On 06/09/2015 18:26, Michel Bauwens wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:36 PM, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Michel's Equipotentiality envisages no fixed roles. But it would seem to me that 'contributory roles' are likely to give rise to some form of hierarchy, ie extended rights based on a person's contribution. Also I see them rising out of fear, fear that people will not contribute unless they have some incentive, like social recognition. The understanding that it is natural, inherent, to want to contribute, is absent from this analysis.
a clarification in the context of anna's remark,
I saw Equipotentiality first explained by Jorge Ferrer, but did not further inquire into its prior origins. Although social recognition is very important, and though contributions often lead to social recognition, and though I believe that contributions will be a primary generator of social recognition in a commons-based society, I do not hold that people only contribute out of fear, i.e. negative extrinsic motivation. On the contrary, for about ten years, I have insisted that peer production is mostly passionate production, i.e. instrinsic, and multi-motivational. The idea that contributions are incentived by recognition is a neoliberal idea that I do not hold.
Anna, In my experience, contributory roles are only going to be invested in fixed hierarchies so far as a culture of dominance prevails. I would agree that whether due to 'recognition' or not, fear is a likely element of human relationships, not least of equipotential relations in lived commons. Our history speaks and expects, and if our formation includes life structured by threat as some of mine was, then fear can be embedded, driving us towards avoiding the re-stimulative triggers. However so far as a culture, whether commons peer production or otherwise succeeds in eliminating coercion and bullying, a tricky mutual task, fear is more likely to be owned by a person as belonging to them rather than caused by the culture they are in. My experience of commoning is that recognition does have some value but that 'reputation' and allied with it, 'presence', are key organizers. '*peer production is mostly passionate production, i.e. instrinsic, and multi-motivational'.* This is certainly how I have seen the peer production of civic accountability. To step aside from this a little, I guess what Anna and I appear share is a concern that embodiment and the empathic values and commitments that go with it seem submerged here under quite a lot of hyper/abstraction (psycommons - I plead guilty!). I don't see this as a leadership issue Michel, more I suppose that contributions here reflect an actual male dominant take on life, women get a taste of this and find something else to do. Does this matter for the P2P project? Well yes I think it matters a lot. Denis
Michel
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- new site text I have a new web-site: denis.postle.net <http://denis.postle.net> - street poetry, free ebooks, writing, photos, videos, music and therapy all in one place. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus