Finally: a P2P Theory of Power?

We have mentioned Jeff Vail’s Theory of Power book before, and featured large extracts on how he sees the relationship between hierarchies and rhizomes, which you can find here.

I have yet to read the book however, and Dave Pollard’s summary made me realize what a significant contribution it is for a P2P theory of power.

The book is available here.

I’m republishing the summary, highlighting some crucial points:

“Jeff Vail’s short, free online book A Theory of Power begins with a series of provocative theses:

* The best representation of our world, of what ‘is’, is not matter, but the connections between matter.

* These connections define ‘power-relationships’ — the ability of one entity to influence the action
of another.

* The ‘law’ of evolution can therefore be restated as: if new patterns of forces can survive their impacts with one another, if they tend to hold together rather than tear apart, they then represent a stable collection of power-relationships which survive, self-replicate, and mutate into further new patterns which are in turn subject to the same law.

* This law applies to physical (matter), biological (gene) and cultural (meme) patterns; all matter and life and consciousness, and their evolution, are ‘creatures’ of their/our material, genetic and cultural constituents, created for the perpetuation of these patterns and sustained through their stable power-relationships.

* Because of the evolutionary success of memes (due to their ability to adapt and change much more quickly and successfully than genes), culture has come to play an increasingly dominant role in our planet’s power-relationships.

* Most significantly, the advent of agriculture, which was provoked by climate change (the ice ages) brought about a necessary power shift from the individual to the group in the interest of memes’ survival, to the point the individual became largely enslaved to the culture, and the survival of the civilization culture now outweighs in importance the survival of any of its members or communities.

* A consequence of that has been the advent of the codependent cultural constructs of market and state, and, as agriculture has enabled exponential growth in population and created new scarcities, egalitarian societies of abundance have given way to hierarchical societies of managed scarcity.

* This hierarchy has been further entrenched with the cultural evolution of technologies that enable even greater self-perpetuation of the memes that gave rise to it, and have led to the ‘efficient’ subjugation of the human individual to technology — that’s the power-relationship that most supports the survival and stasis of the culture, and under it even those at the top of the hierarchy become slave-hosts to the memes and culture.

* These memes and culture can now self-perpetuate and thrive more effectively with technology and the artificial constructs of market and globalizations than they could with inefficient and unreliable human hosts, so technology growth is now even outstripping human growth, to the point that humans are becoming commodities and could even become redundant.

* So: if we are now becoming slaves to the machine-powered perpetuation of memes that are outgrowing their need for us (to the point that although catastrophic global warming and human extinction now seem inevitable, this is not something our meme-culture ‘cares’ about) can we, the human slaves, thanks to the genetic and memetic evolution of self-awareness, ‘liberate’ ourselves and defeat the meme-culture before it destroys us? In other words, can we consciously, collectively take control for the first time over power-relationships, and establish new power-relationships that put the genetic survival of the human race (and, hopefully, the survival of all other life on Earth on which that genetic survival depends) ahead of the reckless survival of the Frankenstein ‘civilization’ culture we have created?

Vail’s answer to this final question is a qualified ‘yes’. He argues that the way to establish power-relationships that put our genes’ interest ahead of memes’ is to “confront hierarchy with its opposite — rhizome — a web-like structure of connected but independent nodes”, borrowing from successful models in nature of such structures. The working units (nodes) of this ‘revolutionary’ structure are self-sufficient, egalitarian communities, and the concept of ‘ownership’ in such communities is eliminated to prevent the reemergence of hierarchy.

Rhizome-based structures need to be developed and then institutionalized from the bottom up to replace hierarchical ones, Vail argues, in all areas of our society — social, political, economic, educational etc. to entrench the power and sustainability of self-sufficient communities and render them invulnerable to re-expropriation of that power by hierarchies. In practical terms, he says:

Power remains distributed to the level of the individual rhizome node through local, functional self-sufficiency—a modern equivalent to the Domestic Mode of Production. In other words, functional self-sufficiency means the ability to produce at the household level at least the minimum necessities for day-to-day existence without relying on outside agents or resources. Self-sufficiency removes the individual rhizome node from dependence on the standard set of outside suppliers. It does not eliminate exchange, but creates a situation where any exchange exists as a voluntary activity. The commodities that each node must provide for itself include staple foodstuffs, energy for heating, basic habitat and small group interaction.

