Sources of Super-Empowerment

A snap bibliography of the contemporary literature on sources of "super-empowerment" for an article I may write in the future.

• Manipulation of industrial bottlenecks (John Robb, Brave New War, 2007)
• Utilization of chemical, biological, or nuclear devices (T.X. Hammes, "Fourth Generation Warfare Evolves, Fifth Emerges," Military Review, 2007 and Mark Safranski, "Who Would Declare War on the World," Zenpundit, 2007)
• Utilization of cyber warfare (Sam Liles, "How to Wage Cyber Warfare," Selil, 2009)
• Exploitation of globalized systems, (Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, 2000 and Thomas P.M. Barnett, "System Pertubation," 2001)

What all of these seem to share is a focus on current social, economic, or technological conditions. If we look purely tactically there are a number of things in the contemporary environment give a form of empowerment disproportionate to the raw quantifable combat value of the force.

• Combat snipers (See Hy Rothstein's essay on deception in John Arquilla (ed), Information Strategy and Warfare, 2007).
• Special operations forces (See William McRaven, Spec Ops: Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare, 1996)
• Psychological Operations and Military Deception (for case studies of Soviet strategic deception and political warfare, see Brian Dailey (ed)l, Soviet Strategic Deception, 1985)  

Finally, what might a source of super-empowement consist of through the continuity of history?

• Charismatic leaders or "heroes" (See Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, 1841)
• Individuals who transcend socially-imposed limitations of humanity, (Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, 1888)

Comments

[Account Deleted]

So the next question would be, given a choice, what sort of super-empowered person would you be?

I suppose the question could be broken down between

1.) That which you would prefer, or which most appeals to you aesthetically, personally, philosophically, etc.

2.) That which you think would be the most effective, all things considered (including the state of affairs). Naturally this one requires an evaluation of those you've listed above, in general.

3.) That which you think would be the most effective given the sorts of things you would prefer to do with and via your superempowerment (i.e. the particular domains/fronts which most interest you.) This one allows for a little more leeway than #2, since a limited focus on domains/fronts might allow the personal choice of a more limited form of superempowerment.

[A.E.]

Hard to say. But I think that in the more classical concept of super-empowerment you can find the people who have made the greatest long-term effect on history.

[Account Deleted]

I might add to the list "knowledge brokers" although perhaps what I'm thinking might be better termed "awareness brokers." Possibly, one is a sub-genre of the other.

This is the form of "superempowerment" many now choose. I put that in scare quotes because the attempts of many seeking such superempowerment are laughable, particularly in the case of bloggers and even the pseudo-journalists who have long forgotten how journalism might indeed lead to this type of superempowerment.

On the continuum of Knowledge-Brokers to Awareness-Brokers, you'll find many examples from history that would fit within your last set types. There are modern variants on that continuum, however, and not all of those have even passing resemblance to the historical models.

Arherring's recent consideration of Wikileaks -- http://arherring.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/wikileaks-and-the-super-empowered-individual/ -- also comes to mind in relation to this current strain of thought. However, so too does my comment there, since the powers to ensure obscurity might lead to a type of superempowerment that works in tandem with or perhaps even against the type of superempowerment on the Knowledge/Awareness Broker continuum.

[A.E.]

That's a great Arherring post.