How to know the network?

"Network science" has been pitched as an alternative to "reductionist" science. That is, after dissecting processes into ever smaller units, and trying to understand the process by understanding the units, "knowing" the process still eluded scientists.

Now we are close to knowing just about everything there is to know about the pieces. [an absurd claim, no? - jd] But we are as far as we have ever been from understanding nature as a whole. Indeed the reassembly turned out to be much harder than scientists anticipated. [!] The reason is simple. Riding reductionism, we run into the hard wall of complexity. (Barabasi, Linked, p6)

"Network science" then comes to the rescue, revealing the laws of self-organization: per Barabasi, complexity has a "strict architecture", and its name is network.

One might argue though that this is just a deeper reductionism. Instead of just the parts -- now called "nodes", we add another abstract fundamental, the "link" to represent the richness of interconnection (reducing that to a bundle of discrete threads, each of which can be examined and presumably understood). Simple mechanics are enhanced to include another order of properties. Concerning ecology, a discipline that is heavy on interconnection, William Brinton writes "ecological perspectives within the sciences often only strengthen reductionistic directions, since they provide important details about relationships, which in turn help 'fine tune' the existing mechanical models." ("Environment as Data versus 'Being': Is Goetheanism possible in the West?", http://www.ifgene.org/brinton.htm)

In a harsh critique of "complexity", Steve Talbott argues that the more abstract theories and observations become, the more they become about nothing. "The problem with a scientific method based on maximum generalization and abstraction is that the more it succeeds -- that is, the more general and abstract its results become -- the shallower they tend to be. They tell us less and less about the particular contexts we wish to understand... In our drive toward generality and abstraction, we end up with what we ask for... We will get a theory that 'connects' diverse things, but in the process loses the things we are connecting." ("The Lure of Complexity", http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic7/complexity.htm)

How much simpler can the abstraction "network" become? The network diagram is to the actual process or phenomena as a stick figure is to a painting, or really, to the phenomena represented in the painting.

In general, modeling and abstraction are useful tools and part of the dialectical process of coming to understand phenomena, assuming that the researcher makes the return trip to the phenomena. Goethe's assertion that "the phenomenon is the theory" is a powerful insight. The abstraction is not the phenomenon.

A phenomenon cannot be understood as a "network". The "network" reduction is an abstraction. Certainly (I think) the "network" reduction, as part of a bigger project of isolation, focus, and then re-assembly, re-contexting and re-imagination, can lead to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. Ultimately, though, "knowing the network" is a process of imaginative participation in the phenomenon. In part this is because the "complexity" of the interactions can only be grasped imaginatively, and in part because the network is a process in time, developing, changing, growing or dying or both, and likewise only graspable in the imagination. "Knowing the network" is a challenge that requires a holistic approach, a holistic scientific method.

Okay, so I am struggling through the ideas above. See The Nature Institute's website for more on what has been called a phenomenological approach to Nature, or holistic science, qualitative science, Goethean science, etc.

- jd

You don't need silicon to calculate poverty - The Clash

Levy-Bruhl, quoted in Owen Barfield's, Saving the Appearances (Wesleyan, 1988, pp 28-35): "... in other words, the connecting links of the representations are given, as a rule, in the representations themselves." (in reference to "primitive" cultures). Also, "The collective representations and interconnections which constitute such a mentality are governed by the law of participation..."

Barfield goes on to summarize "participation", or "original participation" as described by Levy-Bruhl and other anthropologists as an "awareness we no longer have, of an extra-sensory link between the percipient and the representations. This involves, not only that we think differently, but that the phenomena (collective representations) themselves are different."

But Barfield then corrects this idea: "[W]e do, in fact, still participate in the phenomena, though for the most part we do it unconsciously. We can only remind ourselves of that participation by beta-thinking [a sort of "thinking about thinking about representations" - jd] and we forget it as soon as we leave off."

On the other side of the negation of the negation is a "final participation", but more on that later.

