Guest Post: Beware the blob
Alex Penk writes:
What do Climate Karanga, Podiatry NZ, and the Free Store Wellington have in common? Probably very little, apart from their common commitment to co-governance. They are among 50+ NGOs who signed an open letter, duly and dutifully amplified by media, urging the government to continue its work to implement the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights after Minister Willie Jackson signalled this work might be paused. It represents the emergence of a phenomenon known as the Blob—a gelatinous agglomeration of elite opinion that suffocates and skews public debate.
The Blob takes its name from a 1958 sci-fi movie about a “carnivorous amoeboidal alien” that absorbs everything in its path. In the UK, the term refers to the mutual embrace of civil servants, quangos, NGOs, and vested interests. In the US, it refers to a foreign policy establishment that tends hawkish and interventionist. In both cases, the Blob maintains and advances a very particular view of the world, often at odds with public opinion and even political will. The open letter looks distinctly Blobby—NGOs, unions, academics, supportive media reporting, all lined up in favour of a position that is, at best, highly controversial. But what’s wrong with the Blob? Isn’t this just a group of public-spirited citizens and community-minded organisations sharing their sincere views on a matter of public importance? Isn’t this simply Democratic Deliberation and therefore an uncontrovertibly Good Thing? No. No, it isn’t.
The Blob is neither democratic nor deliberative. It creates a false consensus that sucks the oxygen out of dissenting opinions, overpowering them with the weight of apparent institutional authority. Take, for example, RNZ’s uncritical reporting of the open letter: “More than 60 organisations”, we’re told, have signed the open letter (I make it 53, plus 10 individuals), including “major organisations” like the Mental Health Foundation. The article doesn’t explain why the Foundation has any particular expertise in co-governance or UNDRIP, nor does it include any contrary viewpoints.
The Blob also skews the debate: here and in the UK, the Blob tends left. Can you imagine 50+ NGOs signing a right-leaning position on co-governance, or the media amplifying this uncritically? (Come to that, can you imagine 50+ right-leaning NGOs?) Some members of the Blob are also “sock puppets”. These are organisations that receive government funding and in turn lobby the government, for example the Citizens Advice Bureau, also named by RNZ as a “major” signatory to the open letter. Nor is the Blob representative. No-one selected these people to take a public position on co-governance; instead, they wield cultural power beyond their numbers, influence without accountability.
This would all be much less of a problem if the signatories had some kind of relevant expertise on the subject, as when a (much smaller) group of constitutional law academics signed an open letter against the Three Waters entrenchment provision. But the open letter is signed by organisations like Podiatry NZ, which is unsurprisingly expert in podiatry, Barbarian Productions, a Wellington theatre company, the NZ Society of Authors, which represents writers and promotes literary culture, Free Store Wellington, a retail food waste distributor, and Climate Karanga, which is focused on climate education in Marlborough. I could go on, but none of these organisations have any obvious qualifications that entitle them to pronounce on progressing UNDRIP implementation, or that suggest the rest of us should listen to them.
It’s tempting to treat this as a bit of a joke, but this is how we end up with an elite consensus disconnected from, and dismissive of, the majority of us. To be clear, the key problem with the Blob isn’t that NGOs have a view—they’re fully entitled to do so and to express it. The issue is agglomeration amounting to groupthink and ideological capture of a series of society-shaping institutions and debates. By contrast, a single actor or handful of individuals or organisations can’t stifle or skew debate.
Our immediate response should be to see the Blob for what it is, and discount its influence accordingly. The second thing we should do is diversify the Blob, and this is much harder. This means doing the long, slow work of introducing a range of perspectives into civil society and giving them all a fair hearing. Effectively this means de-Blobbing the Blob because, as astute readers will realise, a diverse Blob is no longer truly a Blob. If we can do this and drain the Blob of its threat, perhaps then we’ll restore the public square to what it should be—not the monolithic imposition of a consensus position, but a genuine conversation among equals.
An excellent post on the danger of the blob.