Defending the Network Organization: An Analysis of Information Warfare with Reference to Heidegger by Iain Munro Published in Organization, 2010, 17(2): 199-222 Abstract. It is now a commonplace notion in management thinking that information and communication networks can be used as a tool for productive purposes and for innovation. However, such networks can also be used as a weapon for destructive and defensive puproses, which has been characterized by the phrase ‘information warfare’. As yet, there has been relatively little theoretical elaboration of the sociological implications of this phenomenon beyond the initial work pioneered by researchers of the RAND Corporation. This article will adapt concepts taken from Heidegger’s philosophy of Being, and use them for increasing our understanding of information warfare with specific reference to a diversity of real world exemplars of network organizations. Key words. Heidegger; information warfare; networks “Rebellion, though apparently negative since it creates nothing, is profoundly positive in that it reveals the part of man which must always be defended.” (A. Camus, The Rebel, 1971: 25) With the rise of the new communications networks, novel forms of resistance have accompanied these more sophisticated forms of control. Information technologies and communication networks have become recognized as being tools that are a vital element of the means of production and crucial to economic innovation. At the same time, information technologies are increasingly being used as weapons to disrupt and destroy these very same networks. Network forms of organization, which have been pioneered by the open source community and firms such as Cisco systems, are transform- ing our economies (Castells, 1997, 2001; Tapscott and Williams, 2007; von Hippel, 2005). Networks are also transforming civil society more generally, where Terranova (2004) has described the emergence of a ‘network culture’. These transformations concern the opening up of different ways of living and working, which are associated with network communities. New strategies and tactics for the pursuance of their aims have been described under the umbrella term ‘information warfare’. This term has been used to describe the strategic transformation of the network society by all kinds of thinkers including social critics (Castells, 1997; Plant, 2000; Terranova, 2004, 2007; Virilio, 2002), military strategists (Arquilla and Ronfeldt, 1997a; Thornton, 2007), computer scientists (Denning, 1999), business strategists (Adelstein, 2001; Munro 2004) and political theorists (Der Derian, 2002). The doctrine of information warfare has emerged from work by researchers of the RAND Corporation (Arquilla and Ronfeldt, 1997a). The Research and Development Corporation (RAND) is one of the largest independent think tanks in the world, providing advice to business, government and the Pentagon. In the past their researchers have pioneered the development of techniques such as systems analysis, scenario planning and game theory. Currently they are proponents of the Pentagon’s Revolution in Military Affairs and are the leading theorists of the associated doctrine of information warfare. The weapons of information warfare have been developed and refined in both the military and civilian realms of society. Indeed, the theorists of the RAND Corporation note that with information warfare the military and civilian realms have become blurred. To quote from the foremost exponents of information warfare in the world today, it concerns ‘the use of information to impose one’s will upon an adversary’ (Arquilla and Ronfeldt, 1997b: 14). The doctrine of information warfare is somewhat broader and more ambitious than simple misinformation and propaganda, although these latter techniques have an important place in the information warfare arsenal. Information technologies and communications networks are the weapons and the targets of information warfare operations. Techniques of information warfare can involve both high and low technology weapons, but it has only emerged as a distinct doctrine in