: it may be our privacy; it may be our confidence; and it may be our soul.

Aristotle posited that the soul was simply the accumulation of one's habits. There is no denying the evolution of the matter: if we use social media as a tool then it has been become an inextricable fifth limb or third eye. However, for the one who seeks their validation or self-worth and posts (or reads) religiously out of a need for the "look at me" factor—for the dread of the anxiety of "real world" interaction—then I fear that the Network has become a purgatory for the soul.

In H.G. Wells’ famous work The Time Traveller, the protagonist travels to the year 802,701 where he encounters two groups of people. One of them—the Eloi (the Hebrew derivation of this word translates to "gods")—is a meek and peaceful people that sought out enlightenment and learning over the millennia. The other group—the Morlocks—lives underground and is a frightful and savage bunch that retreated below into the safety of the darkness. In 802,700 years social media and the Internet will have come and gone, however, I can see these two groups representing our futures.

Those who would seek out peace and learning will become more frail for the technologies they will create will replace human labor and allow us to focus more on the mysteries of the Cosmos. I do not foresee such creatures milling about their time in a digital daze; they will be busy evolving in the light.

However, I can also imagine a group who is committed so much to their savage nature that even with the advent of a no-work era retreat to an arena where their hatred and malice can still be poured out in safety—the darkness of an idealized and anonymous identity in the Network. Instead of pursuing knowledge and enlightenment they content themselves with the brutish lustful pleasures of the old ways. In the darkness, they evolve.

The Social Network is both a blessing and a curse. It has the potential to enlighten or devolve humanity. I think the difference between the two outcomes is our capacity to honestly ask why we are using social media the way we are, individually. The ubiquitous nature of the Network makes it impossible to avoid on 2014 Earth, but how we use it is up to us every time we log in.

May we use this tool for good and not evil in moderation and with good will toward all humanity in search of a higher calling for its power is great. Consequently, our responsibility is even greater. I pray that these five POSTs on social media have served and will continue to serve as a catalyst of thought so that you—the responsible human being—can further discern your own motivations and act accordingly. Much is at stake in the future of the Network. In the end, we will master it or it will master us.

On Social Media PART IV: Organizing and Networking Or The Great Equalizer and The Great Pacifier

So far in my series on social media I have been pretty hard on the Network. I started by ruminating on the possibility of social media being the precursor to the Martix before moving on to examine its use as entertainment and validation. This post however is going to give a nod to the Network because—for better or for worse—it may be the greatest networking and organizing tool ever devised by humanity. From keeping up and reconnecting with old friends to organizing revolutions, social media has created an unprecedented level of access for people to connect across the globe. Whether this is a good or bad thing I will save for PART 5, but for now I would like evaluate some of these uses in the hopes that those who continue to use social media throughout the next decade will use it to bring down corrupt regimes and build real lasting communities.

The most obvious form of networking that is made possible by social media and the Network is access between individual Nodes (if you are joining me for the first time I am using "Node" to designate a point of reference for a person's online identity. I did this instead of using a blasé term like "online identity" because I want to point out that we idealize ourselves online. We paint these pretty pictures and choose just the right words for our posts because we want to open ourselves up to maximum exposure.) Whether we want to entertain or simply be noticed by other Nodes one thing is clear—we want their attention. We want it because the social Network gives us access and the illusion of being connected to them. When our thoughts can be instantly transmitted across the globe then we are eliminating all the space-time it would have otherwise cost to transmit idea X, Y, or Z to all the people in our network. Why have a conversation with one person you haven't spoken to in a decade when you can perfectly craft the same statement and send it blindly to 500 people with ease instead? (The latter seems a lot more efficient, right? I wonder if we would otherwise even tell that one person at all?) Whether to the one or the many I think--at best--we convey these ideas as a means to start a dialogue.

