[Advisors] Governance, community, and complex adaptive systems

[Gary W Kenward]

On the other hand….communities have always been self-organizing. Self-organizing systems that are not intrinsically chaotic or divergent have attractors around which the system converges. Resource sharing, mutual protection, social interaction are clearly components of the attractor that defines the self-organization of communities. 

Greed and narcissism (arguably, greed is a manifestation of narcissism) form part of the human psyche and part of the social interaction. The creation of hierarchical societies, dominated by those who are willing to invest personal time and energy as well as risk the consequences of failure to feed their narcissism have historically been a major component of the attractor around which communities have self-organized. 

Given this assertion, the issue is not whether or not communities are self-organizing, they always have been. This is evidenced by the evolutionary emergence of the nation state from pre-historical roaming tribes, which in turn were self-organizing communities convergent around hunting, foraging and self-protection. 


The Internet ecosystem is a self-organization of self-organized communities. The Internet architecture was designed to support self-organization from its inception. While some entities have historically been slow to catch on to the nature and impact of this design principle  (e.g. telcos) , I suggest that the concept is now pretty well universally recognized. The actual disconnect lies in what constitutes acceptable properties for the attractors around which self-organization occurs. 


Which brings us back to Internet Governance. Once upon at time (back in the 1980’s commercial use of the Internet was unacceptable. Individuals and organizations distributing commercial material via the Internet could (and did) lose access privileges. The Internet ecosystem was comprised of self-organizing communities that formed around shared interests: science, engineering, math, comic books, humour, collectibles, etc. etc. (c.f. USENET).

This situation obviously changed, primarily with the emergence of the WWW. With commercialization came the opportunity to generate profit from the Internet. Pandora’s box was open. The attractor for the self-organization of Internet communities was shifted towards capitalism which rewards narcissism.
(Arguably, with the Internet’s originating from DARPA, the influence of capitalism has always been present to some degree.)

The shift towards commercial use of the Internet wasn’t the consequence of state or corporate impositions. Non-commercial individuals and organizations either turned a blind eye towards commercialization or actively promoted it. The general population of users like these commercial services and wanted more. Internet commercialization created the gaggle of telco’s, cellco’s and cableco’s that everyone likes to beat upon. However, it also created mega-corporations like Cisco, Amazon, eBay, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and so on. Massive oligarchies that came to exist because of the over-whelming popularity of their products and services and because the Internet ecosystem provides an attractive flow of capital from consumer to corporation. 

Whether commercialization of the Internet should have been allowed or not is, at this point, immaterial. Arguably, commercialization has been a major factor in driving much of the Internet growth and is now an embedded component of the Internet ecosystem and the attractors around which local communities self-organize. 

The real governance question is how to re-direct the self-organization of the Internet ecosystem towards alternative attractors. Or more realistically, how to promote local, not-for-profit community centric attractors that can co-exist with the existing commercial attractors. Much of the current Internet architecture and policy frameworks are structured to support these attractors: e.g. net neutrality, open standards, transparency, opposition to Internet censorship, end-to-end principle etc. The question is then, what is missing from Internet Governance to support more promote local, not-for-profit community centric activity?

In my view, this promotion of alternative local, not-for-profit community centric activity is not an Internet Governance issue, but one of social policy, which falls under the purview of elected governments.

Garth, I enjoyed reading your paper. Thank you for sharing it.

Gary

> On 2016.05.10, at 15:20, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Interesting and important paper Garth and worthy of a much more extensive commentary (and rebuttal) than I'm currently available to provide.
> 
> Let me just make a few points...
> 
> I think you have made the up and down--individual to global argument extremely well and captured the necessary linkages that follow given the assumptions that you have made.  As well, I'm persuaded by (without re-reading) your critique of Quilligan in the context of Ostrom.  
> 
> Where I disagree or rather have a quite different problematic re: my approach to these issues is that you have what I think is an extremely optimistic perspective on how the Internet and its overall relationships to governance are evolving and will evolve. The overall problem with your analysis seems to me that you completely ignore both the theory of power and the increasingly oppressive reality of power  (and concentration of power) in the Interneted society and polity -- national and global.  
> 
> The paper seems to argue that there is some linear autonomous process of evolution in the local and the global polity which is founded on a principle of "autonomous individuals" interacting in a manner so as to realize Internet enabled communities of these autonomous individuals (or at least the elements of their autonomous being that the individuals choose to share with their (multiple?) shared communities).  This evolution is seen as necessary and benign in all aspects including its likely outcomes. Arguments concerning the possible independence of this evolution or the contribution of the likely outcome to overall human well-being are presented as so 20th century and de-legitimized as being associated with one "ism" or other. Thus we are, whether we know it (or want it) or not, moving into the best of all possible worlds.
> 
> I disagree with Garth in several areas.  First while I agree that the autonomous individual (networked individualist) may be the modal form of identity in the networked society I see this as a problem and something to be resisted rather than something to be celebrated. As I argued in my little book "What is Community Informatics" the networked identity is a weakened identity and one which is unable to resist the overwhelming force of the State and now the even more overwhelming force of Internet enabled corporations.  I see communities as the place where individuals are able to recreate their wholeness and potentially realize their power through the strength of solidarity and through being enabled by technology. 
> 
> As well, I see that there are active forces in the world and including and particularly those in the Internet ecology which are anything but benign; and who are looking to achieve monopolies of technical, intellectual and ultimately political power which it is their intention to use in the narrowest and most damaging of selfishness and self-interest.  
> 
> To my mind one can either adopt a best of all possible world's position of passivity in the face of what I see as multiple on-rushing catastrophes or one can attempt in whatever way one can with whatever resources one can muster to find ways to confront and defuse these trends.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: advisors-bounces at tc.ca [mailto:advisors-bounces at tc.ca] On Behalf Of Garth Graham
> Sent: May 10, 2016 8:22 AM
> To: advisors <advisors at tc.ca>
> Subject: [Advisors] Governance, community, and complex adaptive systems
> 
> Here's latest in my ongoing attempts to reframe the Internet Governance debate by reference to the changing nature of governance.  In the process of thinking my way forward, I’ve also evolved my understanding of what community networking actually means.  This article encompasses some of that shift.
> 
> Garth Graham.  Cooperating community connections: A changing political reality.  The Journal of Community InformaticsVol 12, No 1 (2016).
> http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/1295
> 
> Abstract: Community Informatics has declared that the global is a federation of locals. James Quilligan has written an essay to the effect that applying such a definition of global requires a world institution of democratic governance. Some members of the community of community informatics researchers have come to a similar conclusion. This essay outlines an alternative interpretation based on complex adaptive systems theory, and with consequent results for a different definition of the individual, the community and their interdependence. It asks the question – where does the predominance of opinion in community informatics about the changing nature of governance and community reside?
> 
> GG
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Advisors mailing list
> Advisors at tc.ca
> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Advisors mailing list
> Advisors at tc.ca
> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors