workshop on emergent democracy // tuesday 19 august in shoreditch

[charlesarmstrong]

hallo everyone

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.

facebook users can rsvp here:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=22558039334

thanks!

: charles

= = = = = = = = = =
// WORKSHOP //

Project Themis : Emergent Democracy


Where: The Trampery, 8-15 Dereham Place, London EC2A 3HJ

When: 6pm to 9pm on Tuesday 19th August 2008

Who: Anyone interested in what democracy is for & where it’s going

Cost: Free


When the first city states emerged in southern Mesopotamia around 3500BC they seem to have been governed via an assembly in which all adult male citizens were able to participate. Meanwhile less formal systems to make collective decisions for the common benefit have existed since the beginning of human social evolution. So there is a somewhat longer history for what we might call “democracy” than is typically acknowledged. Throughout human history democracy has taken a myriad different forms, each instance adapted to the particular environment and needs that prompted its emergence.

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. Factors as diverse as the internet, climate change, single-issue politics and the dawning of the age of aquarius are all cited as decisive factors. Some of the most intriguing suggestions relate to so-called “emergent democracy” where clusters of opinion materialise and align themselves in a completely fluid and decentralised fashion (the Wikipedia article is hopeless and needs rewriting).



The workshop

On Tuesday 19th August CIRCUS foundation is hosting a small workshop in Shoreditch, London investigating emergent democracy and other trends in democratic systems. We’d like to hear from anyone who’s thinking or working in this field and willing to talk about their ideas and experiences. People are also welcome to come along, listen and ask questions. Please get in touch with Charles Armstrong (charles@...). We’ll get in beer and pizza to keep the wolf from the door.


About CIRCUS foundation

CIRCUS foundation is a small, independent non profit bringing together technologists and thinkers to help build bridges to the post industrial society.

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss

[Rufus Pollock]

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>

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss

[charlesarmstrong]

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 [phone]
usa cell [phone]

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 
> >

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss

[Ed Pastore]

On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:32 PM, charlesarmstrong wrote:

> 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.


Hello. I am new to this list, but this looks like an opportune place  
to introduce myself. I work with the Metagovernment project, and we  
are working on implementing exactly what you describe above, for any  
community (from chess clubs to large governments). I welcome you to  
investigate our project, and consider helping out, if you can:
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Our home page is a little out of sync with the ideas developing  
internally, but anyone is welcome to join our startup committee or  
read its archives:
http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Startup

Also, since it may be of interest for your meeting, I'd like to point  
you to a list we have been compiling of significant projects working  
toward some form of direct democracy through Web 2.0 technologies:
http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Related_projects
Our project has been in touch with several of these other  
organizations, and we are beginning to explore (or at least wonder)  
how we can work together. Some of these projects have very different  
approaches and/or scopes, so we may just have to see what the general  
marketplace does with our "competing" systems.

Ed Pastore
http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Ed_Pastore

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss

[Rufus Pollock]

On 19/08/08 02:32, charlesarmstrong wrote:
> hallo rufus
>
> you make some substantial points so apologies for what is bound to be an
> inadequate response at this hour.

Really burning the (post-) midnight oil I see :)

> - 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.

Absolutely -- I hope you did not construe my response as suggesting you
did. I simply took the title "Emergent Democracy" and your excellent
blurb as impetus to look at one particular thing. As you stated there
are many things that could be altering technology. That said, I do note
that of many (most?) your speakers tonight come heavily from the techy
side of things.

> - 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

Surely the question was the extent to which that authority was
concentrated, and perhaps more importantly, monitored. The 'Dictator and
the Anarchist' story was all about the fact that concentration of power
may not be problematic if combined with other factors (such as the
nonrivalry and open licensing of the underlying good being governed).

> 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

Very interesting. As an ethnographer would you have any pointers to
literature on this. I'd love to know more about what actually happened
in said northern californian towns.

> 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.

Absolutely. The question is how much they do on their own. That is why I
  had linked information (and technology) with the free-rider problem
for I think that is what creates problems for the informed (or simply)
active minority.

> 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!

Of course, the entire purpose of this is discussion -- something already
successfully achieved (or at least started) even before the physical
meeting :) I was simply contributing here in lieu of my inability to
attend what looks like it will be a fun and fascinating evening.

All the best and look forward to hearing more,

Rufus

_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
okfn-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss