Danielle Allen's Organizational Protocols

In Justice by Means of Democracy, Danielle Allen argues “organizational protocols” are fundamental to understanding how power operates within societies and how it can either foster or hinder political equality.

Allen’s critique of neoliberalism focuses on its tendency to reduce all social and political interactions to market transactions and economic efficiency. The neoliberal emphasis on individualism and market logic often erodes the social fabric essential for genuine democratic participation. According to Allen, when organizational protocols are neglected, social capital weakens and democracy deteriorates. This neglect can exacerbate inequality and enable domination by powerful interests, as the absence of effective protocols allows these forces to shape organizations and communities in ways that serve their own interests over the common good.

Allen’s conception of organizational protocols is intrinsically linked to the creation and dissemination of social capital. Social capital refers to the networks of relationships, trust, and norms that enable cooperation and collective action. To build social capital, Allen emphasizes the importance of protocols that promote open communication, mutual respect, and inclusive decision-making within organizations. She advocates for protocols that maximize “bridging ties,” which connect individuals across social and demographic divides. This view shares similarities with the concept of weak protocols, which foster emergent behaviours and adaptability by encouraging interactions across boundaries. By facilitating connections between diverse groups and promoting collaboration, organizational protocols can enhance social capital and, in turn, strengthen democratic institutions.

Allen’s organizational protocols prioritize structured, top-down frameworks with formal rules to prevent domination by powerful groups and ensure equity. This contrasts with the bottom-up nature of weak protocols, in which flexibility and informal norms foster adaptability and innovation. While Allen emphasizes formal structures to safeguard democratic values, weak protocols embrace organic evolution and decentralization. This tension raises interesting questions about balancing the need for structure and predictability with the benefits of flexibility and innovation in organizational and democratic systems.

Allen’s organizational protocols aim to create stability and predictability, ensuring equal participation for all. However, this approach implies a degree of rigidity to maintain fairness and order. In contrast, prefigurative protocols embrace uncertainty and change, acknowledging that small changes can have outsized effects in complex systems. These protocols evolve, challenging dominant assumptions and opening up new pathways. This presents another interesting tension: while Allen’s protocols prioritize equity and stability, prefigurative protocols emphasize adaptability and innovation. They move away from top-down control, instead creating spaces for experimental projects and self-organization, enabling organizations to influence their future through present actions and choices.

A key distinction between Allen’s organizational protocols and the concepts of weak and prefigurative protocols is the balance between equity and innovation. Allen’s protocols are deeply rooted in the principle of equity, ensuring that all voices are heard and that power is distributed fairly within organizations. This focus on equity is essential for maintaining democratic values and preventing domination by powerful interests. However, while not neglecting equity, weak and prefigurative protocols place a stronger emphasis on innovation. By allowing for experimentation and adaptation in a hyperconnected world, these protocols may possibly lead to the emergence of new practices and forms of governance that might challenge or even improve upon existing democratic structures.

In conclusion, Allen’s book has broadened my understanding of the relationship between political equality and power dynamics. Her critique of neoliberalism’s neglect of organizational protocols sheds light on the importance of scrutinizing these structures to create a more just and equitable society. While Allen’s approach emphasises a top-down, structured method to ensure fairness and stability, I remain open to the idea that weak and prefigurative protocols offer complementary perspectives.

3 Likes

Good post. The ever present challenge of either approach is whether and how it can be gamed. The last 15 years have shown how the attention economy’s game mechanics can make a positive contribution to knowledge but also severely undermine institutions and all but dismantle shared sources of truth.

I don’t have a good answer to that problem. Lately I’ve been interested in whether it would be possible to build a “good faith rank” (like Google’s page rank) that algorithmically elevates people who act in good faith and punish bad faith grifters and con artists.

Social networking platforms do this to greater or lesser degrees, but the economic models lead to a lot of distortion. Ironically, in the last year I’ve found LinkedIn to be better for certain types of content because no one wants to get fired for posting unhinged ideas and scams.

2 Likes

Is there a term for social capital created by the act of trusting a protocol? As opposed to the social capital created by acts of trust in 1:1 relationships.

I think protocols and social capital operate at different conceptual levels. Social capital is an aggregate concept that includes accumulated resources and trust within a community or network. It’s a complex and emerges from numerous interactions and relationships over time. Protocols operate at a lower level.

Drawing on the analogy of stocks and flows from economics, social capital can be viewed as the stock accumulated over time through interactions and relationships. Protocols facilitate flows that contribute to or draw from this stock of social capital. They are mechanisms that guide how interactions occur and how trust is built or maintained in specific contexts.

From this perspective, trusting and following protocols contributes to the broader process of building social capital. However, this process also depends on other factors such as existing social structures, cultural norms, and individual capacities.

1 Like