permaculture

[jamesdavid Sneed <harvestcircle@hotmail.com>]

Maybe some individuals need the strngth of consensus and maybe some need to 
follow, and at least some humans don't follow very well. Perhaps it is more a 
matter of ideals and principles than it is of organizational patterns.
 
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 06:47:26 -0600
From: holger@tierramor.org
To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [permaculture] hierarchies and networks

Interesting & important topic
 
Feel familiar with your musings... I have gone all the way from 
defending networked, consensus-based, "leaderless"  stuctures to also 
(at least sometimes) apreciate hirarchies, and more centrally structured 
(decision making) organisms...,
 
who was the college who said "The opposite is also true" ???
Its one of my favotite mantras recently
 
but the examples (PLO, German RAF, or Al Qaeda) aren´t really that 
motivating...
 
of course we have to find balance-
and the networked structures simply have more resilience in an energy 
descent future
we will hate them, but with less energy we have to work with them
good that we have some practical experiences from our activist times...
 
nevertheless, I´m surprised, because the more networks seem inevitable, 
the more people in "mainstream societies" are crying for "strong 
leadership"... of course, the opposite will happen, because central 
control needs energy...
 
and we permaculture dissitents are talking about the advantages of those 
structures, that we ignored ore rejected for a long time
 
interesting...another topic for a filosofical debate...
 
regards from Mexico
 
holger
 
 
El 01.11.2010 05:30, permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org escribió:
> Asunto:
> [permaculture] hierarchies and networks
> De:
> Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
> Fecha:
> Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:54:09 -0700
>
> Para:
> permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
>
>
> One subject we touched on in the recent certification thread was new and 
> old tools for change, and the difference between hierarchical and 
> decentralized organizations and tools. I'd said that I once had high hopes 
> for decentralized leadership tools, like consensus, but was disappointed by 
> how rarely they live up to their promise. I've been skeptical of the value 
> of these and similar methods to actually produce change, and have found the 
> older tools--strong leadership, old-style voting--at least as effective 
> (though I still prefer inclusive versions of these tools to exclusive).
>
> I was catching up on a stack of New Yorker magazines this morning, and in 
> the Oct 4 issue there's an article that fits right in to this conversation, 
> "Small Change" by Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell is known for his book "The 
> Tipping Point" and in general being a whole systems thinker. He's made the 
> points I would have liked to have made. I was intrigued that he feels 
> network tools aren't good for doing design, and that they are better at 
> preserving the status quo than changing it. So here's a quote from the 
> article.
>
> "Unlike hierarchies, with their rules and procedures, networks aren't 
> controlled by a single central authority. Decisions are made through 
> consensus, and the ties that bind people to the group are loose. This 
> structure makes networks enormously resilient and adaptable in low-risk 
> situations. Wikipedia is a perfect example. . . .
>
> "There are many things, though, that networks don't do well. Car companies 
> sensibly use a network to organize their hundreds of suppliers, but not to 
> design their cars. No one believes that the articulation of a coherent 
> design philosophy is best handled by a sprawling, leaderless organizational 
> system. Because networks don't have a centralized leadership structure and 
> clear lines of authority, they have real difficulty reaching consensus and 
> setting goals. They can't think strategically; they are chronically prone 
> to conflict and error. How do you make difficult choices about tactics or 
> strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?
>
> "The Palestine Liberation Organization originated as a network, and the 
> international-relations scholars Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and Calvert 
> Jones argue in a recent essay in International Security that this is why it 
> ran into such trouble as it grew: "Structural features typical of 
> networks---the absence of central authority, the unchecked autonomy of 
> rival groups, and the inability to arbitrate quarrels through formal 
> mechanisms---made the P.L.O. excessively vulnerable to outside manipulation 
> and internal strife."
>
> "In Germany in the nineteen-seventies, they go on, "the far more unified 
> and successful left-wing terrorists tended to organize hierarchically, with 
> professional management and clear divisions of labor."  . . . They seldom 
> betrayed their comrades in arms during police interrogations. Their 
> counterparts on the right were organized as decentralized networks, and had 
> no such discipline. These groups were regularly infiltrated, and members, 
> once arrested, easily gave up their comrades. Similarly, Al Qaeda was most 
> dangerous when it was a unified hierarchy. Now that it has dissipated into 
> a network, it has proved far less effective.
>
> "The drawbacks of networks scarcely matter if the network isn't interested 
> in systemic change---if it just wants to frighten or humiliate or make a 
> splash---or if it doesn't need to think strategically. But if you're taking 
> on a powerful and organized establishment you have to be a hierarchy . . . .
>
> "But [network-based activism] is simply a form of organizing which favors 
> the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the 
> strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It 
> shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and 
> disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and 
> adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and 
> harder for that expression to have any impact. The instruments of social 
> media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. 
> They are not a natural enemy of the status quo. If you are of the opinion 
> that all the world needs is a little buffing around the edges, this should 
> not trouble you. But if you think that there are still lunch counters out 
> there that need integrating [Gladwell mentioned civil rights activists] it 
> ought to give you pause."
>
> The full article is at
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
>
> Toby
> http://patternliteracy.com
>
>
>
>
>    

_______________________________________________ permaculture mailing list 
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user 
configuration here: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture 
Read the public message archives here: 
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture Command to put in your 
browser's Google search box to search these archives: 
site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search string (omit the 
brackets)] List Usage & Guidelines: 
http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq 
Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture Permaculture Mailing List 
Blog http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com permaculture forums 
http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums List contact: 
permacultureforum@gmail.com