Dialogue has always been my favorite aspect of social media. While I don't think entertainment posts really do this area justice (i.e. "Cosmos" is awesome." or "Where is a good place to eat in West Philly?"  [Followed by comments like: "I know, right?!" or "Abbysina is my jawn!" etc.]), there are however some questions that I find can be much more easily accessed on threads than in the "real world". Recently, I posted an article I wrote entitled "The Table Of Brotherhood Or Race—Can We Talk About It?". It was written as a conversation piece to ask a question—can we talk about this? What ensued after I posted it on social media was an interesting dialogue all its own. It took place in a forum that eliminated the space and time it would have taken several people to get together and talk about it (who probably wouldn't have done so otherwise). Was it a good thing? Maybe. There was of course the emotional dullness of the 1's and 0's of a computer screen and safety of conversing in an online arena, but at least it took place in an equal space. No one could talk over anyone else (though certain vocabulary words still have a way of shutting some people down); no one could yell (though ALL CAPS was always an option for emphasis); and everyone's voice carried equal weight. I am not saying that history was removed or that certain biases still were not brought into the conversation, but the space was everyone's. Such a space created the potential to bring in more voices who would not have otherwise participated in certain conversations because--again, at best--it leveled the playing field. The Network could be the Great Equalizer.

In the same way social media is the ultimate public service announcement. Any organization or institution that does not develop a presence in the Network these days is doomed to failure. Many people get their information solely from social media. There is a reason that Facebook calls it a "News Feed". From breaking news to awareness campaigns and boycotts, social media has created a portal for the instant communication of ideas. However, as I have tried to establish throughout this series, every blessing of social media comes at a price. In this case the cost is the dilution of the passions of the people.

The Network for all its access is not designed as a public forum. It cannot replace the park or agora because there is rarely room for opposing views online. Like attracts like and friend lists inevitably become a—pardon the expression—big circle jerk. When timely issues deserve and desperately need wide public discourse they are instead thrown into rooms of likeminds to be dissected and validated or ravaged. Big mass media outlets have staked their claimed, put down roots, and spread their golden tentacles throughout the Network as well. People's preconceived notions are even reinforced with paid-for banners and ads. Instead of creating debate social media often creates tirades and a circle of reinforcement.

Don't get me wrong. Not all conversations that take place in the Network are paid-for corporate sponsored talking points or circle jerks. Real grassroots initiatives have taken hold as well. Liveblogging has created a level of access and specificity of content that otherwise would be lost to a lot of folks who either cannot or would not attend functions. While sponsored posts are blasted right in front of people's eyes there can also be a plethora of crowdsourced content to compete. In this way the corporate giant can be matched post for post and even drowned out.  Events can also be organized and countless people invited with the click of a button. While this comes with the danger of dilution (I am much less likely to come to an event that someone simply mass invited me to on Facebook than I would be if they called me or sent me a physical invitation. Also, there are SO many events that it is hard to separate the worthwhile ones from the superfluous), it also offers a way to spread the word quickly. Two examples come to mind: The Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street.

The Arab Spring erupted in a blaze of glory so quickly it was hard to keep up. It happened so quickly in large part due to the accessibility and efficiency of social media. For my purposes here I am going to focus on Egypt because I am a little more familiar with what happened there than I am in Tunisia, Bahrain, or Turkey among the many others.

The problems that were endemic in Egyptian society that led to the events of the Arab Spring there were not new. People were being detained, beaten, and oppressed at the hands of a bloody regime for decades before the Movement blossomed. Everyone knew about the abuse, but no one really talked about it. A close Egyptian friend of mine once told me that it used to be essentially taboo to talk about politics. After all what could you do? Then the young people started sharing information on social media. The instant access and ability to share information created waves of education that translated into conversation. Eventually that conversation led to a desire for action, but how could you bring enough people together to make an effective demonstration of strength? Invite them.

