by Stefan Morales |
Last Updated: February 8, 2024 
Context
- We humans have brought about technological innovation and massive change over the past two centuries, but we haven’t brought about social or political innovation in millennia.
- Even where we have witnessed massive shifts in how humans have governed themselves over the centuries, the general form of authority has been hierarchical.
- I believe one core reason is because hierarchy gives us the perception of simplified structure and control, which enables a false guarantee: that someone, or some rule or belief will keep chaos and complexity at bay, so long as we follow the authority.
- And when things go wrong, we can easily point fingers: tracing accountability to scapegoats outside of the community, to heretics who failed to follow doctrine, to leaders corrupted by power, to the misapplication of rules and regulations, and so on.
- And this is especially relevant to us today, where we are on the verge of, or in the midst of a polycrisis where multiple wicked problems are converging, and a lot is in the process of going wrong (in linear, predictable ways, as well as nonlinear, and unpredictable ways). In turn, this will lead to questions of accountability within existing hierarchies, and questions about the legitimacy of the social contract and logistical throughput those in developed countries presume to guarantee and safeguard their way of life. Many in underdeveloped, colonized regions of the world, already have a strong sense of the absence of guarantee, and this will only be sharpened.
- To buffer the masses of consumers in developed countries from realizing the current reality of this ongoing composting process, policymakers have been enabling the use of cheap, and abundant fossil fuel energy, along with the mismanagement of fiat currencies to ensure the contemporary social, economic and political model is still viable.
- Many in developed countries are either cynically aware of the absence of guarantee, and are making their political choices accordingly: not necessarily according to left or right (even though it may appear so), but according to slow or accelerated transition or collapse (how the divide is materially playing out). Or, many are still on the verge of realizing the cruelty behind the false belief in guarantee at the heart of hierarchy and infrastructural throughput. So far all this is playing out as denial, conspiracy theory, fascism, doomerism, profound resignation, etc., and other new forms of cynical reason or hazy situational- and self-awareness (a helpful exploration of this messy zeitgeist is in this flowchart). Across this varied landscape of ideology and sentiment, the common pattern is that the majority of us humans are disconnected from meaningful collective decision making, and all the skill and mindset development entailed by continued practice of self-governance.
- An idea and set of practices on direct democratic self-governance, applicable at immediately accessible levels of social interaction (workplace, neighbourhood, home, etc.) is necessary to scale an appreciation, experience and practice of self-governance in the absence of guarantee: how to go about noticing, thinking and deciding and doing things together, that help each other take care of the day-to-day, and enable new vistas of autonomy and possibility within human or external constraints and structures. Not just the theoretical underpinnings, but the applied and diagrammatic aspects of overcoming the false consciousness of guarantee: the ethical and design considerations and approaches we can take, together, when we appreciate that there has never been any guarantee, but that we must still nonetheless live and work together on this earth – through thick, thin, and enough.
- My guess is that based off of the current practice of direct democratic self-governance, the possibility of this submerged political form to emerge more broadly is severely limited. Rather, what is more likely is that during energy transition and/or collapse, germs of it will exist while the state’s monopoly on the use of violence to secure guarantee (i.e. it’s protection racket) will either become further intensified, or fractured and entreprenuerialized by warlords, etc. This bind will likely only be released by human and ecological die-off, or by intentionally working upstream, literally and figuratively (hopefully).
- As you will see, this work is developed via continued research on the applied theory of assemblages, based in part on close readings of Manuel Delanda’s and others’ interpretation of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s concept of the assemblage, Michel Foucault’s late politics, Geoffery West and others’ work on scaling in biology, cities, etc. (see West’s book Scale) and interdisciplinary research on Assembly Theory (more from a bioscience, physics, pharma, etc. background) via Abhishek Sharma and Dániel Czégel et al’s work, and juicy criticisms thereof. My ongoing time as a member of Greaterthan, participation in the Liberating Structures community and older communities of practice I used to be a part of (i.e. internal CoPs like the Learning Organization during my time in Government) has been immensely valuable in clarifying and iterating on this praxis over the years.
