Jay Deragon comes out brilliantly in this post almost dispelling the myth that Bigger is Better.
I fully agree to his viewpoint that Small can be Big. No doubt about it. The power lies in the cohesiveness of the interrelationships of the networked elements.
But there is something beyond this too, which we generally tend to gloss over getting stuck at the interrelationship level.
The strength of the relationship of the interconnections and interactions within a network is only the secondary cause of the ‘big’ results a network might produce. However, the primary cause still remains the contradictions the network enjoys with the external causes.
This is because the external causes are the conditions of change and the internal causes (the reason for the network to gel together and work as a tribe) form the basis of change or movements to flourish to make big social impacts.
In other words, external causes or the subjective conditions become operative through internal causes only. There might be reasons for the network to form but without the contradictory external causes it remains a mere network only.
Failure to recognize, relate and respond effectively to the external cause would mean smaller results or impacts irrespective of the size or strength of the network.
This phenomenon has been amply demonstrated by the recent spate of revolutionary activities that are still sweeping through the Middle East and waiting to erupt in other places of the world.
So for a strong movement to happen it is not only the size of the network that would determine the results but it would also depend on the strength and nature of contradictions the network enjoys with the external subjective conditions. Stronger the contradictions better would be the flow and strength of the movement.
More would be the impact. One is not without the other.
Dibyendu De @SparkingInsight is the author of this post.