On the Barnettian 5GW
I’m bumping up a comment I left in another thread…
And this is where 5GW on a grand scale may diverge from the current Robb/Hammes approach, which emphasizes one superempowered individual as opposed to generating empowerment across an entire society.
[Steve, commenting on “Kilcullen on Narratives in Iraq.”]
Yes. I once included a consideration of the two types of superempowerment when contrasting Barnett with Robb. It would seem that Barnett’s approach (which we at D5GW have often labeled “5GWish”) requires the general superempowerment of individuals across the spectrum, as an antidote to the Robbian one-man-killing-crew. With regard to some recent considerations on the idea of kinetics, this means creating more routes for the channeling of powers, not only as a distracting maneuver (“jobs” vs “guns”) but also as a method of equalizing the kinetics across the system, or forcing kinetics into indirection. It is a kind of perpetual, systemic, mass deflection.
[CGW, responding]
This is a long post, so I’m putting the rest below the fold……
Superempowerment
The post I linked in that comment, “‘Global Guerrillas’ as 5GW Warriors”, included 5 keys I used for unlocking the door to the future of John Robb’s Global Guerrillas. One of those keys: Superempowerment of the Individual.—There is a term used variously and vaguely in these discussions; I myself conflated two interpretations of the term. The Robbian view seems to depend on unequal distribution of “-powerment”, in which some individuals or groups become more powerful than the general human population; whereas, at heart Thomas Barnett’s Core/Gap paradigm and strategy seem to depend upon an eventual equalization, or a relative equalization (which is a type of oxymoronic phrase), of individual empowerment across the globe. Nonetheless, in my characterization of the two ideas in the older post, I conflated these concepts of empowerment under one heading: superempowerment. One supposes a kind of monopoly on greater powers; the other, a general but increased power for each and all.
The term and the old conflation remind me of the kid superhero Dash in the movie The Incredibles. On the way home after being sent to the principal’s office, Dash complains that he is never able to use his natural powers. Dash’s mom tries to explain how everyone is special in some way, not just those with superhuman powers; to which, Dash responds that, if everyone is special then no one is. (This startling intellection was a pleasant surprise early in the movie, followed by others later.) Should “superempowerment” also follow such a rule? In fact, upon infecting the human mind, the idea of superempowerment seems to follow that rule; so we see actors on the global stage trying to be special. Can the rule be broken?
We also see a split in types of empowerment, between the Barnettian and the Robbian paradigms. If superempowerment is to be conflated:
The Robbian view of superempowerment hinges upon the ability to cause concrete damages via technology — whatever the level of technology. The Barnettian view of the term would assume an economic empowerment via which those in the Gap are first brought up to the level of individual economic empowerment seen in the Core, and then all upon the globe continue to experience an increase in economic empowerment. For the Barnettian view, we should not equate “economic empowerment” only with the size of the personal bank account, but with the ability to secure resources, or personal property, necessary for individual happiness or at least contentment.
Also, if we conflate these superempowerments, we should make the distinction which then arises concerning the prefix super-. In John Robb’s world, the prefix stands for present inequalities among individuals and groups, but in Thomas Barnett’s strategic vision, the term would need to be understood as designating an inequality between the past and present/future. In the Robbian world, some people are already super in relation to others currently existing; indeed, in the future he sees, this disparity would also continue and even increase. In the Barnettian vision, the present or, more likely the future peoples will be super in relation to those living in the past (their own past selves or their ancestors or both.)
I know that Thomas Barnett is aware of the term superempowerment, and that, as with most who discusses these things, he tends to use it in the sense John Robb would give the term. But I’m playing with the term.
Barnettism vs. Robbism
From being a bystander in the various Robb vs. Barnett debates (not only between the two principal actors, but also between their supporters and even between the subjects they study when forming their theories), I have developed the sense that the Robbian view is dichotomous and vaguely Manichean. If the Barnettian globalization proceeds and everyone is made special, no one will be special; if the Barnettian globalization ever settles over the world, then the general equalization of means must translate into extraordinary weakening for all individuals. The two theorists aside, this either/or style of viewing is probably what motivates the putative Global Guerrillas and other anti-globalists to act.My own criticisms of GG theory — one of which both MountainRunner and Dan tdaxp have recently highlighted — hinge upon the utter insolvency of the dichotomy which stands like an overstuffed though unobserved elephant in the center of that room. To the degree that these anti-globalists seek to become special, they must more and more resemble the nation-states who have already achieved that feat. Put another way: as they try to develop their own monopolies on power in response to the perception that a general deflection of kinetic powers will weaken them, they will be creating exactly the same sort of structures they would weaken! Inequalities and disparities galore. A house divided.
