Lee,

Great job - and thought provoking as usual!

I think I broadly agree with you.

Not quite sure if I'd single out the poor 20th century though - although I cannot disagree with any example you gave It seems to me that the sort of examples you gave have existed always.

I've just finished reading on the history of Gegis Khan. He took on the "mass" models of the chin and the arabic khans. I can think of many examples where heirarchical models have marshalled and exploited the masses - and in the background a more enlightened social network model has sought to restore something more just or right or whatever!!!

So, there is something here in what you say....just not entirely sure the 20th century is uniquely qualified to be singled out as the bad example.

Thanks for your intelligent comment, Ken. I think you might be right. In fact I was watching Paxman's history of the Victorians last night, and the British campaign in Crimea in the late C19th showed the same officer-class incompetence and contempt for the massed ranks of expendable troops as in WWI. I think there are lots of similar examples stretching back throughout history.

I think, for me, two things set the C20th apart. First, its industrial nature and scale. Second, the mis-match between ideas and practice - it was supposed to be a century of modernity and progress, but arguably this was at the cost of placing abstract ideas above people. (Also, of course, it was one of only two centuries I have experienced personally. I'm really hoping for a third, but not sure how realistic this is ;-)

Of course, the C20th was not the worst century we have ever seen, but one of its defining ideas - people as mass - is something I think we have the knowledge and the technology to improve upon. It is not really about hierarchical organisation per se, which I think has merit in some cases, but about placing humans front and centre in any 'system'.

And the reason for this little talk, which was really just intended as a perspective on the theme of 'future' at LIFT, was to point out that network-centric models are far more robust, resilient and historically 'traditional' than the late C20th centralised management approach that many organisations apply to their ICT.

Very good presentation and a good point too.

The mass approach came with civilization itself. Having a lot of people to manage and nature's own example of the law of the fittest could only lead to authoritarianism (the XX century didn't came up with that 'ism).

Slavery has a long history that follows that of civilization. And we haven't seen its end. It has changed into a softer look, but it's still there. The fortunate slaves of today get paid and enjoy a certain amount of privilege, but they're still bound... to their job (in the corporation).

You're right that the XIX and mostly the XX centuries did scale this massification to unprecedented levels, but technology was, for all purposes, the magnifying glass.

But networks were always around. They come from our tribal past (as Desmond Morris has recalled so well). Now the technology has come that enhances the power of networks in much the same way that mass communication has enhanced the power of authoritarians. Now there's a good possible cause for all the turmoil going around: status quo mechanicist authoritarianism vs. emerging newly empowered quantum networking... It's going to be the round of the millenium!! Be sure to get a front seat ;-)

As per previous comments - the mass model, certainly in terms of information, really began with Gutenberg. As you say, what the 20th century really brought was an industrialised scale.

I think social media marks the end of a 600 year period of history that will come to be known as the Gutenberg era.

Lengthy analysis on this here: http://tinyurl.com/bwxh3j

Great presentation Lee.

Bearing in mind the other comments I think one option for the 'moment' whne things went down the wrong path, might be when more people lived in conurbations than lived in villages.

In evolutionary terms whether its C14 or C19 or C20 this is very recent history. Fundamentally our brains have evolved to be part of something, that isn't Industrial Society.

What we are experiencing now is the ability to get back to that - to be part of a village again, but it's new village, one which is also a Guild, and you can inhabit more than one at the same time.

I'm just starting out on a PhD which will not be a million miles away from where you're at. And very open to suggestions for things that people think need some deep research.

Cheers
Andy

I think there is a common thread in the comments above suggesting, correctly of course, that the process of change that led to the C20th was long and varied, and so the C20th is not unique.

I love this typically engaging data visualisation about the last 200 years by Hans Rosling that shows just how much we achieved in the C19th and C20th in terms of creating societies with minimum levels of health, education and economic opportunity.

I am a big fan of modernity and its benefits. But I think we have a chance to make something even better, or go to the next stage, by moving beyond the dehumanisation implied by the application of 'mass' ideas to people, and by elevating humans above abstract ideas, categories and process. I think this is also what Pedro and Richard are talking about above. I don't think it heralds a return to the village, other than in a McLuhan-ish sense

I fully agree on this.

The weirdest aspect of a corporation is a bunch of people who don't know each other being hearded in together to come up with new concepts.

Network organisation, or virtual organisation (whatever label you put on it), makes much more sense as a model in the long run.

As technology gives us more sense of 'awareness' with time non-collocated collaboration will become more than viable, natural and we will look back at how we used to work and think 'what the hell were we thinking about then?!'