[p2p-research] two competing interpretations of Alan Fiske

Sat Jan 24 05:01:37 CET 2009

Dear David and Alan,

just a quick remark about my opinion that both david's and my interpretation
may be compatible with what you say here.

Let me explain:

1) tribal hunter-gathering societies start with CS

2) as they get more complex and inter-related in to 'tribal societies' with
surpluses and chiefs etc ... AR and EM kick in.

I think that in this case, AR is political authority, but not the kind of
hierarchical allocation of resources that we have i later class based
societies, and that EM is the mechanism for inter-clan and inter-tribal
'economic' exchange ...

In my view, this is the literature I have been reading, and which describes
this particular stage of developed tribal society, before the consolidated
class societies kick in,

(that EM would become dominant only after manufacturing is something I
cannot square with any ofthe gift literature I have been reading and doesn't
make any sense to me at the moment)

Michel

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Alan Fiske <afiske at anthro.ucla.edu> wrote:

>  Dear Michel,
>
> Thanks for your query.  Although I'm not an expert on economic
> anthropology, I think it's clear that it's crucial to distinguish between
> two types of  'tribal' societies: First there are subsistence hunting and
> gathering societies, which have little or no stored surplus.  Although it's
> a big generalization, the dominant principle for production and exchange in
> these foraging communities is usually CS; they are often strongly anti-AR.
> Second, there are a few hunting and gathering societies with stored
> surpluses and there are agriculture-based socities, in which AR is prominent
> (institutionalized and more or less heridtary chiefs and then kings) and
> there are varying degrees of EM.  In socities based predominantly on
> pastoralism, communities are much more fluid, but AR is also prominent.  MP
> also very gradually emerges in agricultural societies, but pastoral
> societies are often resistent and opposed to MP.  EM seems to become more
> dominant at a much later stage, with the rise of manufacturing, perhaps.
> Meanwhile, MP continues to expand right up to the present, but the mix gets
> complex!
>
> The best overview of these stages (although it doesn't use RMT) is Allen
> Johnson and Timothy Earle, 2000,  *The Evolution of Human Societies: From
> Foraging Group to Agrarian State,* Second Edition.  It's not elegantly
> written or tightly reasoned, but I believe they've got the facts right.
>  (However, look at the reviews to see what other experts have to say; I
> don't follow this literature particularly.)
>
> Of course, no society relies exclusively on one or even two models.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Alan
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Michel Bauwens [mailto:michelsub2004 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:11 AM
> *To:* Alan Fiske; Peer-To-Peer Research List
> *Cc:* David Ronfeldt
> *Subject:* Fwd: two competing interpretations of Alan Fiske
>
>
>
> Dear Alan,
>
>
>
> I hope you have time for this. I noticed that David Ronfeldt and I give
> different interpretations of how your model can be applied to the succeeding
> types of societies and how they allocated resources.
>
>
>
> I always used to equate tribal society as based on gift exchange to
> constitute themselves as a broader system, i.e. EM not CS, while David sees
> it as a CS-dominated form.
>
>
>
> What your interpretation of the anthropological evidence?
>
>
>
> Michel Bauwens
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *David Ronfeldt* <ronfeldt at mac.com>
> Date: Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [Apropos Two Theories] New comment on New paper on "The
> Prospects for Cyberocracy (Revis....
> To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> Cc: David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com>, Peer-To-Peer Research List <
> p2presearch at listcultures.org>, Kevin Carson <
> free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com>, Danielle Varda <
> Danielle.Varda at ucdenver.edu>
>
>
>
> i'm delighted to see that you've treated my timn work well.  yes, i had
> spotted  your postings about it.  that's partly why i decided to include
> your name on my latest send-around: the cyboc paper.
>
> your email raises a lot of theoretical points, more than i can handle right
> now.  maybe later, because this is all very interesting, and we are seeking
> in rather similar directions.
>
> but i do have one  comment that i can offer quickly enough.  it's about
> fiske's framework.  there is some overlap  with  timn, but not exactly.  i
> briefly explain this in a 2006 study you may not have seen yet that focuses
> on the tribal (t) form, but also contains material on the other timn forms
> (see url below).
>
> my take on fiske is different from your own.  you equate the tribal form
> with equality-matching, but i equate it to his communal-sharing form.  you
> think his communal-sharing form matches p2p nicely.  in my view, none of his
> forms match the network form the way i'd like.  here's what i say there:
>
>        "One psychologist (Fiske, 1993) posits that all social relationships
> reduce to four forms of interaction:  communal sharing, authority ranking,
> equality matching, and market pricing.  People develop their capacities for
> social interaction in that order, from infancy through early childhood.  The