I have not forgotten the title of this post. In a previous cursory examination of divergent theories of 5GW, I noted that Thomas Barnett seems to have a theory much like that theory often propounded here on D5GW, but that his vision assumes that nation-states and corporations can initiate the 5GW — and do so openly. This approach is characterized as being top-down by the Robbian crew, occasionally derided as such. Given many of the preceding paragraphs, I wonder if the Robbian crew is correct.
The Barnettian Paradox
Steve, in commenting on the thread about Iraq, put forth the paradox:WRT Iraq, yes, our specter prevents Iraqis from assuming responsibility. It is an ironic paradox of state/nation building that cannot be avoided: how do we get indigenous groups to act on their own when we try to do everything for them? It is this transition that we still cannot manage, maybe because we have yet to find pols on the ground who have the resources to act independently.
[Steve]
—to which, I responded,
This consideration is itself paradoxical. I.e., our foes are the “pols on the ground” who seem quite capable of finding the resources to act independently of us.This is the Barnettian paradox: To the degree that nation-states and corporations continue to exercise conglomerate powers when initiating conflict, they will be the special ones. The ideal equalization cannot occur globally, and even the oxymoronic relative equalization cannot occur. So long as small groups or indeed individuals remain at the head of nation-states and corporations, those individuals will always wield greater powers with respect to everyone else within the system — they are the superempowered actors. (Albeit, given the distinction I have already drawn, their power may be economic more than anything else if Barnett’s vision comes to fruition.)
[CGW]
Even despite the fact that Barnett’s superempowered actors are few but actual, the impression that they exist in the first place creates cognitive conflict. We see the distinct case in Iraq and with the go-it-alone nation-state; but we may also infer this cognitive conflict in the growing distrust for some corporations, such as those in the military-industrial complex, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies (viz., Katrina), and the oil industry. (For an American Rightist list, just substitute the MSM and Hollywood.)
The resolution to the Barnettian paradox is not something Barnett himself has offered: a true 5GW approach. Although he speaks in the language of co-optation, he uses the term when addressing inter-national relations; e.g., that Iran can be co-opted. Barnett does not descend to the street level although he does support improving the lives of the persons on the street; he has yet to formulate a clear plan for co-opting the many individuals of which nations and corporations are comprised. For the most part, he seems to assume that nation-states and corporations, if they only do the right things, will be received as benevolent dictators — or, scratch that term, as benevolent superempowered entities.
He may be half right. Many people seek saviors of one sort or another; many are happy to delegate responsibility for the things they themselves cannot touch or do not have the time or motivation to fix themselves — or do not understand, themselves. The crux of the Barnettian paradox involves the manner and method of assigning these delegations so that the general man-on-the-street can rest easily knowing his prosperous future is assured. Even within the Core, much doubt about this process of delegation exists; various superempowerments within and without the Core threaten to upset faith in the systems of the Core.
For his theory of 5GW, Barnett needs to reduce the footprint of his preferred superempowered entities, and this will require a re-think about how they operate — in fact, perhaps also about who they are.
Update: A follow-up post has been made, which covers some Blogospheric responses.
Filed in The Vault and tagged Co-optation, Global Guerrillas, Globalization, John Robb, Superempowerment, Thomas P. M. Barnett
One difference between the two is that the Robb view seems to be destruction-focused. The Barnett view seems to be creation focused.
"For his theory of 5GW, Barnett needs to reduce the footprint of his preferred superempowered entities, and this will require a re-think about how they operate — in fact, perhaps also about who they are."
This was a very interesting post. I think you found a hole in Barnett's thinking. His ideas to black box the work out to China or India always seemed...not quite there.
I'd like to see ideas to address the paradox.
Curtis,
Great post. A couple points. On the paradox:
"To the degree that nation-states and corporations continue to exercise conglomerate powers when initiating conflict, they will be the special ones...So long as small groups or indeed individuals remain at the head of nation-states and corporations, those individuals will always wield greater powers with respect to everyone else within the system — they are the superempowered actors."
