The Size of a Forest Fire Doesn't Depend on the Size of the Spark Which Created It

I have never questioned the idea that network-centric advocacy seems to have the potential to transform the landscape of civic participation or advocacy efforts but I now have language that explains why." The size of the fire has nothing to do with the size of the spark."

Tom Munnecke's rant on the "The Ratings made me do it" contains a few brilliant gems on identifying the features of a self-feeding system and the quote worth remembering.

So, in my emerging handbook for social transformation, Tom's Rules of Engaging Windmills, I'm looking for a network-based model, something that could start small, have the right values, and have its growth aligned with its values. If indeed such conditions are met, and they occur in the appropriate "excitable medium," then the transformation will occur on its own accord, not through high level meetings between power players.

The size of a forest fire doesn't depend on the size of the spark which created it. Similarly, the success of an idea ...depends on being the right idea in the right environment. .... We just need the right idea, and the right values. And a way of discovering the ones that are working.

These ideas are also delving into notions of what I call an attractor network, rather than a promotion network. The success of a node in a network is based on the attention it attracts, rather than the attention it promotes to itself.

This also relates to the notion of trustraising instead of fundraising, which would allow nodes in the network to thrive by becoming more trustworthy elements - doing what they say they want to do.

Growing a network based on trustworthy attractors rather fundworthy promotors has some very interesting dynamics:

It could inherently stimulate greater diversity. This might answer the riddle why theater owners build 23 screen multiplexes, but only show a very few movies at a time.
The network would amplify the values it uses to grow itself. If positive, this would be creating a virtuous circle.

With greater communications bandwidth capacity, then we might find new forms of competition, not always funneling down into "winner take all" promoted nodes....

The current context for creating change and developing a network-centric advocacy movement is the network of people, I know. It is my network. I am sure that I interact with enough key participants to build the momentum around an idea. I am also sure that there is plenty of "fuel" in the environment new peer and like minded liberal activists that are frustrated with the tempo, pace and failing success rate of moving an agenda. The network of friends, board members and peers working on advocacy are creating the intellectual and trust relationships into a virtuous circle reinforcing our moves to network the movement.