> sharing, ranking, and pricing forms correspond to the tribal, hierarchical,
> and market forms, respectively.  The equality-matching form, which is mainly
> about equal-status peer-group behavior, does not correspond to any single
> form; it has some attributes that fit under network form, but other
> attributes (e.g., reciprocity, feuding, revenge) fit better under the tribal
> form."
>
>        the url for this (including for .pdf download) is:
> http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR433/  (Social Forms, 2006)
>
> a deeper issue here is whether the tribal and the network forms are all
> that different.  i think they are.  and i'd like them to be so.  i write
> several pages about this.   but as i note, if it turns out that the new
> network form is an upgraded version of the old tribal form, then the timn
> framework should be converted into a three-form framework, and what will
> come next later in spiral fashion is an upgraded version of the hierarchical
> form.  hmm.
>
> onward.
>
> ===
>
>
>
>
> ===
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2009, at 4:39 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
> Dear David,
>
> Thank you so much for engaging with us on our little criticisms, I would
> rather not call it a critique yet, as it was based on a first cursory
> reading of the postscript section only.
>
> If you agree, some further reactions.
>
> First of all, I want to reiterate how useful I have found your work past
> and present, including your TIMN framework
>
> I had excerpted from it here
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Tribes%2C_Institutions%2C_Markets%2C_Networks and
> here
> http://p2pfoundation.net/David_Ronfeldt_on_the_Evolution_of_Governance
>
> I'm using a very similar scheme from Alan Page Fiske, which I think is
> totally congruent with yours, it's just that instead of taking a view of the
> social formations, he takes a view of the relational dynamics as the
> starting point, as do I.
>
> See http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
>
> The main idea then, is that history starts with a equality matching (gift
> economies of the tribal period) (TRIBES), the hierarchical allocation of
> authority ranking (INSTITUTIONS), the market pricing dynamic (MARKETS) and
> communal shareholding (NETWORKS)
>
> Each relational dynamic has always existed, but there seem be successive
> historical epochs where they are dominant, and therefore dominate the form
> of society, including the other relational logics.
>
> I guess an important question would be how much you would see your vision
> of networks as indeed dominated by the communal shareholding logic, but this
> issue could be solved by recognizing different network typologies as well,
> and obviously, I would then be talking about a particular format of networks
> that arises around the CS dynamic.
>
> If such changes do indeed occur in history, and these indeed occur over the
> very long term (centuries), then we would expect:
>
> 1) a first phase in which the old dominant format (say Tribes adapting to
> the early forms of tributary power), absorbs the new format, and can even
> use it for strengthening itself. So today, the markets would absorb the p2p
> dynamic, as would the state form.
>
> 2) in a second phase they would exist uneasily together, eventually forming
> an unstable parity (I'm thinking of 18th century Europe, or the 5 to 10th
> century transition from slavery to feudalism)
>
> 3) in a third phase though, the emerging form would start to become
> dominant and in turn, the other forms would start to adapt to the new
> meta-logic and meta-system.
>
> If that were true, and that is my thesis, then, we would eventually have a
> p2p-network based logic society, but co-existing with peer-informed or
> peer-transformed tribes, institutions, and markets, to use ure TIMN
> language.
>
> This is of course speculation, and in any case, we are now in the emerging
> phase of peer to peer logics coming to the fore, which means that the old
> forms are indeed using them to strenghtem themselves.
>
> For example, the Obama campaign is the first to successfully
> instrumentalize the p2p dynamics of social networks, for its own aims.
>
> So we have a top-down logic (a group wanting dominance in the institutional
> field), using the new forms, but at the same time, the new forms, however
> emergent, also exist on their own, and have their own logic and strenght and
> a mutual adaptation arises, in which the instrumentalizing party (Obama),
> needs to adapt just as much as do the social networks they are mobilizing.
>
> But we need to be clear about what networks we are talking about
> (centralized, decentralized, distributed), since p2p, as voluntary
> aggegation around the production of common value, only pertains to
> distributed networks, or to hybrid ones in which the distributed element
> remains strong enough not to disallow the self-aggregation to occur.
>
> I would make a strong claim, and we may differ on our vision of temporality
> here, as in our reliance on scholarship, that we are in the midst of a rapid
> cristallisation of the new logics, that are taken an institutional form
> already.
>
> I have no time to do this now, but amongst the 200+ items here at
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/category/p2p-governance, I summarized about
> a dozen (or more), serious academic studies of how this format already
> operates around free software/FLOSS production.
>
> I discuss this more thoroughly in: The social web and its social contracts.
