Curtis highlighted my recent note on the Michael Jackson media spectacle and Iran. I agree very much with his characterization that "any info-war effort will need to be aware of the possibilities of an MJ-type black swan squashing that effort," despite the fact that the Iranian information campaign was not necessarily externally directed and thus wasn't substantially harmed by the MJ black swan.
I'd like to expand on this idea a bit in reference to the strategy of information campaigns. Media today is both incredibly pervasive and balkanized.
I'd like to expand on this idea a bit in reference to the strategy of information campaigns. Media today is both incredibly pervasive and balkanized.
Although big media outlets do still drive coverage, there is no
hegemonic single "face of the news" like Walter Cronkite who holds the
nation at rapt attention. You'd think, following the "Long Tail"
rule, that this diffusion would lead to a diversity of both source and
content that would resist the media spectacle. However, the diffusion
in fact amplifies the effect of media spectacles. Twitter is a great example of this--during the Iran crisis one in four
Iran-related Tweets was a Re-Tweet. So when there is a mega media
spectacle you get the same story (albeit with some minor changes) from
every single channel.
The Iranian protestors didn't suffer from this because their goal was to widen their own mobilization and flip regime elites. I'm not going to go as far to say that the international attention was completely meaningless--it severely unnerved the regime and gave the internal mobilization a kind of snowball effect. But if there were a significant US protest campaign going on that sought to influence a specifically national-level American center of gravity, something like the MJ death would have been a body blow.
There is more "bad" news. Black swans like the MJ event are as old as the proverbial Roman practice of "bread and circuses." But in recent years everyday events and people--provided that they are sensational or bizarre enough--can become media spectacles. The Californian "Octo-Mom," the messy end of reality TV stars John and Kate Gosselin's marriage, and the "missing white woman syndrome" all demonstrate the media's power and interest in turning ordinary life into cinematic spectacles that follow preset scripts.
Journalist Neil Gabler writes eloquently about this Hollywood-ization of everyday life in his book Life: The Movie, noting also that people come to identify celebrities' lives with their own and also identify their lives with those of celebrities. What this means is that everyday life, to many, has a more consciously cinematic quality than it did in the past. We come to see ourselves as the stars of our own private production, and increasingly expect to be famous. What Gabler's book tells us about our age is that it is easier than ever for something to become a media spectacle.
For an information campaign planner looking to maximize public attention, both classic (megacelebrity troubles) and new (reality-TV, human interest stories) media spectacles are a critical problem. How are you going to keep people's interest in your cause when Brangelina are about to adopt another Third World baby?
The Situationists' answer was to try to shatter the "society of the spectacle" through attention-grabbing pranks, satires, and parodies of commercial content. The Culture Jam movement reconceived this idea with the metaphor of "jamming" the dominant cultural message by re-appropriating cultural objects and media sources. Both approaches are essentially tactical in that they seek to create attention for attention's sake. Worse, their method of doing so is to try to rage against the spectacle itself--a tactic as bizarre as shooting a handgun at an approaching stormcloud in order to keep dry.
A more productive course of action would be to ensure that your information campaign doesn't have a single point of failure. The difference between an epheremal flash mob and a long-term information campaign is that the latter can be restarted even after a momentary loss of attention. This requires centralized planning and vanguard leadership, elements that wiki and crowdsourcing boosters systematically undervalue. With a backup plan and strategic direction, "culture jams" and other attention-grabbing stunts and spectacles are not mere bids for attention but beachheads to build on--and can be effectively used to restart the movement's momentum after it has been lost.
The Iranian protestors didn't suffer from this because their goal was to widen their own mobilization and flip regime elites. I'm not going to go as far to say that the international attention was completely meaningless--it severely unnerved the regime and gave the internal mobilization a kind of snowball effect. But if there were a significant US protest campaign going on that sought to influence a specifically national-level American center of gravity, something like the MJ death would have been a body blow.
There is more "bad" news. Black swans like the MJ event are as old as the proverbial Roman practice of "bread and circuses." But in recent years everyday events and people--provided that they are sensational or bizarre enough--can become media spectacles. The Californian "Octo-Mom," the messy end of reality TV stars John and Kate Gosselin's marriage, and the "missing white woman syndrome" all demonstrate the media's power and interest in turning ordinary life into cinematic spectacles that follow preset scripts.
Journalist Neil Gabler writes eloquently about this Hollywood-ization of everyday life in his book Life: The Movie, noting also that people come to identify celebrities' lives with their own and also identify their lives with those of celebrities. What this means is that everyday life, to many, has a more consciously cinematic quality than it did in the past. We come to see ourselves as the stars of our own private production, and increasingly expect to be famous. What Gabler's book tells us about our age is that it is easier than ever for something to become a media spectacle.
For an information campaign planner looking to maximize public attention, both classic (megacelebrity troubles) and new (reality-TV, human interest stories) media spectacles are a critical problem. How are you going to keep people's interest in your cause when Brangelina are about to adopt another Third World baby?
The Situationists' answer was to try to shatter the "society of the spectacle" through attention-grabbing pranks, satires, and parodies of commercial content. The Culture Jam movement reconceived this idea with the metaphor of "jamming" the dominant cultural message by re-appropriating cultural objects and media sources. Both approaches are essentially tactical in that they seek to create attention for attention's sake. Worse, their method of doing so is to try to rage against the spectacle itself--a tactic as bizarre as shooting a handgun at an approaching stormcloud in order to keep dry.
