[p2p-research] Fwd: Follow up to David Ronfeldt
Michel Bauwens
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 4 04:42:56 CEST 2009
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Haskins <haskinstom87 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:27 AM
Subject: Follow up to David Ronfeldt
To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
Hi MichelI thought David had added his thoughts as a comment on your blog
but could not find it. Here are my responses that emailed back to him 5
minutes ago.
Tom
*From: * haskinstom87
*Subject: * *Re: responding about haskins*
*Date: * June 3, 2009 2:16:48 PM MDT
*To: * ronfeldt at mac.com
David: Thanks for putting so much thought into my writing and diagrams. It's
very helpful for me to see how my message is getting construed, what
assumptions I appear to be making, what I may be overlooking or distorting
and how I can refine/upgrade my emerging model.
I've inserted by comments within this email, where I formulated what then
followed as comments on Michels' blog.
Tom
On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:38 AM, David Ronfeldt wrote:
i just submitted the following comment. if you'd rather do something else
besides that, ok. i've cc'ed haskins above.
- - -
Michel (and others?) -- This is intriguing. I’ve looked at this and related
posts in the ongoing series by Tom Haskins at his blog. He’s set out on a
rather daring course. And I’m pleased to see continuing interest in the
TIMN framework.
I gather he is trying to show that TIMN, which I have pitched at the
societal scale, can also be used, along with other frameworks — notably,
Cynefin and Fiske’s relational models — to analyze what’s going on at the
“micro scale” of discrete small groups, firms, and other enterprises. He
appears to be interested in analyzing dynamic situations where pressures for
innovative changes are mounting, where old hierarchical and market ways are
proving deficient, and where it would be advisable to adopt new network/P2P
designs, but where stress and strain may drive the participants back into a
kind of tribalism before they manage to advance anew. That’s not a full
summary of his effort, but it looks like a major strand.
I agree with that thrust, for I have often noticed that the TIMN forms and
related dynamics can be found at all levels of society, across all eras.
I’ve even wondered about an assessment methodology for doing analyses at the
micro level. But my efforts remain focused on the societal level.
So, I compliment Haskins for his efforts. But in addition to compliments, I
also have some questions, issues, and suggestions for revisions. Perhaps I
should offer them directly at his blog or via email (we had a preliminary
exchange about Fiske’s models). But your blog has shown an abiding interest
in and been a good venue for TIMN matters. So here goes:
1. The charts and related text appear to miscategorize one if not two of
Fiske’s forms. Fiske's CS (communal sharing/solidarity) corresponds to the
Tribes category, not EM (equality matching). Fiske himself agreed that
tribes mainly reflect CS. There is discussion somewhere at this blog about
this. That’s not convenient for someone who wants to associate Networks or
P2P solely with Fiske’s CS, but that does not mean it’s okay to
miscategorize the Tribes form. There are circumstances where Tribes exhibit
EM — after all, tribes are often egalitarian — but CS is their fundamental
relationship.
When we apply any single category of Fiske's relational grammar to anything
as large as a single tribe, we risk anthropomorphizing the tribe. Relational
grammars speak to the micro scale of personal relationships, coordinating
interactions, social bonds, cognitive representations of significant others,
interpersonal vulnerability/insecurity, self regard, differentiation of self
from others, organizing mental representations of perceived
inter-relationships, etc. Because tribes, institutions, markets and/or
networks are comprised of many personal relationships, all four of Fiske's
forms would apply to all four TIMN forms.
2. The various charts and related text often read quite negatively about
the nature of the tribal form. The charts tend to depict people being
reduced to a raw kind of tribalism — full of defensive attitudes and
behaviors — because of external pressure and disorder (note that I state
“disorder,” not “chaos,” as explained below). But the charts do not
recognize the bright aspects of the tribal form, or that tribes are not
always faced with chaotic disorder — sometimes life is quite pleasant and
orderly. And that applies to all kinds of tribe-like organizations across
the ages, modern ones included, even inside corporate organizations. And
when the tribal form is functioning well, it may help with the other forms.