Yes, when our leaders begin the 'takedown' of rogue states, they themselves are superempowered through the use of a 3GW Leviathan and it is impossible for the use of this power to be hidden. It's out in the open, for everyone to see. When the war ends however, 'superempowerment' must also transition, and maybe this is where the concept of the puppet-master comes into play. That transition from war to peace requires our leaders to consciously 'rethink how they operate,' and the (secret) exercise of our power must constitute the communal empowerment of our nation-to-be. Our elites don't have to reduce our footprint so much as manipulate the perception of our footprint.
Finally, maybe it's not only the identity of our leaders - 'who they are' - as much as the identity of individuals in the nation to be. We're beaten by the paradox when the indigenous people become dependent on us to act as some benevolent despot. This is certainly evident in Bosnia, where the Office of the High Representative was supposed to be abolished this year yet continues indefinitely. This fatherly form of nation-building leads to an indigenous perception of identity that prevents the realization of empowerment. We don't give these people the tools to control their own lives, and this is as much as political as economic. Maybe Barnett isn't so far off then, as DiB can be seen as spreading empowerment to the man-on-the-street.
Indeed -- the greatest story of human history has been the victory of the state and the weakening of an individual's ability to violently harm the community.
Great post -- this should spur some really interesting feedback.
I agree that the solution to your postulated "Barnettian Paradox" is a true 5GW approach: to wit, a fundamental restructuring of our ontologies. Globalization has brought new opportunities for the creation of wealth, which in turn allows people to enhance the quality of their and their children's lives. But it also means there is a cost: we have to honor contracts, play well with others, and tolerate the pagan heathen down the street.
Maybe the SEIs are revolting against the spectre of top-down mandated rules, or maybe they're seeking to preserve cultural heritage. But the clash between "Core" and "Gap" we are seeing played out today was as inevitable as the clash between 19th-cent. America and the Plains Indians. The tribes that surrendered their arms, land and nomadic lifestyle in exchange for life on a reservation were given a modicum of sovereignty; those that did not were annihilated. There was no chance for "peaceful coexistence", since the two systems were spatially incompatible.
I wager Tom would agree with much of your post as well -- even on the notion of "reduc[ing] the footprint of his preferred superempowered entities". The idea of the SysAdmin Force or Dept of Everything Else is not necessarily an American one; the China Team during The New Map Game (June 2005 in Newport, RI) postulated that its massive population made a logical source for SysAdmin functions throughout the world. This vexed the U.S. Team since they could not counter -- and the economic gains that followed favored those that showed up for the reconstruction.
And as for the Wisdom of Dash, that too is an ontological construct. Does it really matter if we're each "special" if we have the means of self-determination, property ownership, state enforcement of contracts, and an enhanced standard of living for our posterity?
Best,
shane
One at a time:
PSlog,
Me too! Dan has been working on it...
___________
Steve,
The problem, as I see it, is this: A non-linear space/time continuum exists, vis-a-vis the OODA and EBO, which makes such a transition nearly impossible. Put another way: even if the Leviathan recedes, the memory of it will remain for a very long time, perhaps for generations; reason operates outside the sort of pure-Objectivist paradigm which would depend too much on changing a present environment and expecting the 'new' objective environment to be the only cause of the perceptions and reasons held by others.
So I would place the changed manner of operation before (some) Leviathan does its work rather than after its work. This does not mean, "Oh! Create a fully functional SysAdmin before sending in the Leviathan", but perhaps -- I'm brainstorming here, in response to PSlog's statement -- more of, "The 5GW SysAdmin must drive the Leviathan" or, "The 5GW SysAdmin must drive 1) the pre-5GW SysAdmin and 2) the pre-5GW Leviathan." Ok, these are offered only as fairly vague pointers for understanding my thoughts concerning the necessity of altering the operations before some Leviathan does its work.
Incidentally, much thinking on 5GW here at D5GW includes the consideration that a la The Puppet Master, sub-5GW forces will only be the convenient proxies or "hands in the field" for the hidden 5GW operation.
