Small World Networks and the Power Law

A Small World Network is model of interconnected nodes which consists of small clusters of densely connected nodes - with each node only having a small number of connections - which are linked by a much smaller number of nodes with vastly more connections. The result is a very robust network that has an optimum number of connections between any one point and another. Small world networks occur naturally in many different contexts from social networks to neural networks showing the innate strengths of their loose, organic structure and the efficiency for transfer of information. The six degrees of separation theory derives from the powerful bridging capability of small world networks.

The Power Law is distribution curve  - closely related to the Long Tail and the Pareto Principle/80-20 rule - that is manifest in many different contexts from economic distribution to the range of activity on forums between users. One unique characteristic of the power law distribution is that the mean average is unrepresentative of the group as a whole because of the huge variation exponential difference between the values at one end of the curve and the other. This creates a dynamic  where the items at the top end of the curve are fundamentally different in nature to those at the mode, this is because the amount of power they possess transforms them into a fundamentally different entity and therefore they occupy a distinct role.

The best way to illustrate how the dynamic functions is to show how the power law enables small world networks to form in social networks. The power law distribution applies to the amount of contacts each person has in a vast social network with the top 20% having vastly more than the lower 80%. Most people, those who have the mode number of contacts, would be formed in tightly connected clusters - because the selection of contacts isn’t large enough to be sustain looser contacts - with perhaps a couple of connections with more highly connected individuals. Those in the top 20% however have a vast number or contacts, most of which are those in the mode and therefore part of dense clusters. The resultant effect is that the clusters are linked together by the highly connected individuals who act as hubs through which the vast social network is binded together.

Anti-Mass Society

In this series I’m going to overview some of the key concepts that will feature in my dissertation here and then start to explain how they are intertwined.

Anti-Mass Society

Anti-Mass Society is a concept derived from anarchist theory, the basic premise is that the best way to create sustainable opposition to the dominant structures of mass-society - such as huge hierarchical corporations, class divisions and the state - is to work on the micro level and form small self-controlled collectives and encourage and over time build up network of these collectives that we gradually create a more egalitarian society and eventually overturn the dominants structures of mass society.

Mass society is seen to be inhibit social change by atomising individuals which prevents them from exchanging ideas and from momentum building up behind any revolutionary ideologies. This effect is seen to be a result of the way in which mass society operates on a one-to-many dynamic where all information is filtered through the mass media and individuals interact through mass society; at work, at the cinema, at bars. This subtly distances communication from locality as far as practically possible, therefore inhibits communities from taking any mass action by separating community from locality and therefore creating greater physical obstacles to communication.

I think that there’s a lot of truth in the basic premise of anti-mass theory - that the only sustainable way to have impact on mass-society is to consistently engage in collective discussion and maintain deliberation - but many of the means they seek to create this kind of society seem overly optimistic and too rigid to ever take hold. For example they say that collectives should be limited to small groups of about 10 people in general, this is because of the more people there are in a group the harder it is to co-ordinate a group decision without inhibiting discussion, however if new members want to take part in this movement then they will likely be forced to start up their own collective which is a much greater task than joining a preformed one, therefore staggering the momentum that collectives form.

The principle that collectives should form locally so as to counter the atomisation of society requires that there are people in your locality who want to form a collective and whose views are similar enough to form a consensus decision, which is unlikely because of the current atomised state of society.

For a collective to form in a society that isn’t based on collective decision making there must be some specific cause, mission or responsibility that catalyses a group of people together. To assume that people will just spontaneously group because of a general dissatisfaction with mass-society is a highly flawed and unrealistic expectation; people don’t group around a vacuum.

However my current research is not interested in utopian dreams of an egalitarian network of collectives populated by 360 degree smiles and hugs++. What I am interested in is the concept that for meaningful and sustained discussion to occur it must happen on the micro level among small groups with high levels of interaction. I’m particularly interested in how the dynamics of the web can help facilitate this kind of interaction and how to create a workable version of an anti-mass community which deconstructs the nature and role of the collective and reconstruct them to harness the benefits of an online environment.