> Re-public, . Retrieved from http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=261
>
> Here a summary of the main ideas and hypotheses:
>
> It usually takes a triarchical form:
>
> 1) a self-aggregating community governed through peer governance
>
> 2) a new kind of NPO/NGO (misleading terms here because they imply
> derivation from the other 2 forms), which I call 'for-benefit institutions',
> which govern the infrastructure of cooperation
>
> 3) a business ecology of corporates, operating in the market but practising
> benefit sharing with the 2 other players, see
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Benefit_Sharing
>
> Two important points:
>
> - the community-corporate dynamic gives rise to a ladder of participation
> giving rise to practices that may be dominated by either pole, but are
> rarely ever totally controlled by either party
>
> - the for-benefit institutions (http://p2pfoundation.net/For_Benefit),
> such as the open source software foundations (
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Software_Foundations) differ
> SIGNIFICANTLY from the older format.
>
> The reason is that they exist to support the community logic, and do not
> command and control the community. Internally, they have skeleton staffs.
>
> I believe this can be understood by looking at the abundance/scarcity
> polarity, with the new institutional formats only taking care of the
> scarcity-driven infrastructure of cooperation, while the community functions
> differently on the abundance logic of sharing immaterial goods according to
> the p2p relational logic.
>
> The important thing though is that we have an observable logic at play,
> even as it is early days. And what we see is that this same logic is now
> being exported to the design of material things (http://p2pfoundation.net)
> , in combination with more distributed manufacturing (
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Manufacturing).
>
> Because the design is immaterial, I content,  based on observation, that
> the same triarchical structure seems to be operating as peer production
> moves to that new sphere.
>
> Of the latter though, there is no scholarly material available as yet, as
> far as I know, but we cannot possibly wait for the slow grinding academic
> world, and we need hybrid outfits such as ours, which can at least present
> the raw material for further study, and offer grounded, but non-academic,
> speculations on it.
>
> One further step needs to be considered. Is peer production limited to 'an
> aspect of the economy'. No no no!!!
>
> Self-aggregation works across all social fields, and so we can say that
> social networks are peer producing politics as well, and that this may
> exhibit the same triarchical logic.
>
> For example: self-aggregating communities of Obama sympathizers, more
> formal institutions (such as Move.on etc..) which function as platforms BUT
> WHICH DO NOT DIRECT the peer production, and institutions, such as the Obama
> campaign, which attempt to extract institutional value from it (electoral
> victory translating into power).
>
> So to make my point clear, what I would have liked to see in the
> Postscript, is not just a phrase allowing for this dynamic, but a more
> serious consideration of this very specific network logic, the p2p network
> logic and its already observable transformative effects.
>
> Michel
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM, David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com> wrote:
> Michel et al. -- Fair enough.  Interesting too.  Some comments in reply:
>
> At first sight, I thought your criticisms meant we had generally neglected
> p2p networks.  But that can't be.  We make a big deal out of the rise of
> network forms of organization, including "p2p" (though I have previously
> preferred the term "all-channel").
>
> Then I saw you refer to "peer production" (a la Benkler?), as found among
> open-source undertakings for software development and file-sharing.  Well,
> that we do not attend to.  I view it mostly as an innovation in a part of
> the economy -- one that engages a proposition for my TIMN effort, and I'd
> rather take it up when I get around to doing the rise-of-markets chapter for
> that study.
>
> [See below for a reminder of what TIMN is about.  The proposition is that
> the rise of a new form (and its realm) has effects that modify the existing
> forms/realms.  Thus, state hierarchies get modified by market principles to
> generate liberal democracies.  Today, capitalist markets are being modified
> by network principles to generate new modes of social production.  But I
> digress.]
>
> However, I finally spotted that you were mainly referring to "peer-governed
> civil-society networks" that include newer kinds of entities than just NGOs
> and NPOs.  Hmmm.  Well, the paper does repeatedly emphasize NGOs and NPOs,
> partly for shorthand reasons, and it wouldn't have taken much extra space to
> add epistemic communities, virtual associations, and other new network
> entities to the picture, not to mention individuals, as we have done in
> other writings.  Moreover, on review, I see I left out a phrase I've used in
> the past to help cover such possibilities, by referring to the emergence
> from civil society "of a new network-based realm whose name and nature are
> not yet known."  I'm certainly not supposing that all of civil society will
> fold into this new realm.  Maybe Danielle and I can edit for all this before
> long.
>
