1/Worldviews create networks, driven by homophily (tendency for likeminded people to attract each other.) Networks generate social capital and cohesive bonds. Networks are history’s protagonists.
2/So called “great (wo)man” theories of history are flawed in that they downplay the persistence of networks. Some leaders can alter networks by reconciling conflicting worldviews, or introduce new ones.
3/Much of what we call history (and news) can be described in terms of conflicting networks espousing different, persistent worldviews. Those worldviews don’t die. People do. But networks persist too.
4/We have tended to underplay the importance of persistent worldviews and focus instead on more temporal artifacts. We would do well to rethink analysis of history and news in terms of worldviews and networks. Worldviews tend to be irreducible and persistent. Much else is not.
5/“A worldview is best understood as a semiotic phenomenon, especially as a system of narrative signs that establishes a powerful framework within which people think (reason), interpret (hermeneutics), and know (epistemology).” - David Naugle, Worldview (2003)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
