Al Qaeda, Tribes, and Virtual Mafias
by Alphaville Herald on 09/03/05 at 11:27 am
by Peter Ludlow
Ok, I know Uri posted on simulating terrorist networks just a few days ago, but there is now an interesting article in First Monday by David F. Ronfeldt, who is a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. The headline idea of the paper – entitled Al Qaeda and its affiliates: A global tribe waging segmental warfare? – is that tribal models might be more useful in understanding the organization of Al Qaeda than are contemporary network models. There are a lot of confusions in the article, but it did get me thinking about the virtual tribes (mafias, griefer families etc) that we have been reporting on here.
Let’s start with tribes, according to Ronfeldt:
As people banded together to constitute primitive societies thousands of years ago, the first major form of organization to emerge was the tribe. Its key organizing principle was kinship, as expressed through nuclear and extended family ties, lineage segments (notably, clans) that spanned various families and villages, and claims of descent from a common, often mythologized, even god–like ancestor. The tribe’s key purpose (or function) was to infuse a distinct sense of social identity and belonging, thereby strengthening a people’s ability to bond and survive as individuals and as a collective.
Notice that missing from this is the notion of ideology, which many government officials take to be the driving force behind groups like Al Qaeda. I think it is entirely plausible that ideology plays only an accidental role in the formation of groups like Al Qaeda, and that the general dynamics of tribe formation and organization may be a more useful way of thinking about things. Where I think Ronfeldt errs is in thinking that the study of tribal formation and organization does not supervene on more general aspects of network theory. That is, tribe formation is but one chapter in network theory.
Here is why Ronfeldt considers networks and tribes disanalogous:
But tribes and networks are not the same. For one matter, tribes are ruled by kin relations, information–age networks by mainly modern criteria. Take an issue like information sharing. In tribal systems, this may proceed after checking a recipient’s lineage. In networks, the decision criteria are not about lineage but the professional nature of the role or person who may receive the information. Also, in tribal and clan systems where members are maneuvering for influence, fluid alliances often arise that look odd and contradictory to outsiders from an ideological or other modern perspective, but are sensible from a tribal or clan perspective. For example, it may behoove a tribal or clannish elite circle (as in the old Iranian dowreh or Mexican camarilla systems) to stealthily include elites from right and left, military and religious, business and criminal sectors, so that the circle is plugged into all circuits vying for position in a society. In contrast, modern networks, for example in the area of civil–society activism, generally aim for ideological and professional coherence.
But this strikes me as a confusion about the nature of network theory. Network theory by itself doesn’t care about *why* links are forged — reasons could be ideological coherence, bolstering kinship relations, or establishing relations with various elites (like SL’s Feted Core!). Network theory is a much more general and abstract theory about how those relations (however initially formed formed) propagate and change over time, and about how information propagates thought those networks (however initial connections are formed).
Now, why do I bring all this up in the august pages of the Herald? I continue to be struck by the ways in which group formation in social games like TSO and Second Life seems to be goverened by the same basic principles as those governing all networks. The groups may form for any number of reasons — perhaps in response to griefing, as I argued in the Times of London last year, or perhaps simply as a form of power gaming — but once those links are forged the basic underlying principles of network theory seem to be operative. I also keep coming back to the very interesting quote from Will Wright:
We’ve been talking to people in homeland security that want to know if we could simulate a terrorist network. I keep telling them they don’t have to; they just need to come study the griefers in a multi-player game, because they are exactly that. They always figure out how to get by every little loophole, they hide in the cracks, they respond very fast to whatever new policies you put in place. It is like the perfect simulator for a terrorist organization. So the answer is yes, unfortunately.
So the question is this: Can we learn about the behavior and organization of networks like Al Qaeda by studying groups like griefer families and virtual mafias in Second Life? For that matter, can we advance our understanding of the nature of networks by studying both in concert?
Marsellus Wallace
Mar 10th, 2005
Tell Homeland Security I’ll hook em up! lolol Government issues grant to play video games.. Film at 11. They already have Americas Army (www.americasarmy.com) with over 6 Million in tax payers money to create it and the government gives it out for free. I can see how the terrorist groups could be simulated very easily. Most of those groups who call themselves a Mafia dont really follow any of the Mafias ethics, rules or lifestyle. They simply like the Mafia title. In essence their actions are just like a terrorist group that has individual cells. Not about making the mighty dollar, but about installing fear and giving themselves the so-called “Bad Boy” reputation amongst the families crews. In TSO I ran the Sim Liberation Army (SLA) which only did occasional well planned attacks. People fear the in-game terrorist groups more than the Mafias for some reason.
Marsellus Wallace
Editor, Gangland News – SLH
Got Tips or News? mafiaeditor@gmail.com
Athel Richelieu
Mar 10th, 2005
Not sure my last comment went through, don’t feel like typing it all out again.
Was going to say Al Qaeda considers themselves an “Army of God”, and are definiteyl driven by ideology obviously. Suicide bombers dont kill themselves for “networking”. They truly believe they are doing God’s will, and will go to heaven. Or they believe politically their against the “West” or taking revenge. Al Qaeda recruits like an army does, propagandizes the men, etc. They definitely driven by ideology, strongly. They could be more compared to a violent cult.
The virtual Mafias of Second Life have people who are driven by 1) A power trip, they want power or they join the Mafia because it is “cool and stylish” 2) They want to cause trouble for attention or just for their personal entertainment 3) They want be part of a “family” or part of “the group” 4) They want the protection
or a combination of these things
The Mafias act the way they do now largely do to a lot of drama and personal conflict, but also because the standard is now set that for an Mafia to be taken seriously they must do the “griefing” and have “weapons”. As well as certain members in category 2 fueling the fire.
Aislyn_McTeague
Mar 10th, 2005
Athel? While you’re analyzing everyone, care to tell us which label belongs on you? Since you were a Valentino…
Urizenus
Mar 10th, 2005
Athel, no one is saying that people kill themselves “for networking.” I said that the motives may be anything from ideology to whatever. The point is that the dynamic organizational properties of a terrorist group as well as the flow of information within the organization would supervene on general principles governing those of scale free networks — the same principles that govern the organization of neurons in your brain to the hub system that has emerged in the air transportation system, and, I submit, the virtual mafias in SL.
The behavior of terrorist groups is also constrained by basic physics, but I hope you wouldn’t therefore make the mistake of thinking that this must entail they kill themselves “for quantum physics.” Why make that mistake when we shift to talk of network theory?
Marsellus Wallace
Mar 10th, 2005
Can I buy a vowel?
Marsellus Wallace
Editor, Gangland News – SLH
Got Snitch? mafiaeditor@gmail.com
Whoa Terry
Mar 10th, 2005
Marsellus why do you have that signature – like it means something?
Marsellus Wallace
Mar 11th, 2005
Obviosuly it does.. You replied. ;P
Marsellus Wallace
Editor, Gangland News – SLH
Laughing – mafiaeditor@gmail.com
Whoa Terry
Mar 11th, 2005
You’re right. I guess if I was some teen age white trash loser I would be proud of something so insignificant (is that too big of a word for you?)
Gina Fatale
Mar 12th, 2005
gotta love the ones that come on here talk shit and don’t use their in game names lol
if its so insignificant why does it got your panties twisted?
Gina Fatale
Just a Reporter lol
Laughing even harder at this – lizsims2003@yahoo.com
boo parks
Mar 12th, 2005
I like to run naked through wheat fields.
Jessica Rocco
Mar 13th, 2005
haha i wanted to laugh too i felt left out