The blog postings note this at points, but only incidentally. Only the
Networks form gets consistently positive depictions. Is some kind of bias
going on here?
I admit to a conscious bias in all this and no doubt have some unconscious
biases as well. I believe every situation is inherently complex, highly
interdependent, cyclical and capable of yielding emergent solutions. The
network response to situations is the only one sufficiently complex to be
sustainable, resilient, and mutually effective when stressed by the
complexity. The tribal, institutional and market forms are progressively
more responsive to the inherent complexity, but each falls short. Thus
tribal responses are the least sustainable and most vulnerable to the
adverse impacts of the complexity, most likely to get regarded as expendable
by institutions, markets and networks, and most prone to violent conflicts
between other tribal responders.
3. The charts and related text correlate the TIMN and Cynefin categories to
each other in what may not be the most accurate way. This is the first I’ve
come across Cynefin, so I’m not steeped in it. But I gather this: Cynefin
is about four problem-solving situations and approaches — simple,
complicated, complex, and chaotic. In addition, there is a fifth situation
— disorder. It looks to me as though Haskins’s charts and related text are
often more about disorder than chaos, given Cynefin’s definitions. It’s not
clear to me how Cynefin defines disorder, but it views chaos as an unorderly
(but not disorderly) situation where cause and effect do not have a fixed
relationship — they’re unsettled — and if you solve a problem repeatedly,
the answer turns out to be different each time.
The charts show a continual association of Tribes with chaos. But that’s
tantamount to saying that Tribes are not patterned as to cause and effect,
or that Tribes mainly arise when cause and effect are chaotically
uncertain. But in fact, Tribes are often patterned and principled, even
doctrinaire, especially when faced with disorder. Tribes are not
“illiterate” (as one chart claims). Moreover, contrary to other charts,
Tribes often do “sense” and “categorize” before they “act.” Tribes are not
just a milling, messed-up mass of people acting impulsively that arise only
in times of disorder. True, disorderly and/or chaotic times can lead people
to revert to the tribal form — that is a TIMN principle, and I’m pleased
these charts and related text reflect it — but that’s different from saying
that Tribes pose a chaotic approach to problem-solving.
To the extent that the TIMN and Cynefin frameworks can be given a mash-up —
and it’s an interesting, even fun idea — perhaps it would work better if the
associations were rotated. Show that Tribes associate not with “chaotic”
but with “simple” approaches to problem-solving — as indeed they really do
in comparison to the other forms. Then, Institutions go with “complicated,”
and Markets with “complex.” That fits with historical and current
realities. It also fits with the principles used by the author’s of Cynefin
to discuss their framework (though in one write-up they seem to warn against
relying on these four simplifying terms).
The confusion I've created appears to be between the categorizing of the
situations themselves and the responses to those situations. I'm only using
the Cynefin framework of (chaotic, simple, complicated, complex) to
characterize the situations, not the responses to them. Cynefin also
characterizes responses to situations differently (novel, best, good,
emergent practices).
I'm proposing that tribal responses are the only ones viable amidst chaotic
situations. My take on the difference between chaos and disorder in the
Cynefin framework regards disorder as outside their framework. No practice
can be formulated because there is no basis for even experimenting,
improvising or winging it. Chaotic situations allow for tribes to form, to
provide safety to their members, to guard against traitors, and to
continually experiment with its adaptations to the chaos (novel practice).
When situations get simple due to increasing stability, institutions can
form and provide complicated infrastructures, governance, etc (best
practices). When situations get complicated by diversity, empowered middle
class citizens, societal distribution of access, rights, resources, then
markets can form and provide complex mechanisms, systems, etc (good
practices). When situations get complex due to the predominance of markets,
enterprises, commercial innovations, networks can form and function as
complex adaptive systems which are living, self organizing, and congruent
with P2P precepts (emergent practices).