A more productive course of action would be to ensure that your information campaign doesn't have a single point of failure. The difference between an epheremal flash mob and a long-term information campaign is that the latter can be restarted even after a momentary loss of attention. This requires centralized planning and vanguard leadership, elements that wiki and crowdsourcing boosters systematically undervalue. With a backup plan and strategic direction, "culture jams" and other attention-grabbing stunts and spectacles are not mere bids for attention but beachheads to build on--and can be effectively used to restart the movement's momentum after it has been lost.
Great post!
I'm wondering about the specific dimensions you would envision for the type of sustained campaign you have suggested in your final paragraph, and particularly how the planners would endeavor to retain interest/passion in the Average Joes and Janes who might so easily become distracted by any given,or multiple, non-planned and non-related events (similar to the MJ event) being highlighted from so many directions.
Incidentally, there seems to be a false-flag "#moonfruit" explosion at Twitter, unless I'm just way too old or out of the loop to see its real purpose.
It's not so much a strategic as organizational factor that really comes into play here.
I think, on the basic level, there is no real substitute for having a sound cause with potentially wide appeal, a solid strategic planning cell, and some kind of charismatic figurehead. The Civil Rights Movement, which Mark Grimsley correctly noted was an insurgency, maintained itself through all sorts of mega-events (Sputnik, the death of JFK, Cuban Missile Crisis) [1].
[1] http://warhistorian.org/wordpress/?p=1407
Not much time this weekend (it seems) so have to give a quick reply.
I agree with you re: "having a sound cause with potentially wide appeal" etc.
But that would be for a case where massive, sustained memetic movement with one focus was required. On the surface, this is what the Twit Greeners appeared to desire. I also think, vis-a-vis the "sound cause", it would need to be borne from something either entirely novel and dramatic -- like the 9/11 event -- or perhaps a "last straw" event that brings many previous grievances into focus. There might be other examples/types. In any case, this seems relevant to the hands in the field dynamic of 5GW, particularly with regard to one of the old mentions of that phrase recently linked; i.e., the using of self-interest to motivate many people.
Also relevant to hands in the field might be another type of info-war. This type also would use self-interest, but the stories/info being propagated may not have one focus and may on the surface appear entirely unrelated. But nonetheless, so many actors acting upon that info would create a convergence of effects desired by the 5GW operator. In this type, I'm not really sure a media Black Swan would be as threatening to the 5GW info operations -- although it might be. So I'm wondering if the next step in this exploration might be to delineate different types of info strategies and determine the corresponding types of objectives, as well as strengths and weaknesses, for each.
Absolutely true, but I was talking more about the conventional information campaign with a single main focus rather a simultaneous effort that comes together.
I also think your idea about the single event that could many hitherto unrelated things to the fore is a useful construct.
Dude, who are you people? Why is this blog so awesome? What the hell is going on here?!!
(Seriously, the "about" page isn't telling me much ;-)
www.ethanbauley.com
(via umair haque)
Hi Ethan.
The theory of 5GW (Fifth Gradient-or Grade-Warfare) emerged as a consequence of another model, 4GW theory, or Fourth Generation Warfare theory, although as you may have seen on the About page, we have dropped the idea of "generations" from the model and now write of grades or gradients of warfare.
4GW theory considers the development of modern warfare as occurring in 4 stages with particular characteristics for each stage in the development. Very loosely speaking, many of the foes we now face utilize 4GW. One of the early motivations for finding a fifth generation was the question, How can we defeat 4GW-style enemies?, since, generally, each successive generation of warfare developed to combat the prior generation with greater effectiveness.
Fifth-gradient warfare theory, although it owes a lot to 4GW theory, has begun to develop on its own, eschewing many of the assumptions of 4GW theory, including the strictly generational model.
In either case, however, 4GW is seen as a style of warfare that uses the media more than any previous type of warfare to attack an opponent's morale. (Think: suicide bombers and spectacular attacks, dire manifestos and warnings broadcast via the internet, solidarity movements, etc.) 5GW actually steps up the game, in a sort of preemptive manipulation of the environment (including media) in an effort to shape future actions of multiple actors, in multiple domains, leading to the eventual emergence of sought-for realities. (This is a very, very simplified abridgment of the idea!)
I'm glad you like the site. If you browse around, you might get a better idea of what this site is all about than I can put in a simple comment!
Thanks, Curtis!
Are there any books (or other blogs) you'd recommend for someone just getting into this stuff?
Hi Ethan,
For a short list of books I would recommend (in no particular order):
The Sling and the Stone - Hammes
The Black Swan - Taleb
The Starfish and the Spider - Brafman and Beckstrom
The Lexus and the Olive Tree - Friedman
The Pentagon's New Map - Barnett
Brave New War - Robb
The Utility of Force - Smith
I'm sure each D5GW writer has their own list.
Curtis, do we have a blogroll anymore?
Also, there is a forthcoming "Handbook of 5GW" that should be available in the near future.
How could I have forgotten to include that!
Ethan,
I'd recommend these books first for a framework:
Robert Citino: The Quest for Decisive Victory and Operational Warfare
Milan Vego: Joint Operational Warfare (you can find the 2001 edition used)
Peter Paret (ed): The Makers of Modern Strategy
John Robb: Brave New War
Azar Gat: A History of Military Thought
Colin Gray: Modern Strategy
Arherring,
I've added a blogrolling feature to the right-most column now. Still have to populate it though.
Ethan,
The 5GW Theory Timeline Blog might also be a good source. Some of the links are old/broken; but most should lead to the earliest discussions relating to the theory of 5GW.
Also, for the earliest conceptualization of the generations of modern warfare, you could check out William Lind's essay "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation" at DNI. It gives an early outline of 1GW - 4GW -- although Lind stops at 4GW and, as far as I know, has offered no ideas about the shape & scope of 5GW.
It's good to see a blogroll up now.