Similar to my comment in another thread about the phrase "our loop", I'd comment that "our footprint" may be a misleading concept! Although we think of America as a single entity, and we know that the hypothetical entity is "the only superpower", and we might think that "we" are that superempowered entity, in truth America comprises the superempowered as well as the average-powered and even perhaps the relatively weak.
The idea of manipulating the 'perception of ... footprint" is odd for me, since I view that metaphorical footprint as being, by necessity, perceived as a footprint. Extending the metaphor then....I think there may be a difference between looking down and seeing a set of footprints in the sand keeping time beside you and seeing none at all. The whole notion of transitioning from the obvious Leviathan to a hidden set of rule-sets guiding people -- their own rule-sets once those rule-sets are adopted -- would require that the affected population could be made to forget that a superempowered entity made their success possible and might be keeping watch over all they do.
Hmmm...now that I think of those last two para's, I wonder if this could be achieved by getting target populations to see only individual Americans, all of them operating in seeming independence from the nation-state America? (Or, Chinese/China, Indians/India, etc.?) Radical de-centralization? (Albeit, guided by a 5GW org?)
___________
Shane,
It already has! (Still...)
To your postulated Core/Gap historical dualism, you should probably add The Individual as a competitor when contemplating future SEI's. Even though that Individual may be merely the proxy of either Core or Gap group dynamics, the potential certainly exists that he could be some synthesis or something not quite either.
I'm not too fond of the uniformitarianism approach for defining optimism. (Neither am I a big fan of positivism as an approach for defining optimism, given that it, also, is generally backward-looking when making predictions! Thus, my OODA-EBO conundrum...)
I suppose Tom would agree with parts but would fall back on an "It's always worked" kind of answer. Wait and see. I think he is far more right than wrong but that some key elements are missing from his blueprint. Well, he speaks in parables sometimes (as, incidentally, Robb does), and very recently he admitted, "The big thing is that the vision spreads and gets replicated in a reproducible fashion." -- which reminds me of PSlog's old distinction. Again, not to nitpick, or actually to do so, I'd rather he went with a "progressive iteration" approach rather than hoping for mere replication and seeing mere unattributed replication when others write of these things!
On the Wisdom of Dash: Yes, it does matter. At least until everyone else has broken that rule (with or without knowing they have!)
Curtis,
I agree with your notion of synthesized proxy/independent SEIs -- just as none of us are perfect representatives of the amalgamation we call our nation-state. I'm tempted to go into an Ayn Rand-influenced Objectivist rant about individual (and individualist) motivations... :-)
Rather, I will focus on two of your comments: that of uniformitarianism and the OODA/EBO dilemma.
Since my schooling was in physics, I buy into the notion of uniformitarianism (at least from a few nanoseconds after the inflationary expansion of our universe to today). The laws of physics for us are the same as the laws of physics for Newton and the laws of physics for Jesus and Abraham and Moses and the velociraptors in the Jurassic period.
Similarly, I also buy into Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism in relation to Logical Positivism -- i.e., nothing can ever really be absolutely *proved*, we can only disprove hypotheses.
Where the path gets murky is applying these epistemic constructs to social sciences. That was where our concepts of EBO and Operational Net Assessment (ONA, the blueprint of EBO) went off the rails at U.S. Joint Forces Command J9. While Dan at tdaxp chose to focus on male-male relations in his deconstruction of uniformism v. positivism, I submit that one can unify uniformism (as historical consistency of causality) and positivism (the ability to affirm [though not absolutely prove] hypotheses through strict scientific method) in the physical sciences.
Our attempts (at USJFCOM J9) to apply general systems theory to an adversary's systemology, however, failed at reconciling the complex nature of the human behavioral responses to our actions. This was the trump face card for our World Class Adversary "Red Team" (stood up in late 2000 in USJFCOM J9, but disestablished shortly after MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE-2002 when our mentor LtGen(ret) Paul Van Riper, USMC, confounded the Blue team with his asymmetric strategies).
As Winston Churchill once said, it is important for commanders to occasionally take the enemy into consideration when crafting their plans....
If one looks beyond the simple "kinetics" of applying energy in spacetime to influence an adversary, we will see exactly what you've described in other threads: the long memory of people in the blast zone, even after military forces have departed the region. While you and I differ on the notion of "kinetics", I think we are in agreement on the social, cultural and ethical impact of "high-tech/stand-off" warfighting when we attempt to transition to Security, Stability, Transition and Reconstruction Operations.
If a power insists on trading its hardware for the adversary's lives, it will have a much harder time after the fight shrinking the Gap...
sf/ shane
Shane, it seems as if we are in broad agreement, then! Uniformitarianism and positivism have their place, no doubt about it; but we're a little behind when it comes to the humanities and social dynamics.
Primarily: my criticisms of uniformitarianism and positivism in my previous comment are dependent upon the use of the concept of optimism for this subject, and express the fact that I simply don't see how either of those approaches can justify strong optimism. Perhaps, contingent optimism or measured optimism.
Round 2 on this, I wrote the first response and then hit the back button. Frustration abounds.
Anyway, I wanted to respond to Curtis's point about reason's incompatibility with Objectivism. I agree that memory of the Leviathan complicates the SysAdmin's work, but I don't think that historical memory is set in stone, nor is the identity of the SysAdmin. If a target network identifies us as an enemy, this means there will be specific expectations of our behavior assumed by that population. Dislocating this perception, then, is a key aspect of the SysAdmin's work. I think of the SysAdmin operating on two structural levels in society, the micro and macro. Micro is where localized interaction happens, the stuff Steve McKnight talks about in The Americans Have Landed, ('interaction humanizes the relationship'). WHen this interaction does happens, the SysAdmin ideally should do everything in its power to destroy its Enemy identity, and this is different from shaping the environment. Through positive interaction and communication, the SysAdmin should falsify any Enemy perception, and, according to constructivism, can do so because of the process of 'mirroring' or 'reflected apprisals,' whereby "actors come to see themselves as a reflection of how they think Others see or 'appriase' them, in the 'mirror' of Others representation of the Self." (Wendt, Social Theory of IR, p. 328) Certainly, there are vested interests in the population who would love to maintain our Enemy identity, but the key is to develop and transform the society socioeconomically to pull the rug out from under them by picking apart their base of power. in this way, the memory of who we are changes as our actions - on the ground, smiles in their face, shaking hands and kissing babies - prevents their mirroring an Enemy. Maybe this is what Barnett meant about love, and connecting, on a personal level.
Also, Shane comes up with great quotes:
"If a power insists on trading its hardware for the adversary's lives, it will have a much harder time after the fight shrinking the Gap...", and rightly continues to stress the importance of ontological frameworks in 5GW.
Steve,
A late response; sorry.
The problem is, it's not that easy. Having said that, however, I also agree with your general thinking, while thinking that the kind of effort you propose is exactly where we need to be looking. How best to achieve it?
Multiple methods may exist.
When I first read your comments, I immediately remembered an old Barnettian 5GW Dream. That dream made me think of, grossly speaking, a Good Cop/Bad Cop scenario: The 'evil' American Leviathan does what it does best, and gets the label of evilness so many like to apply; then, failing in the reconstruction, the Leviathan 'retreats' and some opponent of America steps in to help with the reconstruction -- e.g., China -- as the "Good Cop" SysAdmin. Or, if not an opponent of America, then an avowed non-aligned state like India. Of course, publicly there'd be a lot of wrangling and finger-wagging; but privately the Good Cop and the Bad Cop would be working together.
Another scenario, perhaps a bit too fantastic as of yet: Let the Republican party in America be the Leviathan and the party of Democrats be the SysAdmin. This is another type of Bad Cop/Good Cop scenario. Unfortunately, for it to work, there'd need to be sustained and irreparable and utterly obvious hostility between the two parties. (Heh, imagine that.) Incidentally, this could be the sort of thing that happens with the next national election. In any case, the most far-fetched such scenario would be a reorganization of America, in which the Rebublican party (or some other party by another name) is given a kind of Constitutional mandate to be the Leviathan and the Democratic party has a Constitutional mandate to be the SysAdmin, with new balances of power drawn between the two -- to keep America from falling apart.
The most realistic approach may be to simply create a SysAdmin U. which is a private entity rather than a public entity, along the lines of what Mark Safranski suggested recently when he suggested "Building new, highly decentralized, 'Wikinomic' mass-collaborative platforms from scratch." Get Bill Gates, Winfrey, Bono, et. al, on board to run it and deploy graduates where they are needed within the world, with assurances of relative non-interference from the federal government. This is one of my favorites.