Michael Hayden is being provocative -- attempting to provoke debate. This is an excellent, laudable act, and should be warmly welcomed.
So, here is my response:-
There is an element of truth to what Michael Hayden is saying, although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling, and reveals a lot about the culture that prevails in the corridors of power.
It is true that the internet is creating communities and groups that do not fit into the old hierarchies of power and control. New communications technologies forge new arenas of discourse; they bring together new communities and interest groups, largely unconstrained by geography, culture, religion or (increasingly) language. These groups are beginning to find common cause, recognize their political power, and flex their (political) muscles.
It is natural and proper that those who benefit from the status-quo should feel nervous. This technological watershed (and the movement of movements that it has triggered) does indeed pose an existential threat to many organisations that predicate their existence on the primacy and sovereignty of the Nation State.
To labor the point: Notions of sovereignty and the plenipotentiary power of the state are weakened and undermined when individuals discover that their shared humanity cuts across international boundaries, and that the "tribe" to which they pledge allegiance is neither best defined nor best constrained in terms of militarily defensible contiguous geographical regions.
So, political and economic elites that are strongly aligned with the interests and primacy of the nation state really do face an existential threat, albeit a distributed, generally non-violent, tides-of-history type threat, rather than one that is focused around a particular "enemy" posing a specific and identifiable physical threat.
As I mentioned previously, Hayden's response to this threat is telling, and reveals much about his (and the Agency's) predispositions and cognitive biases.
Firstly, he thinks immediately of a physical threat - of hostile groups seeking revenge. He sees the world in terms of "friends" and "enemies", in terms of coherent and organised groups that can be treated as atomic units, and imbued with anthropomorphic characteristics: "anger", "revenge" and so on.
Secondly, he seeks to (at the same time) elevate and exaggerate the threat posed by this (notional) group, to make it relevant to the political mainstream, by speculating about attacks on civilian infrastructure - exactly what he would have needed to do during the inevitable internecine budgetary battles that he would have fought during his tenure with the NSA. As a former department head, this is necessarily his area of expertise, and the home turf on which he feels most comfortable.
This second aspect is particularly dangerous in that he seeks to incite and provoke the very threat that he spends so much effort warning us about. He ruthlessly exploits our tribalistic, pack-animal ancestry, conjuring up hostile groups where none exist; engineering conflict in a callous game of divide-and-conquer.
So, we have two threads in his speculation:-
The latter thread being part of a persistent and habitual strategy of scaremongering and conflict creation -- the better to secure a bigger slice of the budgetary pie for "the boys", is rather more transparent (and consequentially less interesting) than the former - the expectation that his foes will always form coherent and organised groups, capable of "making demands", and of acting in a manner amenable to anthropomorphic analysis. This contrasts rather well with one competing view -- that sees the world as a collection of ad-hoc networks of ideas and social mechanisms, some forming, others dissolving -- clearly structured, but not at all hierarchical.
I think you are entirely correct and that you have delineated the deep structure of the scenario we find ourselves in.
Are you familiar with the work of Ken Wilber who, standing on the shoulders of giants, popularised the ideas of Developmental Psychology that support your claim?
Hayden uses language in a specific way that indicates the centre of gravity of his consciousness is located in a very Conventional / Conformist / Concrete-operational place. He speaks in terms of heroic status, power, glory, rage, revenge; take what you need, power over others, force. The downside to all of this is anxiety, depression, phobias, bullying, terrorism etc etc.
This stage of development sees anything that isn't at the same stage as a threat, and tends to respond to everything with escalating violence / force / arrest.
It is the nature of this stage of psychological development to create threats where none exist, because it defines itself in terms of what occurs when those threats are push against.
Ultimately, what we most pressingly need is to work out how to move the world through this developmental stage before we manage to work ourselves in to some really atrocious place.
Each new development in technology represents a new development in consciousness, it brings with it new ways to connect and create together as a nation of people ever so less fixed to any one geographical area. I've seen Earth from space, didn't see any boarders. As well as all new and terrifying ways to annihilate ourselves.
Perceived through the framework of Developmental Psychology, as it was progressed by the above authors, and with an eye to the greater historical context this is all occurring in, it's all very predictable.
The "competing view", as you put it, that sees the world as a "collection of ad-hoc networks of ideas and social mechanisms, some forming, others dissolving -- clearly structured, but not at all hierarchical" is located at a stage of psychological development that is a full four stages above the one Hayden is speaking from.
To further support this refer to the works of Ken Wilber, particularly Integral Psychology it's end notes and references. Also, Jane Loevinger, Susan Cook-Greuter, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Abraham Maslow.
I am afraid that I am almost entirely ignorant of psychological literature, and I shall seek to remedy my deficiency in the directions that you have mentioned, with my grateful thanks for your suggestions.
You can give it a shot at [0]. I think it's well thought out written theory of how psychology develops. The core of their theory divides evolution of "holons" (simultaneous parts&wholes) on 2 axies: internal vs outer processes and individual vs society
Problems arise when a node stretches too far in a particular direction, or fuses to tightly with its current "holon" level and refuses to synthesize its axis to evolve.
I encourage you to read the first chapter or two before making a value judgement on the book.
>This second aspect is particularly dangerous in that he seeks to incite and provoke the very threat that he spends so much effort warning us about. He ruthlessly exploits our tribalistic, pack-animal ancestry, conjuring up hostile groups where none exist; engineering conflict in a callous game of divide-and-conquer.