- Each bold word below is a term that deserves some definition and notes in themselves. Some will be included below, and others I’ll draft and share follow-up posts over the coming weeks.
The Idea
- The appropriate scale to Intentionally Engage in system transformation is not just the Spatial Scale of the micro-level, meso-level, or the macro-level, but rather the Intensive Scale: navigating, and co-developing internally and externally connected and coherent assemblies, which operate via shared authority and action, in, through and between existing and new configurations of Social Objects (aka Assemblages). Deconstructing and Hospicing existing assemblages is also a core part of this work.
- The larger spatial scale of social objects are characterized more and more as post-democratic in the sense that they are either captured and manipulated by elites, or a “hallucination of guarantee” – meaning that the capacity for collaboration and implementation between organizations continues to compost, while a “cruel optimism” about what is supposedly possible or necessary continues to be articulated even in the midst of this dissolution.
- And yet, existing institutional organizations – whether public, private, non-profit – are a good place to initiate transformation because they are already intensively scaled in terms of their existing mutual commitments, ways of working, working agreements, access to resources, etc. (i.e. their structures), and offer a preexisting foothold to begin navigating and assembling in and between existing social objects and co-creating new Socio-Ecological Objects. Unfortunately, the theoretical and practical work in this space is characterized as “the future of work”, misconstruing the dynamism and creativity of what is possible within the framing of ‘management-speak’ and business books, and limiting the degree to which these notions can be seen to directly apply to the socio-ecological realm (and vice versa: we can find new models and inspiration in ecology, anthropology and archaeology that can then feed back into the “business-as-usual” world). It goes without saying that new genres are sorely needed.
- Latent or submerged forms of collective authority like the family, neighbourhood, community, network, or network of organizations are also promising existing sites of Navigation and Assembly, especially if they are intensively scaled, dynamic orders. But this also does not exhaust the possibility of what new forms are possible.
- However, I am here focusing only on institutional orgs, updating Max Weber’s “ideal types” of authority with a new one: Co-constitutive Authority. By having this as a starting point, it will become easier to look at more ephemeral forms of existing social objects, and imagine what else might be possible in terms of assembling new socio-ecological objects.
- My central assumption or bias is that transformation without Dynamic Ordering will be at risk of reproducing the perverse social and psychological patterns that arguably got us into the mess we’re in: stunted adult development and learned helplessness, along with zero opportunities to experience and practice collective sensemaking and decision making, and thus an extremely limited capacity to attend to uncertainty and to self-govern one’s groupings and one’s landbases in the midst of this.
- To address the problem of hierarchy and its false consciousness of guarantee, more humans must co-develop dynamic orderings, together, and they must self-govern themselves through them. This disposition appears complex from this theoretical vantage point, but is actually straightforward, additive and emergent in practice. It’s minimum specifications (characterized by a Double Articulation) are as follows:
- Practice the co-design and shared use of Distributive Structures that intensively scale assemblages. We continuously attend to structure that intensively scales assemblages by distributing participation and control over the content and outcomes of shared effort – in day-to-day moments (meetings, events, async coordination, etc.), and over longer time horizons (agreements, processes, operations, etc.) so that we foster the conditions for emergence, system intelligence, diversity, and radical innovation and adaptation. In short, we continuously interrupt the centralizing pattern of hierarchy and its false guarantee.
- Practice Reflexive Adult Development (RAD) – individually and collectively. We continuously attend to inner and outer psycho-social development that seeks to reflexively understand and navigate individual and shared patterns, biases, conditioned tendencies, trauma responses, neuro-traits, etc. in day-to-day moments (Affect Noticing, peer coaching/support, etc.) and over longer time horizons (articulating shared Ethos) so that we navigate and breakthrough individual and group bias, and work well together in the fullness of our always already rich and (in)visible intersectionalities… even when its hard.
- This disposition can be used to navigate uncertainty and complexity in the absence of guarantee, and I and others have decades of combined experience applying this in diverse settings – this isn’t idealism or utopianism. In fact, it’s messy, complex, human, attainable, workable. Lastly, I have also experienced and participated within a handful of well-established, working socio-ecological objects. As William Gibson often remarked, “The future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.”
- Practicing co-constitutive authority is accessible to all, right now, and doing so helps develop the mindsets, skills, practices, dispositions, etc. that we need to transition our assemblages into geomorphically constrained SEOs. They remain submerged only as long as we want them to – or rather, “War is over! If you want it.”
Defining Some Key Terms Above
First, a note about “definitions”(!) While I hope to provide some stability here, please also take each of these as sets of open research questions that I’m still working through. A lot of ongoing fascination and unfinished business here, with some more stabilized than others. Even so, I can be prone to bouts of deep skepticism of any of this, and normally I would rarely put anything like this set of notes out into the world, but am deliberately trying to change that orientation and be more openly reflexive, and less concerned about presentation and packaging of ideas, etc. and less concerned about calcifying biases, identities and projections on me by publishing.
“Intentional Engagement” is purposeful, considered, objective-oriented effort that follows a presumed linear model of causality (“we do X, so that…”). Non-linear dynamics are of course always present, which troubles the notion of “appropriate”, as any scale (spatial or intensive) can produce transformation that feeds back into the system. Is it possible to be intentional about intervening or effecting non-linear dynamics in some way, however? Perhaps, but it’s a bigger question I won’t cover here, and instead point to Delanda’s and others’ work, which stresses historical contingency and selection constraints within populations of objects as key processes of assembly formation.
“Spatial Scale” is how we commonly think of “social objects” within our social reality: a conversation is smaller and more ephemeral than the policy development process of a national government which can have a lasting and extensive effect across territory. Yet, the policy development process is simply nothing more than a series of conversations structured by previously agreed or decreed policies, procedures, principles, etc. So they’re analytically distinct, yet in actuality are nested, overlapping, networked, etc.
“Intensive Scale” is a less common understanding of scale as it has nothing to do with space, and everything to do with intensity. A local network of activists with a strong sense of solidarity, dense ties between each other and partner organizations, and clear working agreements that are iteratively developed and attended to, is of greater intensive scale than a loose collection of inter-agency bureaucrats who are charged with implementing a new policy with a limited amount of political will backing it.
“Deconstructing and Hospicing” see future notes.
“Social Objects” are the objects of social ontology – the study of the nature and properties of the social world – which in the common approach to social ontology, means the various entities in the world that arise from social interaction. Groups of humans in the form of organizations, communities, networks, etc. are what we commonly think of, but we can also include entities that we normally do not consider as arising from social interaction: like the individual, or their sub-personal qualities and traits. In flatter social ontologies like Assemblage Theory (AT), or Actor Network Theory (ANT), what are considered social objects, widens considerably, as well as the entities and processes that constitute them (see: “Socio-Ecological Objects” in future notes, where I’ll also argue that AT is a bit less flat).
“Assemblages” see the next set of notes.
“Socio-Ecological Objects” (SEO) see future notes.
“Navigation and Assembly” is a core disposition of the theoretical and practical applications of assemblage theory, which could be misconstrued as a new way to see and do strategy or tactics (I almost did in the beginning!). Navigation is simply what the dictionary provides: “the process or activity of accurately ascertaining one’s position and planning and following a route.” Note that a route is not an objective (see Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective by Kenneth O. Stanley for insights from the development of machine learning). It’s the path towards an end point. When we route, we are always re-routing, and we might completely shift the end point entirely. Assembly on the other hand is all about formation. The dictionary tacks closely with the social science concept, where assembly is “the action of gathering together as a group for a common purpose.” Sharma and Czégel define assembly as “the total amount of selection necessary to produce an ensemble of observed objects”, and they provide an equation utilizing Euler’s number. I’m still trying to understand and operationalize this, and compare with the work of Hector Zenil and others. The use of Euler’s number hints at the dynamics of growth, change and decay when applying assembly theory to social objects. To navigate and assemble then is to be continuously (re)orienting, (re)positioning, (re)routing, and (re)assembling within the given constraints of the system (i.e. “selection constraints”). It does not mean that we must adhere to, and “securitize” a specific objective, assembly, pathway, etc. “with” or “against” others. This is about centring metaphors of exploration, discovery, journeying, voyages, hikes, etc. rather than military metaphors that invariably make their way in when using notions of strategy, etc. And, by assembling, we are opening existing assemblies up to possible transformation and adaptation in the face of an emergent field of possibility, constrained by various selection pressures, rather than trying to retain the identity of a given social object in the face of stressors. But of course, I understand that by making this false dualism, I’m playing old identity games, and there is much more to say about other metaphors that could invite us to deconstruct the characteristic of this further.
“Co-constitutive Authority” before I can define this type of authority, we need a brief foray into Max Weber, who identified three distinct “ideal types” of authority. Weber was himself aware that these “ideal types” were exactly that – an expression of organizational “reality” that has never and will never exist in such a ‘pure’ form. Not to mention the Eurocentric bias and absence of the role that gender dynamics would play in these ideal types (the lens of patriarchy offering the understanding of authority structures as fundamentally structured as “protection rackets”, as Susan Rae Paterson argued):
- Traditional Authority is based on long-established customs, habits, and social structures. Weber argued that this type is often seen in societies where power is passed down through generations, like in monarchies or tribal systems, where the right to rule is inherited or follows a set tradition.
- Charismatic Authority, arises from the extraordinary personal qualities of an individual, inspiring loyalty and devotion in followers. Leaders with charismatic authority are often seen as revolutionary or visionary, attracting followers through their perceived heroism, sanctity, or exceptional wisdom.
- Legal-Rational Authority, based on legal, formal, or bureaucratic principles, often manifesting in modern bureaucratic institutions (whether the public or private variety). In such a system, power is vested in a set of rules and procedures and individuals in power derive their authority from their positions within the organization – not from personal attributes, inheritance, or dogma. Co-constitutive authority often confusedly falls into this ideal type, where self-governing is seen simply as distributing the development and articulation of office, role, rule, etc. But to simply de-hierarchize what enables the legal-rational authority to separate “office from incumbent”, ignores the “squishy” “human side” where affect, emotion, trauma, neurodiversity, etc. continuously play out psycho-social dramas and scenes, which in some cases can simply reproduce learned helplessness, trauma, magical thinking, etc.
- Co-Constitutive Authority: In the absence of traditional forms of hierarchy – which stabilize structures like protocols, processes, policies, agreements, etc. in either the traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal ideal types – “Co-constitutive Authority” arises from the distributed leadership of many, under conditions of co-developed, dynamic ordering that is a) iteratively developed and agreed to via distributive structures, and b) tended to alongside intentional adult development. With “co-constitutive authority”, power is vested in collectively articulated practices, principles, rules, procedures, roles, etc. with the mutual recognition and acceptance that no guarantee is possible (whether in the form of tradition, charisma, or rationality).
“Dynamic Ordering” see future notes.
“Double Articulation” is the process of identity formation/deconstruction of an assemblage. It is comprised of two axis: one which underscores the degree to which an assemblage is destabilized or stabilized; and the other underscoring the degree to which an assemblage is loosely held to more ephemeral or implicit forms of structure, code, etc., or tightly held to an explicit code, rule set, conduct, practice, etc. Next week’s notes on the assemblage goes into more detail, so I won’t reproduce that here. There are many ways to express each axis, and I am play-testing distributive structures and diagrams for both an audience of folks who want to use the original axis of assemblage theory (Coding — Decoding / Territorialize — Deterritorialize), and a wider audience (in the form of a Liberating Structure) who need something more accessible to explore context and processes of identity formation. My hope is obviously that these distributive structures are used in ways that are inclusive of all forms of life vital to the sustainable and regenerative formation or deconstruction of a given assemblage, but the reality is that they can be used for any context or purpose. If you are thinking of using them in other, more ‘traditional’ business-as-usual contexts (i.e. product development, etc.) please reach out to me! I’m sure we can explore ways they can be used in service of traditional innovation AND sustainable and regenerative production and consumption methods. With other brave souls I’m currently designing and playtesting new LS and trying:
- X: Socialization — Atomization / Y: Stabilize — Destabilize
- X: Explicit — Implicit / Y: Grounded — Ungrounded
- X: Tightly Held — Loosely Held / Y: either of the two above
- And any recombination of the above axis.
