dear Andreas, nobody has made that critique, on the contrary, about every postmodern scholar has made it .. it is in my opinion a quite superficial critique .. the flok was not about a bunch of foreign experts advising people what to do at all it was a process that combined input from local civic groups (70 at least, 24 seminars ect ..) and global commoners at the invitation of the local government, which sees itself as anti-colonialist originally the project was meant to combine 7 foreigners and 7 local researchers .. the foreigners in case were not experts dispatched by MNO's but activists if calling a coworking between local and global commoners as 'colonialist' then the only other solution is pure localism there was no research from outsiders of indigenous society ... the indigenous scholars wrote their own paper that is not to say the flok can not be critiqued for colonialist or post-colonial elements, but this requires a bit more than just blanket condemnation because foreigners are involved, it's a kind of atavistic reaction, not a critique I would say, based on a very superficial understanding of the project Michel << Message: 1 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 19:15:21 +0100 From: Andreas Wittel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [P2P-F] an evaluation of the flok To: P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> Message-ID: <CAOAyO5Trem8P7nVoXYQCCz=wzFpdYPwxXSVcR3s1La2vSq-ACg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I hesitate to comment on this project, as I have only followed this from a distance. However a good number of comments in this threat make me really nervous. I am reading that 'seeds have been planted', that the FLOK research papers can become part of the commons movement in Equador, that lessons have been learnt and that it is all about doing it better next time. I'd rather see this as a one-off project and hope sincerely there is no next time where a bunch of experts are aiming to create profound changes in a society they are not really familiar with. This is a post-colonial approach and should be rejected. It is as easy as that. Every undergraduate anthropology student knows that it is highly problematic to conduct western research in non-western spaces. This is about otherness and authority, about who speaks and who is being researched. All this is common knowledge since the 'writing culture' debate in the mid 1980s. How much more dubious and arrogant is the FLOK approach, which was not just about researching another (indigenous) society, but about so called experts giving advice for a better living in a country they don't know well. This is so na?ve, it is actually embarrassing. It is us who should learn from them. Sorry for these harsh words addressed to researchers that I respect a great deal. But nobody has made this critique so far. I cringe at the idea that lessons are being learnt so we can do it better next time. For me this project was politically and ethically wrong. Digital technologies don't make localities disappear. Let's please support p2p structures and the commons movements where we live and where we struggle. All best, andreas -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/