I think a simple example is a Glassdoor review vs an HR exit interview, or Greta Thunberg vs BPs advertising budget. Something about authentic narratives vs polished and formal ones. Most of this is a matter of the judgement of a community perhaps - perhaps today we are more likely to judge Organisations in a broader and evolved social context, which removes some of their absolute power.
Got you. The problem is that 'influencers' don't have any democratic brakes, are often funded by much larger institutions to lobby, so 'authenticity' is not guaranteed. Indeed, of we take Andrew Tate as another example or the noise of social media influencers, authenticity goes out of the window. You are fundamentally right I just have some nagging doubts with the authenticity angle.
I’d agree with that - but i think they are the extremes. Possibly this is best understood at the very mundane and everyday level, and not in terms of social media. Just lots of people who are more connected than before, and whose ‘effort’ is more discretionary. And who, if you alienate them, have other places to turn. Kind of death by a thousand, or hundred thousands, cuts. It’s this general depowering of systems - and a general shift towards membership and belonging within more socially moderated structures. And sure, social media and influencers are part of that. But for most of us, the brakes are more social than formal. And of course ‘authenticity’ is not a thing, so much as a judgement. So everyone is authentic by their locally defined understanding… so in that sense it’s like fairness.
That's right but as someone who is not a member of any structured entity in my fields of interest, but very active on social media, I find the guilds and organisations are fairly benign, reflecting current groupthink and rarely effecting anything, certainly not change. Agree on 'authenticity' it's an odd term. Hitler was 'authentically' racist!
Agreed. As an aside, have you read ‘the dark charisma of hitler’? Yes, you may be right. As with so much of this, i think the broad landscape is relatively clear, but the granularity is missing in places. So i would be confident that power is flowing away from legacy structures - but exactly where it is flowing, and how, is more open to interpretation. I feel reasonably confident in the underlying principle that it sits increasingly within distributed social connectivity - and that this comes at the cost of our legacy (and more subservient) relationship with Organisations.
Yes. Interesting area. I like Steven Lukes three dimensions of power: decision-making power, non-decision-making power and ideological power, and Gaventa’s addition to these three of hidden and invisible forms of power that prevent marginalised groups from recognising and challenging other forms of power. The latter really interests me.
Cn you give me examples of this individualised power? By species or individuals?
I think a simple example is a Glassdoor review vs an HR exit interview, or Greta Thunberg vs BPs advertising budget. Something about authentic narratives vs polished and formal ones. Most of this is a matter of the judgement of a community perhaps - perhaps today we are more likely to judge Organisations in a broader and evolved social context, which removes some of their absolute power.
Got you. The problem is that 'influencers' don't have any democratic brakes, are often funded by much larger institutions to lobby, so 'authenticity' is not guaranteed. Indeed, of we take Andrew Tate as another example or the noise of social media influencers, authenticity goes out of the window. You are fundamentally right I just have some nagging doubts with the authenticity angle.
I’d agree with that - but i think they are the extremes. Possibly this is best understood at the very mundane and everyday level, and not in terms of social media. Just lots of people who are more connected than before, and whose ‘effort’ is more discretionary. And who, if you alienate them, have other places to turn. Kind of death by a thousand, or hundred thousands, cuts. It’s this general depowering of systems - and a general shift towards membership and belonging within more socially moderated structures. And sure, social media and influencers are part of that. But for most of us, the brakes are more social than formal. And of course ‘authenticity’ is not a thing, so much as a judgement. So everyone is authentic by their locally defined understanding… so in that sense it’s like fairness.
That's right but as someone who is not a member of any structured entity in my fields of interest, but very active on social media, I find the guilds and organisations are fairly benign, reflecting current groupthink and rarely effecting anything, certainly not change. Agree on 'authenticity' it's an odd term. Hitler was 'authentically' racist!
Agreed. As an aside, have you read ‘the dark charisma of hitler’? Yes, you may be right. As with so much of this, i think the broad landscape is relatively clear, but the granularity is missing in places. So i would be confident that power is flowing away from legacy structures - but exactly where it is flowing, and how, is more open to interpretation. I feel reasonably confident in the underlying principle that it sits increasingly within distributed social connectivity - and that this comes at the cost of our legacy (and more subservient) relationship with Organisations.
Yes. Interesting area. I like Steven Lukes three dimensions of power: decision-making power, non-decision-making power and ideological power, and Gaventa’s addition to these three of hidden and invisible forms of power that prevent marginalised groups from recognising and challenging other forms of power. The latter really interests me.