So far, it’s yielding interesting results, but it’s all in the invitations and ‘schizzes’ that accompany the diagram! (but more on this later!) I will update progress here and on the mailing list.
“Distributive Structures” are micro- and macro- structures that distribute participation and control among actors (human and non-human alike). A microstructure refers to the small-scale patterns of social interactions and relationships among individuals or within small groups. Human behaviour, social norms, and group dynamics are studied at this level of analysis, and Erving Goffman is perhaps the best known theorist in this field. A macrostructure refers to large-scale and longer-term patterns of social interaction, which can mean anything from institutional policies and programs to the built environment itself. We unknowingly occupy these structures all the time, and they don’t often come into our awareness as something that we can design to accommodate distributed participation and control – especially at the micro- level. Instead, we more often (un)consciously design these structures for more centralized or hierarchical forms of participation and control: from how we meet and gather around leaders who present or manage the discussion, to how we structure our built environment to enable various forms of social control. Keith McCandless and Henri Lipmanowicz compiled and created many different microstructures that distribute participation and control under the banner of Liberating Structures, which are “…easy-to-learn microstructures that enhance relational coordination and trust [and] quickly foster lively participation in groups of any size, making it possible to truly include and unleash everyone.” There are of course less-accessible distributive structures that require trained or expert support to facilitate or utilize: from architectural design to blockchain protocols to different forms of participatory narrative inquiry (Kurtz, Snowden, etc.) to service design processes, institutional ethnography, expert-driven strategic planning processes, multi-stakeholder negotiations, etc.
“Reflexive Adult Development” (RAD) – see future notes.
“Affect Noticing” – see future notes.
“Ethos” – see future notes.
Attribution & Linkages
- This piece is a compilation of notes on the ideas, theory and application I’m working with these days. The first edition of a self-led course is being developed on the side, which will simply be an exploration of the “legends” or design considerations for social objects and varying spatial scale (individual, conversation, network, community, social movement, etc.). It’ll be a first edition, because the framework is additive and new empirical and conceptual research from across the disciplines can be integrated into it over time. It’s also meant for a narrow audience of practitioners, whereas another self-led course I’m working on – Anyone Can Facilitate – is truly meant for anyone.
- As mentioned above, there are two important commons that an adjacent part of this work is being used or playtested within: Greaterthan and Liberating Structures (LS) (specifically the practitioners designing new LS). In my work with Greaterthan, I work directly on accompanying the development of distributed leadership and governance inside organizations (Greaterthan included, as we are always experimenting on ourselves). This work often involves the application and use of numerous facilitation, coaching, consulting, advising, etc. postures, as well as tools and processes – we call this bundle of practices and mindsets, accompaniment.
- LS is one set of structures we frequent, and also develop new LS for. When designing an LS, one has to attend to a number of design constraints, one of which is simplicity. It’s quite a challenging, yet rewarding process to design something that could have the possibility of being open access, expert-less, and self-spreading, and so some of us at Greaterthan often playtest new ones that come from our work in self-organization and self-governance. Work and Decision Mapping is one we’ve been specifying and re-configuring, and its a direct application of Co-constitutive Authority.
- I am taking the posture of a caller, gatherer, synthesizer, librarian, playmate throughout, so please simply reach out to me, and follow along by signing up for the Diversion.
thx for reading along,
Stef