Self-sufficient energy coops, and local permaculture-based food movements are examples of rhizome structures. Such networks are also the most effective means for the dissemination of information on how to make rhizome activities even more effective — they have much less signal loss than hierarchical methods that require information to flow up and then down controlled and constricted paths. Rhizomes are also, while less ‘efficient’, more effective and more resilient than hierarchies.

Next, Vail argues that, once established, to defend against attacks from vestiges of hierarchical systems, rhizome networks need to adopt asymmetrical methods — by reducing the desire of hierarchy to re-achieve power (e.g. by making it difficult or unrewarding to do so on its own terms) and by becoming ‘invisible’ to the hierarchy (e.g. dropping out quietly and not taking part in the hierarchy’s social, political and economic activities). Vail concludes:

A new vision, with individual freedom to pursue arts and spirituality, above the pettiness of bickering for power, may prove possible if we learn to control the powers that have dominated us throughout history. In the spirit of this vision, the message will ultimately fail if forced upon others. Only through personal example, by showing that a realistic and preferable alternative exists, will these concepts succeed on a large scale. We will act as pioneers, who will begin to create diverse rhizome nodes, each one representing an individual’s struggle to solve the problems of hierarchy and human ontogeny. The more we learn and break free from the control of genes and memes, the more success these pioneers will have. Effective tools and practices will spread, and the rhizome network will grow and strengthen. As this network evolves, it will provide a realistic, implementable alternative to hierarchy—an alternative that fulfills our genetic ontogeny and empowers us as individuals. Nature has shown us that the structure of the rhizome can compete with hierarchy and stratification. When combined with an understanding of reality and humanity that makes us our own masters, we may finally learn from the events of the past…and gain control of our future.”

2 Comments Finally: a P2P Theory of Power?

  1. AvatarPeter

    I read Jeff’s book back in the summer of 2005 and found it inspirational. In fact, A Theory of Power is one of the best books I have ever read. It’s certainly not an easy read due to the density of ideas per paragraph. I had to read some sections three times while jotting down notes in the margins before it all sank in. But it’s definitely worth the effort.

    Since then my enthusiasm for the rhizome concept has waned. Why? Well, the vast majority of humanity simply wants to be distracted from having to think and put any extra effort into protecting its interests. People would rather hear about Paris Hilton’s latest escapade than dialogue about how they are being screwed over in terms of, say, access to health care in the USA. Meanwhile there is always a small minority willing to put the extra effort in necessary to seize and maintain control over the majority.

    How does this happen?

    Chomsky explained it best in some documentary I rented from Netflix a year ago. He was being interviewed by a British anarchist who asked him what he thought of anarchism. Chomsky responded that he couldn’t see it working simply because it requires participation in a lot of meetings and that’s something few people have the discipline and temperament for. So if you want to take-over an anarchist group just demand endless meetings and then hold the votes after everyone else has gone home.

    There’s also Nietzsche’s “will to power” drive. The few that have it always manage to exploit the many that don’t. That’s why Dick Cheney is worth about $200 million while Dennis Kucinich recently reported a net worth of about $50K.

    The rhizome concept will go nowhere for these reasons.

  2. AvatarMichel Bauwens

    Hi Peter,

    I think your statememt is a too one dimensional argument against any positive human change. I would rather say that history shows a constant ebb and flow of human progress and regression, and that progress, if indeed it depends on a minority of examplary people, only succeed when they have massive support, and some ideas, like the equality of men and women, the abolition of slavery, have made, at least some, progress over time. The rhizome, far from going nowhere, is becoming a mainstay of current social life, but of course, it is often embedded and mixed with other structures, this is why the rhizome, merely as a structure, is not enough.

    One of the key to social change though, is to design social institutions, not based on the tiny minority of altruists, but so that individual and collective interests can converge, and I personally believe we are making substantial progress in doing this.

    Your despair about human nature in this valley of tears is understandable, but I hope that it is a passing fase, and that even within the darkness, you can see the thousand points of light that are worth nurturing and spreading.

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.