[P2P-F] an evaluation of the flok as colonialist

[Michel Bauwens]

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 <andreas.wittel at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [P2P-F] an evaluation of the flok
To: P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation at lists.ourproject.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAOAyO5Trem8P7nVoXYQCCz=wzFpdYPwxXSVcR3s1La2vSq-ACg at 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20140708/2047d5f6/attachment.htm