Gift Economy and the Web

This post marks the start of me beginning to think about trying to talk about starting to think about my ideas orbiting around the subject of creating a online social environment that fosters a high level of open and public exchange in the non-linear and many-to-many environment of the web.

My starting point is with the concept of a gift economy, which is founded on the concept of the social bond/contract created when a gift is given that encourages the receiver to reciprocate in some way in the future. The idea of a gift economy takes this informal contract created when gifts are exchanged between individuals and abstracts it to cover a the exchanges made between a whole community. Where as the bond created by the giving of gift is traditionally seen as having a one-to-one relationship the idea of a gift economy deals with the giving of gifts to strangers and in this context re-evalutes that dynamic as being a one-to-many relationship. Although the gift is directed at one individual, because they are unknown to the giver the gift can be seen as being given to the whole community and this is especially true in digital space where the gift isn’t tied to a physicality. Through this dynamic a environment or economy can develop where people feel comfortable giving gifts that they do not expect to be directly reciprocated because they know that others in the same community will be willing/able to provide a gifts to help them when they want it. In this dynamic a gift given is a gift to the community and as well as possibly creating a bond between individuals it creates a bond and a social contract between individuals and a community.

As I mentioned briefly earlier it is much easier for a gift economy to form and grow in digital space compared to when the gifts are tied to physical space. This is because when a gift is given to a stranger in meatspace, that gift is only given to the community in an abstract sense because the gift can only actually be given to one person. In contrast a gift given in digital space - on the internet - can actually be available to everybody in the community because of the infinite replicability of digital artefacts, which makes the nature of the gift much more apparent and useable to the community. This makes the bonds created through altruistic giving in digital a community so much easier to develop than in a physical community.

Gift economies with a solid community foundation are difficult to develop online despite their nature being very well suited to the dynamics of the web. A gift to the community may be less abstract online but the community itself is much more abstract because it is not tied to physical space and therefore its occupants are not visible unless they make themselves so by contributing. Any online gift economy must find someway to centralise its members - while also allowing their numbers to grow - so they can perceive the community they are participating in in order to be able to engage in a social contract with it.

There is also the more fundamental issue with forming a gift economy: how does the economy start? Putting aside the issues to do with creating the right interface and structure to enable a economy to develop there is still the issue of how to motivate people to start sharing and to get them to do it in a way which is forms the foundations of a gift economy. Charles Leadbeater suggests that successful examples of mass collaboration are often sparked by a significant gift to the community by and individual or organisation which pulls a community around it through individuals desire to take advantage as well as extend the value of the gift. He cites Linus Torvald’s gift of his Linux kernel as an example of how a valuable gift can generate a community around it and a kind of gift economy centralised around a developing an initial substantial gift.

Online gift economies don’t only focus around a single artefact or topic, they can relate to a space, interface or medium. The reason mass collaboration is more common and more obvious when related to working on an artefact is that it provide clear context and definition for the community, with gift economies founded around a space and a medium communities aren’t as easily drawn together and often require a core of users to be organised in a more formal structure which is often linked to established communities in meatspace. For example Twitter started being used internally in the office of its creators (Obvious Corp.) and after a extended period of use it was released to the wider public. Similarly Facebook started as a service for only available to students of Harvard university. By targeting an established community rooted in physical space a more abstract gift economy can gain a launching platform from which to then diversify and draw members from all different areas of online society.

I’ll finish here for now, although there is still a lot of area to be covered, especially in terms of how an interface can be designed to harness a gift economy (this area will also be discussed in relation to my final project for Interactive Media degree in further posts). In addition to gift economies I will also be talking about ideas of collective organisation and perhaps the public sphere.

If there are areas relating to this topic that you think would aid the discussion of these issues or if there are areas of my discussion that you feel I’ve skimmed over or made unclear please let me know in the comments.