 I've been thinking a lot lately about communities, in the social networking, intentional community and business
sense. I was struggling to come up with a model that integrates all
these types of communities, and I realized that I would have to come up
with a more holistic approach, one not constrained by market-based
definitions of relationships.
To do so, I began thinking about communities as they function in the gift economy (or as I prefer to call it, the generosity
economy). -- the growing economy that includes open source, the
Internet, scientific knowledge sharing, much foundation and NGO work,
blogs, file sharing and a host of other 'price-less' exchanges of
value. How could we redefine the social constructs of the market
economy to suit the framework of the gift economy? Here's what I came
up with:
Market/Ownership Economy
|
Gift/Generosity Economy
|
Customer
|
Those you give to
|
Supplier
|
Those who give to you
|
Employee, Profession, Industry
|
Those you work with
|
Town, State, Nation
|
Those you live with
|
Family, Friends
|
Those you love
|
If you use the more inclusive gift/generosity economy constructs, your
communities, networks and identities within them merge into these five
broad 'circles', and the need to distinguish between social and
business communities, networks and identities disappears. In a sense
this is what is already happening as more of us cease drawing the line
between our social and business identities and lives, and as more and
more of what we do, powered by the Internet, is done without
expectation of financial compensation.
This of course is very threatening to the market economy, whose
advocates would have you to believe that any activity that cannot be
and is not denominated in money terms has no value (and is inevitably inefficient).
So, for example, those I give to
(my 'blue' circle) includes you, my readers, those I coach (my children
and grand-daughters as well as those who pay me money for advice), and
those who pay me for my expertise during projects, whether in a
'customer-supplier' or 'employer-employee' capacity. Likewise, those who give to me includes those who send me books to review,
my electricity supplier, readers who send me e-mails or comments on my
blog, other bloggers whose writing I read and value, the grocery store
and the neighbours who give us free veggies and fruits from their
garden and invite us to dinner. Whether money changes hands in any of
these relationships becomes unimportant. Those I work with
includes colleagues on various projects from innovation assignments to
neighbourhood work bees to those in my fledgling AHA! network. Those I live with
includes various degrees of relationship from those who share my house
and land (human and other creatures) to the entirety of Gaia, all of us
who share this tiny, fragile planet. And those I love is an amorphous group of people and animals and places that is growing at an astronomical rate.
There is substantial overlap between these five communities, but I
believe they are collectively exhaustive -- all of our networks and
communities fit within this five-circle model. And this is a model of
abundance and not scarcity -- if we are generous, there is no limit to
the number of people we can invite into any of these circles, and the
larger and richer these circles grow, the better off we all become.
This takes the concept of the information or knowledge economy as one
without constraint or limit to the value that can be given, and expands
it to include everything -- atoms, bits, and emotions.
Using this model, we can define all relationships by their nature (which of the five circles they fit within) and their depth (how much we give, receive and love them, and how closely we live and work with them). And we can define ourselves by the circles of others (which circles and which others) to which we belong.
So we might evaluate the nature and depth (scale of 0 to 10) of our relationships like this:
|
how much I give
|
how much I receive
|
how much I love
|
how closely we work
|
how closely we live
|
Person_A
|
not enough (2)
|
a lot (7)
|
a lot (9)
|
not at all (0)
|
very (9)
|
Creature_B
|
a bit (2)
|
a lot (7)
|
a lot (8)
|
not at all (0)
|
very (8)
|
Group_C
|
too much (7)
|
some (4)
|
growing (6)
|
a lot (8)
|
not at all (0)
|
Place_D
|
not enough (2)
|
a lot (7)
|
a lot (8)
|
not at all (0)
|
very (8)
|
while those who we see ourselves in close relationships with might evaluate them like this:
|
how much they think I give
|
how much they think I receive
|
how much they love/feel loved by me
|
how closely they think we work
|
how closely they think we live
|
Person_A
|
not enough (3)
|
too much (9)
|
a lot (9)/some (5)
|
not at all (0)
|
very (9)
|
Creature_B
|
a lot (8)
|
a lot (8)
|
a lot (8)/some (5)
|
varies (5)
|
very (8)
|
Group_C
|
some (4)
|
a lot (8)
|
not much (2)
|
a lot (7)
|
not at all (0)
|
Place_D
|
not enough (4)
|
a lot (7)
|
a lot (7)/some (5)
|
not at all (0)
|
very (7)
|
You may think it fanciful that I'm ascribing conscious and emotional
assessments to non-humans, collective groups and even places, but I
certainly feel these assessments -- I feel my home, the wonderful place where I live (the land, and the diverse and collective life on it) welcoming me when I return to it.
