In his essay The Myth of the Ant Queen, Steven Johnson employs various complex terms and principles to essentially debunk the idea that the “queen” is on top of the hierarchy. When I began reading, I was initially surprised with Johnson’s reference to “natural selection”, an evolutionary concept, and I was unsure of how that would relate in respect to his essay/argument as a whole. I thought that he would use this to support the notion that those with the genes to “protect” and “take care” of the queen would survive, and thus the hierarchy was formed, but I later realized his true intentions for the term use were different. His reference to natural selection was used to imply that it was in the best interest for all ants to take care of and protect the queen since the queen was responsible for giving birth to the future of the ant colony. She does not order the ants to take care of her or get food, but the ants find it to their advantage to do so for the future of the colony. This also helped me better understand the reference to Manchester and the system Selfridge described, as these were examples of creation of systems due to human needs/interests.
The term natural selection and interdependence help illuminate a key point in Johnson's writing that is different from Davidson. In Johnson's writing, the importance of interdependence in society is what makes society form/succeed in the first place ( for ex. Manchester was essentially a product of multiple factors fitting in/working together). This undermines Davidson's idea that society and complex relationships rely on the intelligence of experts because Johnson emphasizes that even “small demons” that don't know anything (in regards to the alphabet at first) can “strengthen” the whole and serve as the main intelligence collectively through interdependence.
I think Gaurav brought up an interesting point by comparing the "small demons" mentioned by Johnson and the reliance on experts as stated by Davidson. The demons as described by Johnson contribute to society through a hierarchy, with the "small" ones only recognizing letters at the bottom and the "bigger" ones doing more advanced tasks such as piecing together and interpreting whole words. In contrast, Davidson's ideas of credentialing imply an equality in rank; the expert knowledge and skill present in credentialing allows different jobs to be completed by those (and only those) with the means to do them the best. As Gaurav mentions, Johnson's ideas "undermine" those of Davidson by focusing on interdependece between many different types of people with different specialties, even those who are not experts.
ReplyDelete