Smart Mobs Comment

By Greg Orr

March 18, 2003

In Smart Mobs, Howard Rheingold argues that connective technology diminishes reliance on the hierarchical structure of leadership in social systems, supporting smart mobs with decentralized leadership. I will argue that this effect of connective technology does not encourage mob mentality because it promotes more individualistic values.

Standard diffusion theory holds that opinion leader sponsorship of an innovation catalyzes the epidemic spreading of ideas and actions within social systems. This suggests hierarchical organization of the social system in which attitudes are passed down through the hierarchy and accepted by underlings. But there is evidence that the increase in connective technology, most obviously on the Web, has decentralized opinion leadership. Access to information and publishing sources is no longer a barrier to opinion leadership, as anyone has access to information and can publish their evaluations of ideas and products on the Web (epinions.com, Amazon.com, personal webpages, etc.). People can choose from among this growing number of potential opinion leaders which to trust. For example, for opinion leadership in music on the Web, there are many high profile outlets such as Rollingstone.com (mainstream), allmusic.com (comprehensive), pitchforkmedia.com (indie) and also personal webpages that show up on Google like the one titled Kevin’s Celtic & Folk CD Reviews. These sources have profoundly different interpretations of what constitutes good music. People choose the opinion leadership that best suits them. So what we are finding is that opinion leadership is becoming less hierarchical; people listen to whomever they want and everyone can contribute his/her two cents. As Rheingold says, the hierarchical structure is being replaced by “webby nonlinear causality of peers influencing peers”(178).

Rheingold seems to think that the change will yield increases in swarming group intelligence, i.e. smart mobs. He claims it allows widespread movements to arise without centralized leadership as first movers influence some, who in turn influence some more, and so on. He relates our group interaction to flocking birds that shift their flight patterns according to what the bird next to them does. With technology providing communication between individuals at all times, flocking behavior will be made easier.

Flocking behavior is encouraged, though, by uniformity of values within the group. Birds have flocking behavior because they all have the same goals. The system of a bird making sure it is on track with the one next to it is a simple and effective idea to achieve a shared goal. Flocking behavior among humans seems most likely in communities that hold homogeneous convictions. I would argue, though, that the decentralization of opinion leadership caused by connective technology has allowed greater diversity of opinion. This predicts a decline in large-scale flocking because the population exhibits less unanimity in viewpoints. People now more precisely define their flock.

I agree that connective technologies make flocking behavior easier because it allows better resources to keep track of what the rest of the group is doing. But it seems that connective technology has decreased the size of potential flocks by supporting a proliferation of opinions.