Re: workshop on emergent democracy // tuesday 19 august in shoreditch
hallo rufus
you make some substantial points so apologies for what is bound to be
an inadequate response at this hour.
- i do not assert a causal relationship between technological
innovation and new organisational forms, i merely observe that there
are clear connections between the phenomena.
- by background and temperament i am an ethnographer. i tend to base
speculation about the future upon past observation. i've never yet
encountered a society that didn't concentrate authority in some manner
so i don't expect that to change. the communities where i've seen
highest levels of participation in formal democratic processes were
(surprise surprise) in small towns in northern california but i think
they are probably exceptional. when i try to imagine an emergent
democratic system operating in practice i still see 95% of people
taking only occasional interest in decision-making. but there does
seem to be a certain proportion of the citizenry who are motivated to
take on more responsibility than the current system permits them. for
me the key thing is not how many people are involved in decision-
making, but how easy it is for someone who decides they want to get
involved to start doing so, and the way they are able to start
exerting influence.
in hosting the event tonight i'm not seeking to forge a consensus,
rather to hear a bunch of interesting people with different ideas talk
about their work and maybe start to spot some patterns emerging. now
bed!
best : charles
custodian // CIRCUS foundation
www.CIRCUS-foundation.org
uk cell +44 7792 456807
usa cell +1 415 728 8656
On 16 Aug 2008, at 17:22, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> On 09/08/08 19:45, charlesarmstrong wrote:
>> hallo everyone
>
> Good to hear from you!
>
>> this is my first post to the list so to introduce myself i'm ceo of
>> the software company trampoline systems (trampolinesystems.com) and
>> founder of circus foundation (circus-foundation.org). i'm
>> organising an informal workshop on emergent democracy on tuesday
>> 19th august at the trampery in shoreditch (details below). jonathan
>> gray suggested i should circulate details to the list. please get
>> in touch if you'd be interested to talk about something you're
>> working on or thinking about at the moment, and feel free to pass
>> the details on to anyone else you think might be interested. there
>> are slots for 3 more contributors available at the moment.
>> i'll be presenting part of a session i did at foo camp last month
>> on the relationship between technological innovation and social
>> structure.
>
> This seems a fascinating event and I'd really to come --
> unfortunately I don't think it likely I can make it down to London
> on Tuesday. Given that I may not be down in person I'd like to take
> this opportunity to make a couple of comments. To start with there
> was one item in the blurb that particularly struck me. This was the
> quote which went:
>
> > Depending on who you listen to we’re either on the brink of an
> explosion
> > of new democratic models or the wholesale abandonment of democracy
> in
> > favour of more tyrannical structures.
>
> This got me thinking because last September I gave a talk at a
> Society for Computers and the Law event about 'Openness and
> Sharing' [1]. In it I had a section (3.2) entitled "The Dictator and
> the Anarchist".
>
>
[1]:<http://blog.okfn.org/2007/09/18/talk-at-law-20-openness-web-20-and-the-ethic-of-sharing/
> >
>
> In essence, this argued that the combination of 'nonrival' (digital)
> goods and openness make new, especially efficient, organizational
> forms possible, or, more accurately, changes the effects of existing
> ones. As is also clear the argument does crucially hinge on the
> 'nonrival' nature of information goods, with this situation
> contrasted with the situation of human societies.
>
> If I have understood your event directly it is more about the
> causation in the other direction: that is from technology ->
> governance of human societies (rather than from nature of digital
> goods -> governance of information development projects ->
> production of information). On this score I should probably class
> myself as something of a pessimist, or at best a cautious optimist.
> To my mind, the main difficulties of effective governance arise from
> classic free-rider type issues, particularly in relation to
> collective decision-making and action (especially in relation to
> sanctioning/rewarding those agents who are appointed to positions of
> authority).
>
> While technology can clearly help with the substantial communication
> and information processing activities such coordination and decision-
> making involve, it can only do so much. For example, individual
> citizens still need to actually read and evaluate information
> themselves even if the 'Net or computers make it easier for them to
> acquire that information. Furthermore, while technology makes it
> easier to participate it also mutiplies the ways not to participate
> -- why spend my time reading up on the latest local planning
> applications or writing to my MP when I can play Grand-Theft Auto or
> wander around World of Warcraft?
>
> Anyway, to close, in my view, even with substantial advances in
> technology, the main difficulties of democratic participation will
> remain the cost on people's time and the associated free-rider
> issues these create. Given this, while it is clear that technology
> can help, we should be fairly sanguine about its likely overall
> impact. [2]
>
> Regards,
>
> Rufus
>
> [2]: For more cautious realism along similar lines see this earlier
> email which arose out of a discussion of the different viewpoints
> associated with 'Free/Libre' and 'Open':
>
> <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2007-September/000572.html
> >
RSS Feed