Everyone who went down to Tahrir Square did not know each other. As a matter of fact before the great migration to the public space a lot of soon to be comrades would have considered themselves enemies. However, the equal space of the Network provided a platform to share a diversity of ideas that were accessible to all. The idea of resistance was poignant yet big enough to bring millions to the streets. Had the Network not existed then it would have been much more difficult to spread the word. Videos of abuse couldn't have as easily gone viral (because there would be no such thing as "viral"); state television would have shut the protest down; and dissenters would have been rounded up and beaten into submission like they always were before they even got to the Square, but social media made it possible to spread the message so far and so quickly that the government did not have the time, resources, or support to resist.  In the end the masses toppled a dictator all because folks shared an idea that they should resist in the streets and spread the word over the Network.

Secondly, I am a little more familiar with the US partner to the Movement: Occupy Wall Street. Similarly to the Egyptian situation the disease that had infected the American way and led to mass dissent was not new. However, something changed that gave the dissenters a new level of access to each other. There have been many leftist Movements in this country since its inception and even more resistors, but they were not able to reach people with the same audacity of speed that Occupy Wall Street did. It was not long before a couple of tents pitched in New York City became tents pitched across the US. Even the tents were an occupied and crowdsourced idea: Protestors in Spain and other parts of Europe had been occupying their city squares in solidarity with their Egyptian comrades against corruption long before they did on Wall Street. It seemed the whole world was rising up in a similar manner and very quickly. Why? Because we had access to one another and were able to freely share ideas quickly in a public equal space: the Network.

During phase 2 of the Movement—after the camps were demolished—we kept up with each other via social media as well. We started to use the same strategy we had used for the Movement as a whole for individual campaigns: 1) share information, 2) start a conversation, 3) crowdsource a plan, 4) create an invitation, and 5) take the streets. This worked so efficiently because folks did not need to be "activists" to organize or participate. They did not need to feel like they needed some specific knowledge. They simply felt connected because they followed the stories and showed up at events. They felt emboldened to express their rage because they knew that they had comrades long before the event even happened. They could see others supporting the ideas in the form of "likes" and "RSVPs".  Social media created access and a platform.

In the end though social media was the undoing of the Movement for which it breathed life. What started as a tool for a general call to dissent actually provided a platform for passivity. When it became difficult to function in the public forum in the real world due to the old allegiances and the camps being raided and dismantled we began to settle for online correspondence. Daily sit-ins became weekly marches which became monthly assemblies which became online petitions. Our initial surge was due to a volatile level of pressure that had been built up over decades that was made accessible by social media. As that pressure dissipated over time the powers that be were able to capitalize on our divisions and force us into irrelevance. Now a good deal of my friends who I was in the streets, banks, squares, and parks with everyday (myself included) find it satiating enough to share stories on social media in the hopes that the pressure will build up again.

My fear is that the ease of Network posting has become the new public commons and has become an acceptable alternative for public dialogue because, again, very rarely do we engage with those whom we disagree. Social media algorithms do not exist in a vacuum. They are designed by corporations to maximum profits by maximizing exposure. No matter how many "friends" we may have or how many Nodes we are connected to people do not generally like their senses bombarded with principles and ideas that they fundamentally disagree with. Therefore, the Network gives you want: validation of your ideas. We supplement our circle jerk by giving them a hand; we surround ourselves with those who agree with us and pretend like that's building a community. We seem content to be validated. Therefore, the potential for bringing people into the street is pacified by the Network's ability to keep you in your seat.

It has been said that it is a shoddy workman that blames their tools and I have no doubt that social media is one of the greatest tools ever invented for organizing, but, again, it comes at a cost. It seems to have become for the marginally-involved an acceptable alternative for the gritty and grueling real world task of making the world a better place. In this way, the Great Equalizer has become the Great Pacifier.

I was going to end there, but I left out a crucial part of the story and I want to give organizing on social media a fair treatment. It also helped enable one of the most efficient and robust disaster responses in recent memory: Occupy Sandy. Superstorm Sandy—as it has come to be called—was a disaster that no one saw coming. The rising waters and flooding that swept through New York, New Jersey, and parts of Connecticut were far more severe than anyone thought they would be. Hundreds and thousands of people quickly found themselves without homes, electricity, or hope. It happened so totally and quickly that the official disaster response ("Big Response") was not able to keep up. Thankfully, a lot of the lessons that had been learned about how to use social media were able to be utilized.

