Man of the Year

Person of the Year (formerly Man of the Year) is an annual issue of the United States magazine Time that features and profiles a person, group, idea or object that "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year"

You may laugh at the pointless sexism implied by "Man of the Year", and of course it is now "Person". When do you think they made the change? After 1952 when the Queen was selected? No. 1999. And that year, they picked a man.

And this year, it is not a man or woman, but a generic "Protester". This is not the first time the editors twigged that the anachronism wasn't working. In 2006 the winner was "You". In 1982 it was "the Computer".

One thing this silly award has proved is how the internet has usurped the idea that history is carried exclusively by the genius of a few individuals. In the end, Barack Obama was selected in 2008 because of what that represented: white people voting for a black president.

In the past, fate or good organisation attempted to place the best minds into influential positions. Great progress in any sphere was only possible when brilliant individuals held sway. Darwinian selection formed the aristocracy from those who were good with horses and spiked sticks.

This wasn't a good thing, it was a sad necessity. Many millions of great minds were wasted because they couldn't record their thoughts, or get to positions of influence. But as the excellent may be able to do a magnitude more than the merely very good, this made sense in times of limited communication.

But these times have long past. No modern society or enterprise, whether democratic or not, need invest a single person with any form of ultimate responsibility. A visible titular head helps to avoid invisible influences, but we don't expect any more than pleasant words from leaders, and maybe some negotiation skills. "Leaders" are still paid handsomely, because it would be too self defeating not to. But when we were told that the then president Ronald Reagan had a lot of naps while in the Oval Office, this was just a genuine indication that the Leader of the Free World was mainly there to tick boxes when asked to do so.

To maintain an all powerful leader today is to be at a terrible disadvantage. Somebody usually has the job of saying "yes" or "no", but any issue should be framed in such a way that the decision is trivial. The real work is moulding the issues correctly. In many ways, modern leaders are correct in seeing their real job as managing presentation. If one last person is left to make a vital decision, the organisation is already failing.

While there will always be the odd amazing scientist or researcher who simply restates problems in amazing new ways, in general science builds on itself - so to select a scientist is to celebrate the tip of the iceberg.

The human condition is very much to look upwards in a hierarchy. Your parents. Your older brother. Your teacher. Your manager. Your god. Some imply guidance (the transfer of experience) some imply submission (the transfer of responsibility). These one to one relationships mean less and less as the nodes get further. I don't gain anything from my teacher's teacher. Grandparents are respected, but mainly because they help to explain our parents. And most religions place their deity at the root of all things and don't accept a god of gods. The loss of a close relationship always hurts, but the top of an inverted tree should be easily replaceable. To this extent, Premier league football clubs are right to replace managers regularly; they only have a substantial effect on the team if the team believes it.

I don't expect Time magazine to ditch their award - but we can look forward to some strange "People of the Year" in the future: quangos, social networks, buildings, brands, space; maybe even editors.