Interesting post on the net.effect blog about some potential concerns about non-centralized organizations. Favorite line:
Why not study how technology helps various nutcases to join forces as well? Wouldn’t this help us draw more insights into technology’s “net effect” (excuse the pun)?
The author specifically mentions the anti-Scientology ‘movement’, but this applies equally well to the (not nearly as awesome as its name) Zeitgeist: The Movie and Loose Change. I’m actually not too familiar with the Project Chanology thing, so if anyone has any clues about what’s behind the hate for Scientology I’d be interested.
(Please don’t read that to mean that I want to know what’s ‘wrong’ with Scientology. I just want to know why that particular ‘movement’ exists. My guess is that it’s probably a combination of unfamiliarity, distaste for Tom Cruise/celebrities, and more than a hint of adolescent anxiety. But why Scientology, and why now? It just doesn’t seem like there are all that many people who have any real direct experience to justify this…)
Interestingly–although unsurprisingly–some of the first few comments on that page were anti-Scientology comments that had little to do with the post.
I guess the real question we should be asking is: how can we differentiate a relatively harmless (albeit annoying) ‘movement’ from something more? Since our old conceptions of group formation are becoming increasingly irrelevant, we’re not going to have many answers looking forward.
Maybe this question can be asked of any terrorist attack, but I find it particularly troubling when I consider an event like the Tokyo subway attacks. I don’t mean to imply that the ‘Truth Movemen’t or Project Chanology are anything like Aleph, but in terms of government/authority action, it probably isn’t easy to distinguish between them, at least in their early stages.
Just a little reminder that we shouldn’t expect easy organization to make everything better, I guess.
One of the problems that I’ve recognized is that people no longer know how to properly express outrage. In a world where the loudest get heard by the most, people have become accustomed to always being the same degree of upset – the maximum. This destroys what it means to dissent. Take the whole business of the tea parties, for example. The participants placed the same amount of distaste nonspecific, hypothetical “taxes” that 18th century Americans used to justify declaring war on the largest physical empire the world has ever seen. Are these comparable? I don’t believe it likely.
As far as Scientology goes, I see little need for a countering movement. They aren’t taking YOUR money, they’re simply participating in a most fantastical business model – you pay and get nothing in return. I think that it’s a very interesting economic study. As far as hatred for Scientology in general, I would like to think that it spawns from a dislike for unfamiliarity as you have said.
This is a special case of unfamiliarity.
In the case of Scientology, you must remain unfamiliar unless you are an active participant. You cannot educate yourself on it by going to the bookstore and purchasing “Scientology: The Holy Text” as you can with Islam or Christianity. What this means is there can be little educated discussion of the pros and cons of the faith as there are with all other religions. The special case that I referred to above is that it is a hatred of unfamiliarity in general – the idea of enforced unfamiliarity. You are not allowed to know this so long as you remain an outsider.
At least with classified government material it’s usually worth the time to speculate because it’s important.