The only thing that seems to be predictable, is unpredictability itself. Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States, a fact that will please some and displease others. Whatever our view of the results of the election, there are some fascinating underlying dynamics at play, dynamics which were first visible when Obama became president, and which have now clearly reached a tipping point. It’s not the social dissatisfaction which is changed: it’s the ways that we are connected and are able to tap into that energy which is different.
In the old world communication technology was slow, it took weeks for photographs or reels of film to work their way around the world. The earliest digital communication technology took us from the speed of horse to the speed of copper, but even that was limited, tied to physical infrastructure. As we move from the digital age into the Social Age we have seen a more fundamental transformation: we are awash with communication technology, we are connected in many spaces, and with this connection have come other changes.
Social collaborative technologies are inherently aggregating and amplifying: people can connect around ideas, they can shape and share those ideas, and in the amplification, and through the social filtering, a new space emerges. It’s largely in this virtual battleground that ideas have fought for supremacy: in the last round of elections we saw the formal system able to utilise social media to connect with the younger and disenfranchised community, at considerable scale. And now, with this election, the community has risen up and consumed its master.
Clinton derived her power from the formal system, whilst Trump derived his power in opposition to the system. In the old world formal systems controlled the communication technology and could amplify through volume alone, whilst in the Social Age, as is now abundantly clear, communities gain their amplification to the spread of individual stories and the unifying potential of social media. They do so outside any formal control, and the formal system can do little to prevent it: indeed, the rebellion is against the formal system itself.
There is an interesting dynamic tension at play: old models of power vying for supremacy with newer, emergent, unrestricted, dynamic, and highly adaptive forms of power. We have not even begun to feel the true effects of this yet. Currently, we are feeling the most obvious effects: highly synchronous amplification of messaging, the emergence of what may be a post fact economy, but what is, in all likelihood, simply a quest to discover new types of knowledge, leaving us in a middle space where validity has been abandoned, but so have facts. I suspect this space is transitory: whilst currently we rely on fact checking websites to try to impose some post event validity, in short order we will see the AI’s takeover in this space. Real-time, highly synchronous fact checking, and of course the provision of additional layers of context, which will revolutionise once more both the political and every other space.
Most likely we will also see the transformation of how democracies operate: if an organisation is able to poll its employees to see how happy they feel on Tuesday afternoon, and if Starbucks is able to award me points for buying a gingerbread latte, it’s only a matter of time before government connects in new and innovative ways with its population, and who knows, maybe it will seek to gamify the experience. Heaven help us all.
It is, incidentally, not a question of whether the system changes, but rather when. It is less a question of whether the system wants to change, but rather whether it will change before change is imposed upon it.
I suspect that both Clinton and Trump played aspects of this game well, but I doubt whether either fully conceives of where this change will take us. Trump will not have an easy ride: on the one hand the existing formal mechanisms of power will seek to control him, whilst on the other, the socially moderated forms of power will be emboldened and reject any notion of control. Too easily the saint will become the martyr, and I suspect it is days, not weeks, before he starts to feel this. As we collapse the waveform of potential down to the reality of action, we most likely progressively disenfranchise the outliers of our community, and the forces that swept Trump into power are the same forces that will ultimately sweep him out.
For me, the most interesting dynamic is not whether Trump or Clinton won this race, not simply which of them understood this game well, but rather to see what comes next in the evolution of the system itself. In the UK, Brexit demonstrated the same dynamics: a formal and established hierarchy of power upset by a crowd sourced form of power. Whether you agree with it or not, the point is that this is a new type of battle fought in a new type of space, by new rules.
We used to systems where those with money and power accumulate more money and power, and those with neither had limited options to claim them. In the Social Age, that situation is reversed. Anyone can claim a space, and anyone can build a form of reputational based authority, whether we personally agree with their reputation or not. The formal system cannot prevent or control this, and indeed, they may be perceived as the very problem.
It’s a brave new world for those who know how to play the game, but the real potential lies for those who understand that the rules of this game are ever-changing. If we want to start looking somewhere to understand the new rules, we could do worse than looking at the new types of power and understanding how they are changing everything.
Thanks for your thoughts on the election and the underlying shifts in power and how that power operates. I am wondering whether this also extends to an end of the old “majority rules” standard for democracies. Maybe election results are becoming a contest of communication skill rather than a debate about principles or ideas.
Certainly change is afoot: where it takes us will be a fascinating, and occasionally terrifying, journey
Pingback: Citizen power in the social age….. | Alchemy Connections
I hope for the sake of America that what lifted up Trump can be used to shine a light on the implementation of his policies, e.g. if does intend to deport people and build walls then let everyone see, report and express a true view on what that means to the families affected.
Personally, I think social technologies had less to do with the election result than the move towards right-wing politics dominated by a class of people who for many years have been forgotten and disenfranchised by the very system that they thought would lift them up.
Thank you for sharing.
I agree with you, Julian, that social/political technologies currently follow the structures you have Illustrated, and appreciate the final comments on your post. There is no use in finding blame. only in problem-solving. Your networking illustration shows best where we have failed. It is no longer open, it is like talking to like. Browsers like google and narrow social networks limit us to the choices we have perviously viewed and to our self-selected friends: We live in a social media network bubble, with little opportunity to listen, find, or hear new things. Social Media has most definitely failed us in this American election – it has left us insular and insulated. I look forward to work on a model (that has many open lines flying out from the networked bubble. Our country in a massive Tsunami – let’s try to work on a model that allows for trust, character, listening, and change.
Reblogged this on Sustainability.
Pingback: #Trump – New Mechanics Of Power | Sustainability
Pingback: Future Tech: Innovation and Impact [Pt1] | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Resources added to Diigo (weekly) | Beth Holland
Pingback: The Futility of Peace | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Trump: Communication in the Social Age | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Blowing In The Wind | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Social Leaders Do What’s Right, Not Just Easy | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Resilience: Technology, Community, and Power | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Square Peg: Round Hole | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Nationhood: Statues, Salutes, and Narratives of Power | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Commuter Communities | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Story Sharing: The Perils of Power | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Not One But Many: The Interconnection of Tribes | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Citizen of Apple, State of Lego | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Engaging Power : Conflict | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Running a Storytelling Experiment For Social Leadership | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog
Pingback: Guide to the Social Age 2019: Power | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog