Cards On Table III: Connection + Communication

Rough draft: Version 0.9, © Valerie Gremillion 2000
Basic Concepts

CONNECTION PLUS COMMUNICATION

Connection and communication when taken together say a number of things about how our current human system is organized, and how it might best be changed in its organization. For instance, until the dawn of the internet, there were only a few typical 'functional interactions' that were seen in human communication. One-to-one communication: by talking, by writing, by telegraph. We are all familiar with one-to-one communications. And they may be the most effective means of transmitting information, for many things - often people will only listen to a single voice they trust. One-to-Some and Some-to-One communication. This is found in small groups, where one person can be heard by all and all can respond to them. Families and tribes and villages often use this kind of communication. A key distinction however is whether all of those involved can count on being heard equally, as in a council perhaps, or are more like a cabinet, where, regardless of the group, one person or a few are in positions of control. One-to-Many communication. For literally ages, the main kind of one-to-many interaction was that of kings to their subjects, priests to their congregations, or other instances of the hierarchy. To some extent those groups could respond and be heard in some form of 'many-to-one' communication, but again there were generally power disparities and what those who responded said was often ignored. But the printing press changed this, so that any good writer, not just a king or president, might be able to reach an audience of 'many'. Yet it is doubtful that their audience can reach back, feed back, to the writer, so the other side of the coin, 'Many-to-One', is difficult in this framework. Most instances of the mass media - newspapers, television, movies, books - are in some form (or at least in intent) One-to-Many. But this form leaves the vast majority of people out in the cold, unable to express or unable to be heard or responded to. The problems of representative democracy here in the U.S. can be traced to a large extent, to the non-reciprocity of our communications with our representatives. While Many may respond to our one representative, those within that Many who have power, wealth or influence 'count' more than others, their words and intentions more often heard and responded to by the 'One' (whether journalist or president) in question. Many-to-Many communication. Until the internet this form of communication rarely existed, due to technical problems of signal and volume, unless you count endeavors such as science itself (and the scientific dialog) as many-to-many. The problem there is again that not all of the 'many' are ranked equally.. in most many-to-many situations, there is a hierarchy within the many, insuring that still, most will not be heard. With the internet, though, we have a chance at true Many-to-Many information flow, with acceptance or 'hearing' based not on position in the hierarchy or other labeling of the channel through which the information arrives, but on the wisdom and usefulness of the communication itself. When position, wealth, and power are not the main determinants of whether someone has a voice, the vast potential of humans can be tapped. The worth of ideas rather than their owners' prestige can be the basis of their acceptance. Individuals can be heard, received, responded to - if not by all, than by... many! This is a true evolutionary transition. It portends the breakdown of the hierarchy into more lateral and equivalent structures in which the energy and potential and expression of all humans is not wasted, but available to be utilized. It allows for empowering participation and freeing self-expression. It says we can ALL matter, we can ALL contribute, that none of us is powerless to help in changing the system. It says that any one voice CAN make a difference. So: let us hear your voices!