Our circles, our communities do not belong to anyone, they are collective.
To say these are 'our' circles, 'our' networks (as social software
tries to do) is absurd -- it is like saying that because we belong to
the human race, or to a political party or other organization, that all
of humanity, or all of the party, is somehow 'ours' by virtue of our
definition of it including us and some 'others'. The claiming of
'ownership' over such circles, such as when we talk about 'our' country
or 'our' party can in fact be dangerous because it oversimplifies and
homogenizes the relationship.
So how would we diagram these relationships, capturing the nature
(which ones of the five circles) and depth of our relationships with
others, and their reciprocal sense of their relationships with us? And
what about situations where others consider themselves in 'our' circles
(or us in 'theirs') but we do not? We could use arrows of five colours
and ten widths pointing in each direction. And we might even use dotted
lines to indicate relationships we hope to develop in the future (or
which others might hope to develop with us). Very complex, perhaps, and
inevitably judgemental and incomplete, but imagine how valuable it
might be. And if the de facto
communities to which we belong, which sets of mutual links between
collections of individuals might portray, define (in a social sense,
anyway) who we are, then such
a map might in fact be a more accurate and useful portrait of us than
anything an artist, photographer, genealogist or DNA scientist could
come up with.
When someone asks us who we are,
how do we usually respond? We say what we do (i.e. define ourselves by
those we work with), and/or what company we work for (i.e. define
ourselves by those we give to). Or we say who we are related to (i.e.
define ourselves by those we live with or love). We sometimes even
define ourselves by who gives to us (e.g. when we drive a certain
prestige brand of car or wear clothes with a certian logo), the kind of
'belonging' that, pathetically, you have to pay for, Another form of
this is when we define ourselves by our subject-hood, by the person or
group who supports us (father-figure, cult leader, religion or
citizenship). How you answer this question ("I'm a consultant. I'm an
analyst at Microsoft. I'm the person assigned to your account. I'm the
son of X. I'm Mrs. Y. I'm Amanda's father. I'm a member of Z. I'm a
Welshman.") may say a lot about which circles are most important to us
and which we feel we belong most to. In fact we have multiple
identities and we may answer that questions in the context of who is
asking (which of the five circles they are probing for) -- If the
question comes from Amanda's best friend's mother, I'm more likely to
say I'm Amanda's father than to say I'm an accountant.
Assuming we could develop such maps (maybe we need some way to link stories about each of our relationships to give them context and verifiability), how could we use them?
- We could use them for evaluating, growing and managing
relationships and networks. In the two tables above, for example, if
Person_A is the assessor's spouse, the maps would clearly show that if
he/she doesn't invest some time and energy repairing the spousal
relationship, it's not going to last.
- They could in fact drive much of our Getting Things Done
action lists. They could suggest ways to improve the effectiveness of
virtually everything we do (except perhaps those few activities that
are genuinely solitary).
- They could help focus change efforts. Change is almost
invariably a social process, and the maps could clearly show where
there is, and is not, trust, respect, and strong communications and
channels between people. We might identify who are the mavens and
connectors that could precipitate tipping points.
An application of all this that intrigues me is in assessing how we should (and can) change ourselves.
I tend to agree with many of you that if we are to have any credibility
as change advocates we need to be a role model, we need to show not tell people what needs to be done. We need to be the change.
So do we start by a navel-gazing process that entails some personal,
individual decisions and bold actions? Or, if our relationships and
networks define us, do we start by first finding or redefining the
circles, the
communities to which we (and others) belong and then let those new and
altered
communities redefine and change us? For example, if we want to solve
global warming or end world poverty do we first launch into personal
study, self-improvement and individual activism, or do we first connect
ourselves with those who can teach us and show us what needs to be
done, and just get carried along with the collective wisdom of their
activities? Could the map tell us what to do?
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
