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.