RAND_MR1382

example, some key 1960s writings about general systems theory (e.g., Bertalanffy,
1968) and social complexity (e.g., Simon, 1969) took stances lauding the roles of
hierarchy in many areas of life. But since the 1970s, and especially in the 1990s, ideas
have come slowly to the fore that networks are the crucial design. Thus, it is said that
“most real systems are mixtures of hierarchies and networks” (Pagels, 1989, p. 51; also
La Porte, 1975), and that “the web of life consists of networks within networks,” not
hierarchies (Capra, 1996, p. 35; also Kelly, 1994). So many advances are under way in
the study of complex networks that
In the longer run, network thinking will become essential to all branches of science as we struggle to interpret the
data pouring in from neurobiology, genomics, ecology, finance, and the World-Wide Web (Strogatz, 2001, p. 275).
The Dark Side
Most people might hope for the emergence of a new form of organization to be led by
“good guys” who do “the right thing” and grow stronger because of it. But history does
not support this contention. The cutting edge in the early rise of a new form may be
found equally among malcontents, ne’er-do-wells, and clever opportunists eager to take
advantage of new ways to maneuver, exploit, and dominate. Many centuries ago, for
example, the rise of hierarchical forms of organization, which displaced traditional,
consultative, tribal forms, was initially attended, in parts of the world, by the
appearance of ferocious chieftains bent on military conquest and of violent secret
societies run according to rank—long before the hierarchical form matured through the
institutionalization of states, empires, and professional administrative and bureaucratic
systems. In like manner, the early spread of the market form, only a few centuries ago,
was accompanied by a spawn of usurers, pirates, smugglers, and monopolists, all
seeking to elude state controls over their earnings and enterprises. 5
Why should this pattern not be repeated in an age of networks? There appears to be a
subtle, dialectical interplay between the bright and dark sides in the rise of a new form
of organization. The bright-side actors may be so deeply embedded in and constrained
by a society’s established forms of organization that many have difficulty becoming the
early innovators and adopters of a new form. In contrast, nimble bad guys may have a
freer, easier time acting as the cutting edge—and reacting to them may be what
eventually spurs the good guys to innovate.
The spread of the network form and its technologies is clearly bringing some new risks
and dangers. It can be used to generate threats to freedom and privacy. New methods
for surveillance, monitoring, and tracking are being developed; and the uproars over
the intelligence systems “Echelon,” “Semantic Forests,” and “Carnivore” manifest what
will surely be enduring concerns. Critical national infrastructures for power,
telecommunications, and transportation, as well as crucial commercial databases and
information systems for finance and health, remain vulnerable to computer hackers and
cyberterrorists. Furthermore, a growing “digital divide” between information “haves”