Within minutes and hours organizers were able to connect to each other and share information about affected areas and needs so that they could start a conversation about how to organize relief hubs for supplies to be delivered and volunteers directed to dispatch. They horizontally crowdsourced a plan and invited the world to join them. Within days the world was stepping up to help the East Coast while the Big Response was still trying to get its pants on. The connections that were able to be maintained within the Network and the access and efficiency of social media were a huge part of the reason Occupy Sandy in New York and New Jersey were able to succeed.

As you can see when social media is used quickly and efficiently in times of great need it is one of the most powerful tools on Earth. However, this power must be constantly checked because it also holds the potential to pacify dissent with the same efficiency that it ignites passions. Extreme access means extreme precautions must be taken to balance social media organizing with real-time "boots on-the-ground" efforts. Otherwise, dire situations that deserve attention may be diluted and lost in the sea of information that the Network contains.

(I should note that I was an organizer with Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Sandy.)

On Social Media PART III: The Grand Validation

In PARTs 1 and 2 of my series on social media I examined the entertainment value as well as the potential consequences of an unchecked digital neural network that mirrors our own reality. In PART 3 I want to evaluate social medias role as our external processing agent.

I have always been fascinated by statuses and updates that appear to be nothing more than a person's thoughts put to a digital byline. From updates on what we are eating to a random thought such as "I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson" for some reason we feel that is a valuable exercise to put our thoughts onto digital paper. Why?

To examine this phenomenon I think we have to back up a bit and examine why we write anything down at all. The complex transmission of ideas in language is something that is far beyond my reach and is more of a subject for a philosophy student than a blog poster, but I figured why the hell not take a crack at it.

Written communication is a relatively new thing (as far as we know). Even going back thousands of years to the emergence of cave paintings, hieroglyphs, and the proto-sinaitic alphabet we are still dealing with very rudimentary (and theoretical) forms of communication. Trying to convey an idea from one person to another varies in degrees of difficulty based on the complexity of an idea. If I am trying to convey to you "I am here" then I can simply point to myself and then point to the ground. You may misinterpret what I am intended to convey; you may think that I am pointing to my shirt, my chest, or my heart, but you understand that I have a signifier (me who is trying to do the communicating) and a signified (that which I am trying to convey to you). However, the more complex the idea gets the harder it is to communicate.

If I tried to explain to you what I mean by the word "art" we would do well to pour two glasses of scotch, sit down by a fire, and prepare for a long conversation. Mental constructs that do not have tangible points of reference require a great amount of information about the signified from the signifier just to begin to convey what it is someone is talking about. For many this will all seem to be basic information, but I think that it is important at the outset to define what I mean by "communication" before I attempt to figure out what we are trying to communicate when we post our thoughts on social media and why.

If we assume that that brain works by firing patterns in our neurons and synapses as we explored in PART 1 then it should be safe to assume that whether the idea is simple like sharing a location or complex like "art" a person seems to be attempting to get patterns to repeat in the synapses of another person's brain. In short, we are trying to get someone else to think like us. Otherwise, what would be the point of communicating? We want each other to understand each other. The only way we can do this is with empathy. If we simply observe what someone is saying with no brain activity of our own then we are not interacting with that information and therefore not communication. If we understand an idea that someone is telling us then we are mimicking their brain pattern by caring about what they are trying to communicate. In short, we are trying to get others to mirror our own thoughts because we are trying to connect with them for good or ill.

This is where social media comes in. It functions as a utilitarian connection tool. Instead of getting one person to mirror our synapses we can throw our ideas out to tens, hundreds, thousands, and even millions of people at a time. Why? In the hopes that they will mirror our thoughts and empathize with us. Now, why do we need and/or want so many people to mirror us?

