Re: re-2: W Wager - Centripetal & Holograhpic models

Greetings all!

I very rarely post to the WSN list. But the nature of the recent posts and my
interest in them are, by their very nature, the same.
:)
So I feel compelled to answer the post to which I am responding and the post
to which that post was a response. I will do so per each paragraph, thereby
apologising in advance for quoting two entire messages in addition to my own
comments.


wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote:

> Richard,
>
>         The advantage of being a historian, when you're studying the
> future, is that you have a fairly rich array of data at your disposal to
> inform you of how human beings have behaved and interacted in many
> cultures and eras.  The disadvantage of being a historian, when you're
> studying the future, is that you're less likely to be able to anticipate
> real breakthrough moments, times when the rules change fundamentally.  I
> would like to believe that we're approaching such a time, thanks to the
> advances in education and literacy recorded during the 20th Century, and
> thanks to the cyber-revolution that began only in the 1980s.  Many people
> in Latin America, Africa, and Asia have been left out of all this, but not
> all.  The opportunities for laterally rather than hierarchically
> orchestrated change are immense.  Maybe we are on the brink.

        I agree and have seen such changes first hand. I am very much involved
in the democratisation of the United Nations Organisation. The NGO community
in co-operation with Civil Society Organisations and other non-profits are
working together to bring about a movement from the ground up to help
suppliment the UN system to be more democratic into this next century and
beyond. I believe that if we listen to and process enough information that we
will be able to help facilitate this "next step".


>         But as a historian, I still cannot bring myself to imagine a
> coherent movement to build a post-capitalist, earth-conserving,
> justice-dealing world civilization without the help of some of the
> traditional mechanisms for effecting change--parties, leaders, texts,
> ideologies, working across national frontiers, and coordinating efforts.
> Perhaps I am too mired in the past.  But why does it have to be all or
> nothing?  Can't lateral energies and hierarchical forces work in tandem,
> complementing one another?  I would like to believe that we are entering a
> New Age when everybody singing their own song will somehow produce a
> symphony, but my faith in this happening any time soon is very weak.

        I agree with the idea of using both the "old ways" and the "new ways".
The difficulty arises when those who cling to the old ways and will not even
allow the new ways to exist come face-to-face with those who believe that it
is the "new way or no way". I have witnessed that first hand as well and am
helping to set up a Conflict Resolution Committee for just such problems
concerning the organisation with which I am affiliated.


> > I'd like to offer a second response to your sensible
> > comments about the need for greater movement organization,
> > and your suggestion that 'centripetal' forces (World Party,
> > or whatever) are the appropriate candidates to satisfy that
> > need.

        A certain amount of "centralised forces" are needed to run any
organisation (movement, coalition, federation, etc). But heirarchy is not the
"be all and end all" of appropriately functional organisational mechanics. A
balance and appropriateness of function is necessary for further growth and
life of any movement.


> > In a spirit of joint investigation, permit me to suggest
> > that we look at the problem in terms of its components.
> > Let's consider first some of the functions that one would
> > expect from a central organization if there were one.  I
> > presume some of these would be:
> >     (a) dissemination of movement-wide bulletins & information
> >     (b) provide forum for strategic discussion and coordination
> >     (c) provide initiative to keep things moving
> >     (d) provide planning and logistical support for actions
> >     (e) act as focal point for communication and networking
> >         among movement organizations
> >     (f) act as voice of movement to outside organizations
> >
> > This kind of stuff is familiar to all of us, with our
> > lifetime of experiences in a hierarchialized world.

        All of the above listed functions are necessary, but only to a very
small degree. I see the hierarchical model and the holographic (or fractal)
model as being the real world applications of the concepts of pure
republicanism and pure democracy. If we consider the fundamental idea of
republicanism as being a representative system, then it lends itself to
bureaucracy and hierarchy, which is typical of republic. While, on the other
hand, we consider true democracy as being that system which is diffuse and
spread out over every member, then we have the fractal or holographic model.


