Keep The Threads Strong

Networks need to exist because there would definitely arise times when we have to be driven by common objectives, intentions, and aspirations.

- Morgen Witzel

In 2005, Paul Laudicina (now chairman emeritus of management consultants A.T. Kearney) presented us with contrasting visions of the future. Writing in his book World Out of Balance, Laudicina described one future in which the world is a networked whole, with borders and boundaries being gradually replaced by a system in which we all move freely and companies collaborate on projects around the globe; and another in which barriers are raised, networks are broken, and borders are strengthened, turning countries and organisations into fortresses with their drawbridges pulled up, so that no one else may enter.

Fifteen years later, the neo-liberal consensus has broken down and this polarisation of views about how the world might look—or should look—is stronger than ever. Each of these worldviews has its strong proponents, and each regards the opposite view as a dystopian nightmare. The international controversy over the role of Chinese tech firm Huawei in the building of 5G telephone networks is an example. To some governments and organisations, Huawei is an essential partner; others see Huawei as a danger and a security risk.

This example shows starkly how attitudes to networks differ. Some believe networks should be open and shared by all; others believe they should be restricted, dominated, and controlled. The issue that confronts us, then, is not whether we will have networks, but what kind of networks we will have and who, if anyone, will own them.

The omnipresence of networks