“Any sub segment of a distributed network is as large and as small as its parent network.” (Protocol page 34)
The idea of distributed networks was a hard one for me to grasp when I was first introduced to it by Galloway. I knew that the internet was supposed to be a distributed network but at the time that did not aid my understanding of the concept. It was upon re-reading the quote above that I felt as if I understood the scenario Galloway was trying to illustrate.
When I read this section for the second time I was able to make create an analogous relationship between distributed networks and The New England Patriots, a football team in the National Football league. This is by no means a perfect relationship but it was useful in allowing me to picture the form of a distributed network.
Brian Belichick, head coach of the Patriots, set protocol for the team to follow as soon as he was hired. He stated that every player on the team would be treated equally and that each of them and would contribute to the success of the team in some way. Belichick also stressed that as long as the team followed the protocol put in place they had nothing to worry about. When Randy Moss, future hall of famer, decided that he was bigger than the system and should therefore be recognized as such Belichick got rid of him. This move was seen by others as both dangerous and stupid considering that Randy Moss is one of the greatest football players of all time but Belichick believed that each player was as large and as small as the team collectively. The Patriots continued to follow their protocol without Randy Moss and, as planned, continued to succeed in the National Football league.
I likened the loss of Randy Moss for the Patriots to the loss of internet routers in different states in America. The loss of these routers would not hinder the internet as a whole because no piece of the internet is larger or smaller than the network itself, and as the Patriots have proven the loss of a player on their team will not destroy the team itself. The idea that the loss of a piece of a network will not affect the network as a whole defines distributed networks.
I really like this relationship you’re posing Brandon, for although clearly most NFL teams (and most professional sports teams in general) are largely centralized, hierarchical operations–owner –> GM –> Coach –> Players–the Patriots have succeeded for a very long time indeed, and for the most part w/o recognizable central nodes (or “stars,” w/ the exception of Tom Brady, of course). I think part of the reason for this is exactly what you’re arguing–the Patriots operate as a kind of collective, there is an overarching “protocol” if you will, to their organization. Yes, it is somewhat centralized in that Bill Belichick has the final say, but he has established a clear ethos or system that is “The Patriots,” regardless of who is actually playing for them. Randy Moss, then, one might say wasn’t simply the loss of a node, but he was a node that wasn’t functioning correctly–he was “anti-Patriots” protocol–and as such, they are working much better w/o him. Perhaps the most impressive thing about the Patriots this last season was their defense–more-or-less a bunch of unknowns, who, by fitting in w/ the logic of the system, where actually able to become one of the better defenses in the league.
That said, however, I’d caution you on too easily applying the term “distributed” to a professional sports team, esp. an NFL team (basketball or soccer seems more distributed. . .). Football is a highly organized, hierarchical sport–QB as leader, each player fulfilling their specific roles (they often can’t perform other roles, and often when one node goes down, a team is ruined [see Polamalu, for instance]), highly planned, linear plays, diachronic progression down the field, etc. I think you are right, however, in trying to apply the idea of protocol and distribution to athletics, for I think sports are an under-analyzed cultural form and an overlooked, but clearly important mode of expression, and something that very much deserves the attention you give it here. In my mind, the best recent book on sports is Bill Simmons’ The Book of Basketball. Brian Massumi, some-time translator of Gilles Deleuze and a philosopher in his own right, also has a fascinating section talking about soccer in his book, Parables of the Virtual, which is an absolutely crucial text in extending and further developing some of these issues.
I wonder what other sport connections there might be w/ networks, control, and protocol. This seems like a really rich field to investigate.