Keep the paths worn
Apologies for another post so quickly after the last one. But I want to give the underlying foundation that explains why I am so worried.
Let’s start with an example. I don’t remember where this is from or where I first heard it, but imagine you want to build sidewalks in a park or a university. One option is to build them right away along the paths you think people will travel. But the better solution is to wait a few weeks to determine what paths naturally form. The paths will be worn into the grass, and you can then build the sidewalks over the worn grass. This is the most efficient and effective use of resources.
My approach to politics begins here…civil society wears paths in the grass that government comes along and paves to better assist the good things society is doing.
I come to this approach through social network theory and through this lens the paths are networks that naturally develop between groups and individuals in society, including economic networks. These natural networks are built over years of repeated interaction and with specific, local information that the government does not have.
For example, imagine a family that needs assistance with groceries. They find a church in their neighborhood that has a food bank. They wear a figurative path between their house and the church, that can be paved over by the government providing financial assistance to the food bank. But more than assistance travels along the network. Repeated interaction between the family and the food bank allows information to flow, trust to be built and identities to be developed that expand beyond the specific need. Social capital is developed and, to paraphrase Robert Putnam, “makes democracy work”.
Authoritarian governments attempt to disrupt these natural, distributed networks and replace them with artificial, concentrated networks with the government at the center. These natural networks are sources of identity and collective action outside of government control. If the government can disrupt them, that allows them more control over society. This is why governments in Hungary and Turkey attempt to disrupt the media and universities, or Russia and Georgia attempt to control non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Those natural networks disappear and are replaced by government-constructed networks.
My research on protests and opposition to Communist governments and the current Russian government has made this abundantly clear to me. The Communist governments of Central and Eastern Europe would target civil society organizations...everything from churches to neighborhood associations. In the 1970s and 1980s when opposition to those governments grew, it occurred primarily on the backs of existing natural networks and building new ones. For example, the overthrow of the Romanian dictatorship began in a small church in Timisoara. Networks of information, trust and identity proved stronger than the authoritarian government. When Russia cracked down on NGOs the goal was to eliminate these networks of information, trust and identity so society would lose the capacity to organize against the actions of the government.
This is why I’m worried.
When I see Musk targeting spending for organizations such as Lutheran Family Services, I see natural networks in communities being disrupted and nothing to replace them. Networks that have developed over decades through repeated interactions that transmit information, trust and identity. It is difficult to just start over. Local communities are weakened, and necessary services are threatened.
When Trump announces tariffs on Mexico and Canada, economic networks are disrupted that have formed naturally over decades. The map below shows the distributed nature of auto manufacturing in North America. These networks have grown with knowledge of local resources and companies have made decisions to base production in specific areas for specific reasons. That is not something that you can reconstruct overnight, and if led by the government, will likely be less efficient and productive. Disrupting these networks accomplishes nothing except for economic decline.
When Trump announces Venezuelan refugees are being sent back to the arms of a brutally repressive regime, migration networks that have existed for centuries are being disrupted. Flawed as America is it has served as a place of freedom and refuge from authoritarian governments around the world. Think of the thousands of Cubans who escaped Castro’s oppressive government for the freedom and safety of the U.S. The hope that America offers similar people around the world is being disrupted.
When Trump disrupts diplomatic networks with allies, such as Canada, Denmark and Colombia, decades of interactions building trust and shared norms are threatened. The U.S. cannot simply replace those. Those countries will begin to look elsewhere and over time develop stronger networks with other countries, leaving the U.S. behind. America will be diplomatically weaker and less secure.
I could go on and on, but hopefully the picture is painted clearly. This is a simplification, and there are certainly other factors involved. And yes, sometimes the paths that are naturally worn need to be disrupted. Segregation in the American South was a natural network that needed to be disrupted by the government. But even in this simple approach much can be explained and analyzed.
As I think about what lessons the people I have studied in other countries have for us today, I keep coming back to one thought. Keep the paths worn and wear new paths when necessary. In our local communities, in the relationships and networks that we are part of, make sure that those continue to grow and thrive. Make sure they remain networks where the flow of information, trust and identity are strong.