At some level I think we have to admit to the "look at me" factor. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if we don't count the posting of news, PSAs, or entertainment (since we covered those in PART 2) and only focus on what would normally be either internal or external thoughts (depending on your personality type) then I think you have to ask yourself: why do I feel the need to tell people this?  I think, again, its for the validation. If I post what I made for dinner, what I think of a politician, or a question I have about the sky being blue and I get a lot of "likes" then I can feel legitimized in my opinion because people have empathized with me. They have felt enjoyment, puzzlement, or wonder the same way I have. I have succeeded in connecting with them.

The "likes", hearts, +1s and all the other designations of validation and approval are also interesting because they seem to function as the great democratizer of content in the Network. Traditionally (in the post-industrial west at least), popularity has been based on how much money an idea or product could generate. Whether it be newspapers, books, songs, elections, or even ideas themselves they were propagated based on their ability to generate revenue. Outlandish products and ideas such as x-ray vision spectacles or the idea that dinosaurs were human pets have been lost to obscurity because they were irrelevant to people's lives and therefore people had no reason to buy the glasses or the books espousing the theories. With the advent of social media this changed for better or for worse.

No longer does a product or idea need to be bought in order to be culturally relevant. Things can go viral these days based on the number of interactions they generate. Social media companies know this and have tailored their algorithms to post more prominently those things that get more attention. Case in point: trending topics.

There are positive and negative repercussions to the great democratization of information. In election years social media is fantastic for pointing out what issues or politicians people are talking about (let me for the sake of this particular conversation set aside the fact that the digital space these politicians are occupying was bought by the corporate interest). However, it also makes it possible for ridiculous and irrelevant stories such as Justin Bieber's DUI arrest to become national news at the expense of real news. The fact that I (your author) even know about that story when I couldn't give two shits about Bieber is a testament to the power of the great democratization.

Externalizing thoughts can be powerful because social media can reach far many more people with an idea or a product for free than a person could manage on their own, but it also allows for the great dilution of content because the popular becomes the meaningful. Also, with the advent of ads on the pages of "free" social media sites (for you younger folks: this was not always the case) those who have the money can pay for their content to be sponsored and prioritized. Whoever has the gold makes the rules, even in a digital democracy.

At the end of the day I think we post our ideas, work, products, and any other personal information because we want it (or us) to get noticed. We (signifier) ball up big piles of information and complex ideas (signified) and toss it out into the vast Network in the hopes that folks will gravitate toward it, like it, and democratically make it relevant (or trending or viral). The problem is that when you remove the personal touch (or nonverbal communication signs) then some of the complexity of certain ideas can be lost. Sure, "I had Grandma's Best Apple Pie and it was the best" isn't going to lose a lot in translation, but "Abortion is wrong! Outlaw it!" is definitely going to be misheard, misinterpreted, and misappropriated. Instead of creating the potential for democratizing the idea the POSTer of the latter will have guaranteed nothing but the coddling affirmation of those whom agree with them and have instantly destroyed the potential for dialogue before it has begun. Throw on top of that paid-for algorithms and social media creates more clubs than conversations.

Is this process inherently good or bad? No, but it—like everything—comes at a cost. The great democratization of external thoughts comes with the price tag of the private. For those with the gold it is an easy process: capitalize on the fame and no matter the value of your content it will be shared, democratized, popularized, and made relevant. For the rest of us we end up sharing far more of our private thoughts than we may otherwise be inclined to do in the search for validation. POSTs do not exist in a void. Each one is a point in a timeline of POSTs that is aimed at maximum exposure. If a person POSTs once every six months their audience will not be inclined to pay attention. Therefore, the avid Node will POST far more often in order to develop a regular audience so that their content will be more likely to be democratically raised in relevance and therefore their ideas more validated and therefore they themselves more connected and empathized with.

We externalize on social media because we want to be heard and since all the parks are being paved into parking lots it seems like our only avenue.