As I’ve starting to pull together the elements for a project on dispersed networks of influence, I thought I’d better start by thinking about the idea of networks in Public Diplomacy and then more specifically dispersed networks.
Within the study of public diplomacy there has been various discussions about networks vs. hierarchies. For example RS Zaharna in The Network Paradigm of Strategic Public Diplomacy, Jamie Metzl in Network Diplomacy, Brian Hocking, in many of his publications including “Rethinking the ‘New’ Public Diplomacy†or my own “PD in the UK†at The Present and Future of Public Diplomacy: A European Perspective. These discussions make the argument for a commitment to genuine two-way dialogue and openness which is contrasted with a one-way hierarchical approach. When combined with discussions of online networks and social spaces and concepts such as David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla’s The Promise of noöpolitik or discussions of Netwar the need to unpack the approach collectively described as the network model is evident.
Hierarchy vs. Network discussions have challenged Public Diplomacy theorists and practitioners to think beyond the hierarchical. In taking up this challenge there is a need to engage with different understandings of networks and particularly begin to unpack ‘the network model’ into its many component parts. In doing so it is obvious that a hierarchy in itself must be a specific type of network.
One useful distinction to begin the unpacking process is centralised / decentralised networks. The discussions of these networks range from the centralised ‘walled gardens’ of online commerce to server systems and peer-to-peer file sharing systems. Rather than replicate, Baran’s Forgotten Idea is well worth reading on the description of centralised and decentralised. It also highlights the development of the distributed concept; of building in redundancy to create a multi channel system capable of withstanding a nuclear strike as an alternative to attempting to harden a centralised system against a nuclear strike. In considering online network I touched briefly on the work of Paul Baran but it is worth revisiting it here and particularly the implication behind the concept of a distributed communications network as Baran described it, as this leads to a rationale for referring to dispersed (rather than distributed) networks of influence.
In the report On Distributed Communications “(t)he payoff in terms of survivability for a distributed configuration in the cases of enemy attacks directed against nodes, links, or combinations of nodes and links is demonstratedâ€. However, what is clear from the post attack calculations of redundancy requirements is that in a distributed conception the nodes are yours to distribute. As a result the initial thinking about distributed systems is based on ownership.
What I want to do in thinking about dispersed networks is push beyond those networks which an organisation owns or has a degree of control over. By using ‘dispersed’ the project considers not how an organisation distributes its own resources but how it can engage with participants in other networks. Perhaps this could be described as collaboration, but dispersal goes further than formal collaboration into areas of empowerment and influence.
Dispersal has many important roles in nature and many equations exist to calculate those effects. The purpose of the project on dispersed networks of influence is to understand how international communications organisations can operate in a way that engages with networks they do not control, without having to resort to projecting messages into them. While there are points of overlap, this is different from seeking to spread memes, as creating and starting to disseminate memes relies on the creative power of ‘owned’ resources. A distributed network of influence is about engaging with the resources and creative potential of others.
Working title for the project: The Dispersed Network Manifesto; using dispersed networks of influence until someone comes up with a better one…