Matt, I'm reading Lee Siegel's "Against the Machine" and his argument echoes your thoughts about codification. After a short description of the idea of "prosumer" Siegel asks: "How did the egalitarian, self-expressing, hierarchy-busting, anti-exclusive Internet end up standardizing its users?"
Siegel's book is not an academic one, but it is an essay of social criticism. And I think we need to accomodate these questions (and Matt's concerns -- which I share) into our discussions. -Bill A On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Matt Cooperrider <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > Robert, > > I also fear the dark side of cooperation. I am particularly concerned > with what can happen when web technology enters the mix. In order to > take advantage of the scalability of the web, we must first codify > ourselves and our interactions. Humans are recast as modules with > attribute sets and skill sets, our relationships are reduced to types > such as friend/colleague/enemy, our trust and reputation are > translated into numerical ratings. > > When the next grand narrative takes hold, we'll already be podified > and prepared for deployment. What's more troubling, this next > narrative won't be embodied in a single persona; rather, it will > emerge from the wisdom of the crowds and will thus hold a new kind of > authority which will be tricky to dispel. We desperately need > critical tools to deal with these very real possibilities of > cooperation co-option. > > Matt C > > On Aug 26, 7:35 am, Robert Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:29:10AM -0400, Frederica Clare wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:02 PM > > > Subject: The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > snip > > > [According to Hardin]] > > > Inevitably, "the rational herdsman concludes that the > > > only sensible course for him to pursue is to add > > > another animal to his herd." But every "rational > > > herdsman" will do the same thing, so the commons is > > > soon overstocked and overgrazed to the point where it > > > supports no animals at all. > > > > This, arguably, is simply an extension of the well entrenched > > competition narrative fostered by the robber barons of the early > > industrial age. In the milieu to which Hardin contributed this gem it > > was a fairly non-controversial argument, save that it pinked the > > sensibilities of leftist academics, as I understand the time. > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > Friedrich Engels' account of the "mark," the form taken > > > by commons-based communities in parts of pre-capitalist > > > Germany: > > > > > "The use of arable and meadowlands was under the > > > supervision and direction of the community ... > > > > > "Just as the share of each member in so much of the > > > mark as was distributed was of equal size, so was his > > > share also in the use of the 'common mark.' The nature > > > of this use was determined by the members of the > > > community as a whole. ... > > > > > "At fixed times and, if necessary, more frequently, > > > they met in the open air to discuss the affairs of the > > > mark and to sit in judgment upon breaches of > > > regulations and disputes concerning the mark." (Engels > > > 1892) > > > > At the time Hardin offered us TotC it was sufficient to invoke Engels > > and find one had inescapably polarized the conversation. Hardin's essay > > gave folks "on the right" a seemingly solid argument against > > communalism/commonism/communism. That his essay begged the question of > > what a rational actor would do is beside the point. This wasn't > > science, it was veiled polemics. The problem was, and remains, that > > with great names like Stalin and Mao and Hitler talking up socialism > > even folks who think such ideals look good on paper are hard pressed to > > maintain our committment to those ideals in the face of the atrocities > > committed in the name of those ideals by these "great men of history". > > The best the left and others interested in communal ideals could do was > > play the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and hope the monsters would just go > > away. > > > > This is a thread of Cooperation Studies which is much on my mind, and > > for which I have no traction, no footing, no hooks, the dark side of > > cooperation, when cooperators do evil, and the propensity for evil in > > concentrated action, the potential for loss of individual freedom, > > dignity, meaning in the ocean of common action. > > > > I look forward to continuing to explore these threads with y'all. > > > > rl > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CooperationCommons" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CooperationCommons?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