> I try to keep an eye out for innovative entities and networks that
> transcend existing NGO/NPO-related categories.  But I've not spotted a lot
> yet, even less when it comes to durable new entities that would be of
> interest to policymakers and could participate in governance programs.  It
> will be interesting to see what happens to the "Obama network" in this
> regard.
>
> Amid all this, you found our second section in the Postscript
> "disappointing, as a third nonprofit sector already existed."  Well, yes, it
> has kind of existed for a little over a decade or so.  But that isn't long.
>  Researchers didn't make much of it as a social or third sector until the
> 1980s-90s (see our citations).  Policymakers still aren't sure about it,
> from what I've seen.  Our point is that its significance will be for sure
> when policy dialogue shifts -- when it moves beyond the standard
> public-private, government-or-market categorizing, and engages a language
> that means going in distinctly new directions.
>
> Later, you claim we have a "top-down bias."  But in fact, there is lots of
> room -- and need -- for bottom-up as well as side-to-side structures and
> processes in our vision.  This is most evident in the section on sensory
> apparatuses, as in our references to sousveillance and collective
> intelligence.  However, your comment is aimed at the section on networked
> governance.  There we observe that hierarchy will persist; it is essential
> to some degree for states. But, even in the quote you use as an example of
> top-down bias, what we look forward to seeing are more networked
> partnerships between state and other actors.  I figured it would be implicit
> that such networks would not have to be top-down hierarchical.
>
> Perhaps you have a deeper critique in mind, akin to Kevin Carson's
> interesting comments aspiring for p2p networks and p2p governance to
> displace hierarchies (not to mention markets too) as a main form of social
> organization.  That networks are gaining ground relative to hierarchies and
> markets has been a key theme in my work for many years, esp. in writings
> with John Arquilla.  We have even helped argue that networks can outfight
> hierarchies in some circumstances.  But it is quite another matter to
> suppose that, over the long run, hierarchies (or markets) are goners, and
> networks their entirely preferable successors.
>
> My theoretical stance stems from trying to figure out the TIMN framework
> and what it means for social evolution.  As you may recall, it concerns how
> societies have developed four major forms of organization -- tribes,
> hierarchical institutions, markets, and networks -- and combined them (and
> their resulting realms) in a prefered progression that takes centuries to
> evolve:  from monoform T, to biform T+I, to triform T+I+M, and next to
> quadraform T+I+M+N societies.  As I see it, one of the underlying principles
> for success is balance:  Each form, as it arises, is essential.  For
> societies to achieve higher levels of systemic complexity, no form (or the
> realm it creates) should be allowed to dominate any other; some kind of
> balance and equilibrium should be built among these inherently contradictory
> forms and their realms.  If correct, I regard that as science, not bias.
>
> I hope to get back to working on this framework soon.  Our cyberocracy
> paper relates to it, but I never meant for it to be a major endeavor.
>
> One advantage of posting and sharing via SSRN is that the paper is not
> firmly published.  After we see what other comments roll in, we could revise
> and repost.
>
> I commend you on the material here on your blog.  I've spent more time than
> before in browsing it, and I'm impressed.  I'm also pleased that you've
> helped circulate our paper.
>
> These are my personal, independent views (and Danielle's may differ).
>
> Onward.
>
> ===
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2009, at 4:10 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
> Dear David,
>
> emailing is fine, I'll post it on the blog when appropriate and also
> forward it to our p2p research list of academics and researchers,
>
> Michel
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:38 AM, David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com> wrote:
>
> i'll get back to you guys soon on your various emails and blog posts.  my
> inclination will be just to email back, and then if you want, you can insert
> into your blog(s).  ok?  i'm not entirely averse to commenting directly
> within a blog; i just don't have the inclination for it yet.   also, i'm so
> new to blogging practices, i'm wondering where would i put a reply, my blog
> or yours, when i'd want it to show in both?  anyway, i'm not ignoring you,
> just being slow. . . .
>
>
>
>
> --
> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
> alternatives.
>
> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
>
> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
>
> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
> alternatives.
>
> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
>
> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
>
> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
> alternatives.
>
> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
>
> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
>
> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>

-- 
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
alternatives.

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090124/574d2fd3/attachment-0001.html>