> > Now let's think in terms of a holographic movement, where
> > leadership and intiative comes from every direction, just as
> > every star and galaxy interacts electromagnetically and
> > gravitationally in a center-less universe.
> >
> > In the centralized model, the problem of harmonization
> > becomes in some sense a problem of recruitment - bringing
> > more people and organizations 'on board'.  In the
> > holograhpic model, the problem of harmonization becomes a
> > problem of achieving coherence out of diversity. Centralized
> > harmonization naturally leads to the incremental refinement
> > of a single-thread platform/agenda.  Holographic harmonization
> > leads to parallel development of hundreds of threads, and
> > creates a communication matrix in which collective
> > understanding and consciousness can evolve rapidly and
> > organically, on many fronts at once.

        I see no problem, or at least very little problem, with having both
hierarchical and holographic models present in the same system. They would
each have to find their own appropriate manifestations based on the level at
which either model or piece of the model would function best.


> > Now consider how the centralized functions (above) might be
> > remapped into the holographic paradigm.  Here are some
> > off-the-cuff possibilities...
> >
> >     (a) IndyMedia (http://www.indymedia.org) and many more like
> >         that, in touch with one another globally.
> >     (b) Various organizations take initiative to organize forums
> >         related to their concerns and to invite others; overall
> >         strategy is one of the 'threads' developed during such
> >         forums.
> >     (c) Intiative comes in parallel from many directions, in
> >         response to local conditions.
> >     (d) Organizations local to actions take primary
> >         responsibility for logistics; organizations generally
> >         collaborate on projects in their region.
> >     (e) Networking is the business of every movement
> >         organization; some organizations specialize in
> >         cross-pollenization and facilitation.
> >     (f) The movement speaks everywhere at once and with one
> >         spirit.

        If we take the above mentioned functions and match them, in kind and
in appropriate measure, with the hierarchical model, then we have a system
that for all intents and purposes is a federated system. It would be an
organisational system that would allow its pieces to function in legitimately
regulated levels, ie at the most local level possible. In addition, there
would be a loose hierarchy only necessary for interaction with other
hierarchical systems at the same level. In essence, you would have a true
federation, a balanced system practicing both democratic and republican
methodologies.


> > Consider, Wager, that we (you and me and the WSN list) are
> > by-our-dialog acting as a volunteer 'strategy proposal
> > committee' for the movement at-large.  Suppose that we come
> > up with something that gets promulgated, acted on, and
> > refined by others.  Notice that organizations play no role
> > in this process, apart from the fact that
> > organizations-as-actors might be among our eventual
> > 'audience' (or a new organization, or organizations, might be
> > part of our recommendations.)  We don't need to join
> > anything, pay dues, compete for office, or attend meetings.

        That is, in essence, the system that we are using in the Global
Peoples Assembly in conjunction with the Civil Society Forum. Although, we are
trying to allow the system to be more organic than some of those involved feel
immediately confortable with, most of us are certain that we can overcome most
of the functional quagmires associated with overly rigid systems being imposed
on highly organic models. Hence, the constant struggle with a hyrbid system.
We have created several mailing lists that act as forums for various
functional discussions. The key is to allow the system to be organic, but with
some structure only minimally necessary for day to day functioning and
furtherence of the organisation and its mission and goals.


> > The holographic approach, if it makes sense at all, hangs on
> > a particular critical hinge: the existence and promulgation
> > of processes which are effective in harmonizing face-to-face
> > gatherings which include diverse constituencies.  If such
> > processes can be identified, and if strategic application of
> > them is pursued, my current thinking leads me to believe that
> > much would follow of its own accord, driven by the liberated
> > energy of latent synergy which has thus far been mostly
> > stifled by regime-encouraged divisiveness and a culture
> > which emphasizes in-clique communication.

        One must also have at one's disposal a battery of conflict resolution
officers, as our group has recently seen the necessity to include a mediating
body to help our process to remain "civil".
        I hope that this has brought some added opinion in terms of personal
clarification and application of those ideas put forth along this thread on
the WSN list. I look forward to continued discussion on this and related
topics.

--
                                                 Your Friend in Peace,
                                                        Glen Nuttall
                                                            UPF
                                                   http://www.upf.org
                                                        upf@upf.org

"Courageous Knowledgeable People,
               United Compassionate World,
                              Committed Responsible Future"

"Out of Respect for Diversity
           comes Recognition of Fundamental Freedoms,
                      Individual Rights,
                                 and Personal Responsibilities"

"In the common interest of a Lasting World Peace
                      through a Unified Planetary Assembly"