Of course, that would deprive one of associating Networks with “complex” —
and leave only the option of associating them with “chaotic” situations.
That may not appeal to P2P proponents who like complexity theory. But why
not? At least for current times. It makes more sense than associating
Tribes with chaos. As noted above, unless I’m misreading, the essence of
Cynefin’s chaos category is that cause and effect are not fixed — they’re
unsettled — and if you solve a problem repeatedly, the answer comes out
differently each time. Isn’t the rise of Networks having such effects?
Here’s a thought-experiment to try to illustrate it: Imagine a large but
bounded set of people, men and women, in one place, where the problem is to
pair up, perhaps in dining, dancing, or dating relationships. It’s not hard
to imagine how a Tribe, or a hierarchical Institution, or a Market method in
that setting might lead to a simple, complicated, or complex kind of
solution, respectively. But how to imagine a chaotic solution that does not
amount to utter disorder? I haven’t figured out an image for this situation
that really fits the Network form, but here’s a way to make the situation
chaotic: Have the session start on time, but also have the participants
arrive at different times and from different directions. That would mix
things up. The session would still get underway with the same set of
people, but in an unorderly (not disorderly) fashion. And the problem of
pairing-up would still get solved, but probably quite differently each
time. No? In any case, I repeat, the associations between the TIMN forms
and Cynefin models may bear rotation.
4. I have some issues with what I see on charts that associate TIMN and
Cynefin with different modes of group work, in a spectrum that runs from
action, to coordination, to cooperation, to collaboration. That spectrum is
a start, one that draws on suggestions from another blogger. But it needs
revisions too. In particular, the nature of group work for Tribes is rarely
do-something-anything “action” as the charts claim. Work in Tribes normally
revolves around rituals and codes of conduct — a collectively ordained mode
not evident in their spectrum. For Institutions, their term “coordination”
is fitting; but it’s more than that — it’s command, control, and
coordination. In Markets, “cooperation” does occur, as the charts indicate;
but that’s not the main mode — what’s missing from their spectrum is
“competition" (and sometimes competitive cooperation, or cooperative
competition). Associating Networks with “collaboration” is fine.
Given the positional stances that emerged from that group work chart, I've
concluded it's a serious oversimplification. My second attempt is the TIMN
practice post where tribal responses work the insider/outsider distinction,
institutional responses belabor the upper/lower differences, market
responses pressure themselves with responsive/arrogant distinction and
network responses get refined by recognizing the difference between living
and automated systems. The internal dynamics of a tribe handling their
insider/outsider issues could easily involve some action, coordination,
cooperation and collaboration. Likewise for the other 3 TIMN forms and all
four forms of group work.
Anyway, there’s a partial set of comments to mull over. I admire the effort
and enthusiasm that has gone into these charts and the related texts. The
series amounts to quite a saga. I also gather that the blog author — Tom
Haskins — may well have a particular set of “micro scale” circumstances in
mind where his points hold up, and my comments are made moot. In any case,
I hope to post more, new material about TIMN and its dynamics at my own
blog before too long. -- Onward, David
P.S.: Thanks for the invitation to leave a comment here with this post.
But since my comment is so long, feel free to move it elsewhere if you
prefer. I’ll apprise Haskins that I have left a comment here.
- - -
===
On Jun 2, 2009, at 8:29 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Hi David,
I can also post your comment as a full blogpost,
Michel
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:59 AM, David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com> wrote:
yes, i've wondered about replying via your blog, since i saw your post about
haskins. i've got a comment drafted, but i think i'll wait until tomorrow
or the next day. thanks for bringing the idea up.
===
On Jun 1, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Why not explicate your issues and comments on haskins, that can only bring
the effort forward, and you could do it via our blog?
Anything I can ever do to spread TIMN around, let me know, I consider it one
of the very best efforts to make sense of network-based change dynamics, and
I will be using it in class next week,
Michel
--
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN, http://www.shiftn.com
/
--
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
Monitor updates 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/20090604/7909e775/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list