by jo suter September 2023

In “Tyranny, Inc.” Sohrab Amari makes astute  observations and analyses about the surveillance and coercion used by private corporations, including mainstream media now mostly owned by big business and big tech.  He admits it will require more than political or legal solutions, yet he falls into the same pattern and ends with a chapter “In Defense of Politics”.  Maybe these are the tools he knows.  

Amari expands on Galbraith’s idea from the 1950’s of “countervailing power” to describe the balancing of business power by various consumer organizations at the time.  That balance of power has now tipped away from citizens who make up most of the work force.  What changed?  The new information technology that should be flattening the playing field seems to be working in favor of those at the top.  

The same information technology has also decreased the time of interaction with real people.  Voice mail and email are easy to put on the back burner or simply not answer at all.  It’s a bit of power used by managers and their assistants at each level of the social hierarchy and manifested often on social media platforms.  

The driver of surveillance and coercion comes from fear, either real or imagined, about the expectations of the boss or others around who might want surveillance or coercion of someone who is not getting with the program.  It’s easy enough to do and carries little consequence in an era of instant disconnect.  

Grass roots people who make up much of middle management are often asked to make decisions on inadequate information.  Yet these same people, as individuals, still have valid points of view if they stop to reflect – or if anyone might ask them.   So they do what they believe is expected of them. 

Find, Filter, and Move Useful Information

What would a new “countervailing power” look like in this era?  Politics and legislation will still be needed and used, but now the emphasis is on communication.  We need a structure and process for small groups to efficiently find and filter useful information that can also be used as feedback to the right places.  This feedback might go to an individual, other small groups, decision makers, and politicians.  It can be private, but more likely to be made public if the feedback is ignored. 

Feedback loops that move useful information to the right time and right place can be filtered by small groups who do the work to make it useful.  We currently operate on what might be called Democracy 101 that uses feedback from voters every 2 to 4 years.  Democracy 202 could be a better system that uses feedback on a timely basis with specific information and ideas that could be useful to decision makers.  Leaders need useful information, not simply petitions from special interest groups.

Small mixed groups, acting as sensors in the feedback loop, use private group meetings alternating with public team presentations.  This process can be repeated to find useful information without fear of the individual standing up in front of a group like public speaking.  This is a widespread fear that is often paralyzing.  It’s pretty human.  

Small groups with the right process can lead to discovery and development of new ideas.   It can offer new ways of looking at the same stubborn problems.  And it can be started by anyone at any level.  Groups that try to use this method for their own ends will receive feedback from other small groups.  

Hire and Higher 

Small groups can be used as a structural unit of employment.  A group of people are hired (or fired) together, leading them to pull together and watch out for each other. Such a method could be instituted either by an employer or by a group of employees who want to divided one job position among several workers.  The employees will then decide who works on what days, giving them more flexibility.  

Higher education too can admit small groups of students rather than make decisions about admission on an individual basis.  Some percent of slots filled by admission of a small group decreases the emphasis on admission test scores but puts more of the burden on that group of students who must pull together and help support each other.  If any of them drops out, they must all drop out.  They are helping each other climb the mountain as a team.  The question of being fair is not the pivotal question here.  This process does not preclude admission at a later date.  

Follow the AI?

With censorship and surveillance on the rise, it may be impossible to know who is calling the shots.   AI will likely make this worse.   People in your own circle will become even more distant.  Decision makers will tend to accept only from insiders and ignore what they do not want to hear.  Bubbles of ignorance start here.   

Additional forms of non-high tech communication can be developed easily at the local level with simple mediums such as a sheet of paper for those physically close.  This does not replace high tech but augments it.   Pushing communication tools forward concurrently with other issues can allow other small groups to use it also.  

Grassroots citizens are smart enough but often live in a smaller world.  Their fear or imagined fear of what others might think can come from any direction.  Their fear is that of being an outcast – a dangerous position in all social groups.  But grassroots citizens do have other advantages – they have knowledge and pay attention to what is happening locally.  They know and care about others.  And they like to play games.  Small group feedback does not have to be tedious.  It can be challenging and playful.