Here is a very impressive website:

NOEMA.ORG

'NOEMA is a website devoted to culture-new technologies interrelations and influences. "Culture" also means "habits", "lifestyles", "communications", "art", "society", "economy", "media", "philosophy"..., while "new technologies" should be intended in a broader meaning than the digital realm.'

jd

"Power to the Edges: Trends and Opportunities in Online Civic Engagement" , by Jillaine Smith, Martin Kearns and Allison Fine, is a very good snapshot, taken May '05, of the state of online activism. Some of the key findings for organizations in the report:

-- design a "connectivity strategy" as opposed to a "technology strategy"

-- be "nimble and quick" with incorporating new opportunities provided by new technology

-- "push power to the edges": change the nature of the relationship with the people organization's seek to engage

-- build "network-centric leadership", the complement to "power to the edges", where the "edges" are able to contribute, collaborate, act, grow, lead etc.


jd

This is a posting that I did a while back to a now-defunct list, but it still is relevant. I have started a page of network properties, a catalog or glossary of sorts. Let me know of any additions or clarifications, the info below is the kind of stuff I am collecting.

Here's a link to a paper that looks at "different classes of small-world networks":

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/21/11149

The authors identify three kinds of small-world networks, based on the nature of the distribution of links. If I understand what they are saying, the cost of adding links (e.g., adding new routes to an airport vs new links to a website), and ongoing ability to add links ("aging", e.g., movie actor collaborations decay over time as an actor ages, also one might add an organization's ability to attract new members/connections -- I think this is another way of describing the "fitness" of nodes; new nodes may be very desirable to attach to, even though initially they do not have many links) will result in different kinds of small-world networks.

These two factors interfere w/ the "preferential attachment" phenomena of network growth (all things being equal, new nodes tend to attach to already well-connected nodes), resulting in the different classes of "small worlds".

jd

Network-centric Advocacy is a great blog by Marty Kearns devoted to "advocacy strategy for the age of connectivity." Okay it has a very generous write-up of the globalization and networks paper that I did, but regardless, this blog is an excellent collection of commentary and links by someone who, it is evident from the content, is deeply involved in the practice that he writes about. Marty is the co-founder and executive director of the Green Media Toolshed

Read the Network-Centric Advocacy Concept Paper by Marty, for background on the thought behind the blog:

The challenge to grassroots organizers and advocacy communication strategists is to match mobilizing and advocacy efforts with these new behaviors while also exploiting the advantages provided by emerging technologies and communications mediums. Network-centric advocacy is the adaptation of advocacy and traditional grassroots organizing to the age of connectivity.

...

An alternative to relying entirely on the current organizational-based advocacy model is to create a hybrid to supplement the strengths of organizations with the flexibility and viral potential of direct action. This hybrid is built on the availability of cheap transportation, free phone systems, new technology tools, secure online collaboration tools and exploiting service industry that was built for small businesses all for network campaigns. These are the characteristics of our age connectivity and they can now be used to “wire” together the movement or coalitions. Network-Centric Advocacy demands a simple set of actions to build and maintain connections among campaign assets (staff, volunteers, expertise, tools and organizations) so that campaign leaders can count on the response of the network in a predictable manner.

...

The adaptation of a networked approach will enable our staffs and volunteers to shift into campaigns where they make the most difference. The network will provide the best resources to promising initiatives that evolve out of the creativity from the field. Ideas will compete for help in a new marketplace that moves faster and learns quicker. The movement leadership will be more diverse and the campaigns will be increasingly difficult to counter and predict. Ultimately, the movement will see improvements in policy and stronger protections for the environment.

This is just a taste. The paper is a very practical, thoughtful consideration of both the practical problems of network-centric struggle, and the absolute necessity of solving those problems to move forward. And in particular, because it addresses the realm of idea-dessemination, it provides concrete ideas about the new tools and the need for a new doctrine in the battle for hearts and minds.

jd