I don't understand. In one breath, you're saying such a provocative statement is welcome and even "laudable," but in the next, you're saying it's dangerous.
> although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling
Also, when one is truly "being provocative," you're not allowed to use their statements as evidence to their opinions.
Can we just call a spade a spade and allow his xenophobic, terrified speculations to reflect him, a vestige of the boomer plight that's systematically eating away at the core of this nation?
Hey ... I don't (and didn't) run a massive government agency. Probably never will. (At least, not after writing this sort of specious crap).
That fact gives me a certain degree of latitude to (a) be inconsistent and (b) spout bullshit.
Asymmetric information warfare, (like guerilla warfare) offers the weaker party far more freedom to manoeuvre than the stronger party enjoys. In other words, it does not matter too much if I am rude, if I exaggerate, plain make stuff up, deploy dodgy humour and plainly bitter and twisted sarcasm (the lowest form of wit, to wit). Not that I would want to characterise all this guff as information warfare. I am just writing things down as I see them. Speak truth to power and all that. Plus, I get to be as ugly as I damn well like, whilst the "Elmer Fudd" comments never stop rolling for poor old Michael Hayden.
Indeed, I would be more inclined to see NSA bods as mates than enemies (the low-level techie ones, at least) -- and despite the many many many provocative statements that I have made in the past, I still feel like we are all, fundamentally, on the same team, working towards the same goals. Put me in the same position as Snowden, and I probably would not have made the decision to leak. I may have bitched about it a bit by the coffee machine though.
It is a pity that these leaks have occurred ... in the sense that they should never have had to happen in the first place. Of course the security services are going to spy on people. It is their job. ... but the fact that even one of their number felt anything less than rock-solid certainty in their mission and their methods speaks volumes about the way that they are going about their task.
Secondly, the villain of the piece isn't really the NSA -- or, indeed, any of the agencies from any given nation-state: It is the tidal-wave of technological change that is upsetting the status quo ... not the agencies who suddenly find their powers vastly enhanced by the past half-decade of progress.
When, in the past, I used to worry about that phenomenon of accelerating technological change which we glibly term "the singularity", I focused, along with everybody else, on the economic disruption that would come from the inevitable concentration of wealth
... never for one second did I consider that privacy and surveillance would roll along as a sort of bow wave, heralding the magnitude of the technological shocks still to come.
Ha! I like the whimsical philosophy. Next time a pedant tries to bowl over my point by enumerating my inconsistencies, I think I might just hold up my "poetic justice" card.
So, here is my response:-
There is an element of truth to what Michael Hayden is saying, although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling, and reveals a lot about the culture that prevails in the corridors of power.
It is true that the internet is creating communities and groups that do not fit into the old hierarchies of power and control. New communications technologies forge new arenas of discourse; they bring together new communities and interest groups, largely unconstrained by geography, culture, religion or (increasingly) language. These groups are beginning to find common cause, recognize their political power, and flex their (political) muscles.
It is natural and proper that those who benefit from the status-quo should feel nervous. This technological watershed (and the movement of movements that it has triggered) does indeed pose an existential threat to many organisations that predicate their existence on the primacy and sovereignty of the Nation State.
To labor the point: Notions of sovereignty and the plenipotentiary power of the state are weakened and undermined when individuals discover that their shared humanity cuts across international boundaries, and that the "tribe" to which they pledge allegiance is neither best defined nor best constrained in terms of militarily defensible contiguous geographical regions.
So, political and economic elites that are strongly aligned with the interests and primacy of the nation state really do face an existential threat, albeit a distributed, generally non-violent, tides-of-history type threat, rather than one that is focused around a particular "enemy" posing a specific and identifiable physical threat.
As I mentioned previously, Hayden's response to this threat is telling, and reveals much about his (and the Agency's) predispositions and cognitive biases.
Firstly, he thinks immediately of a physical threat - of hostile groups seeking revenge. He sees the world in terms of "friends" and "enemies", in terms of coherent and organised groups that can be treated as atomic units, and imbued with anthropomorphic characteristics: "anger", "revenge" and so on.
Secondly, he seeks to (at the same time) elevate and exaggerate the threat posed by this (notional) group, to make it relevant to the political mainstream, by speculating about attacks on civilian infrastructure - exactly what he would have needed to do during the inevitable internecine budgetary battles that he would have fought during his tenure with the NSA. As a former department head, this is necessarily his area of expertise, and the home turf on which he feels most comfortable.
This second aspect is particularly dangerous in that he seeks to incite and provoke the very threat that he spends so much effort warning us about. He ruthlessly exploits our tribalistic, pack-animal ancestry, conjuring up hostile groups where none exist; engineering conflict in a callous game of divide-and-conquer.
So, we have two threads in his speculation:-
The latter thread being part of a persistent and habitual strategy of scaremongering and conflict creation -- the better to secure a bigger slice of the budgetary pie for "the boys", is rather more transparent (and consequentially less interesting) than the former - the expectation that his foes will always form coherent and organised groups, capable of "making demands", and of acting in a manner amenable to anthropomorphic analysis. This contrasts rather well with one competing view -- that sees the world as a collection of ad-hoc networks of ideas and social mechanisms, some forming, others dissolving -- clearly structured, but not at all hierarchical.