I saw a news story today which made me think of the possibilities of cooperation. It was relevant to the opening of one of my favourite books which I thought I'd share with you:

"Oscar knew very well that these very normal-looking people were linked in conspiracy. The thing that truly roused his admiration was the absolute brilliance of the way they were dressed, the utter dullness and nonchalance of their comportment.
They didn't fit any known demographic profile of a troublemaker, or a criminal, or a violent radical. Any security measure that would have excluded them would have excluded everyone in town.
... they weren't even aware of one another's existence as members of the same group. He further suspected that many of them - maybe most of them - didn't know what they were about to do."
From Distraction by Bruce Sterling

I thought of this while watching a video where a group of up to 100 teenagers simply walk out of a convenience store carrying whatever they fancy helping themselves to. Apparently a small number of them distracted the one assistant on duty while others moved in and out of the shop in small groups.

The news report itself lacks content. It raises more questions than it answers. I think this may have something to do with the fact it is a story they cannot resist reporting because of the shock value but don't want to elaborate on as the implications are too horrendous for them to contemplate.

Was this planned? Was it simply that a lot of teenagers hang out in front of the shop and when the first group came out with their loot they all decided to march in? This is unlikely as the article, if it is to be believed, states that the assistant was deliberately distracted. The groups then move in too rapidly for it to be entirely spontaneous. Some conceal what they are doing, others are quite blatant. It is utterly fascinating behaviour to watch.

The criminal aspect aside what is so marvelous is the grasp of the complete and total inability of the system to cope with this kind of mass disobedience. We all know what the rules are. Shoplifters usually work alone or in a small team and they seek to conceal what they are doing. Robbery is more public and requires threats to accomplish. Committing this act in a group avoids the need for concealment from the public and avoids violence as weight of numbers assures its success. All of the security systems in place expect to deal with an individual or a small group not everyone entering or exiting the shop. The police would not be able to deal adequately with this as the number of officers required makes a timely response impossible.

This emphasises how imposed hierarchies can only work if we follow the rules as they are laid out for us. An individual can be isolated and controlled. Actions by a group are unpredictable and so subversive that they rewrite what is and is not permissible for those moments when the action takes place. Autonomy is realised.

Update: I noticed the news site I referenced filed this under the URL entertainment/watercooler while over on Digg it went in the videos/comedy section. It seems like people don't really know how to respond to this. What is also disturbing is how most of the comments on Digg are based around the imagined class or race of those involved.

1 original comment:

Hmmm…. and the taboos against these behaviours break down without majority peer pressure. Maybe the Anarchists have a point…
Comment by The Sound of The Ladies — 22 November, 2007 @ 1:04 am