Hello Free-Coopers,
First of all huge thanks to all of you with whom I had such stimulating conversations this last
weekend, and to everyone whose vision and hard work made such a gathering possible. When I
reflect upon the nature of this event as a whole, it occurs to me that the essential underpinnings
of free cooperation ?relationships of goodwill and generousity ? were bountifully evident in
Buffalo. I feel fortunate to have spent time amongst so many intelligent, funny, kind, engaged
and welcoming people.
As I indicated at the closing meeting, I?m especially interested in how cooperative intention
translates into functional cooperative structures. I can?t help but see the kind of experience we
just shared as a fertile testing ground for effective implementation of cooperative ideals and
strategies. I think it would be really helpful to undertake a constructive criticism of the
conference, to debate which practices most closely reflected and supported the hopes and
theories of free cooperation. Not only could this feedback specifically help refine future events of
this nature, but perhaps also shine a light on the more general transfer from political ideal to
mundane praxis.
What really worked well? What didn?t? What wild ideas could form the basis of achievable novel
structures? What existing processes could be adapted or transformed to further facilitate
cooperative interactions?
Here are some of my initial thoughts to get the ball rolling (although I see that Jon Rubin actually
did that with his comments). I hope that others will be able to supplement and improve on my
limited experience and often overly-idealistic thinkingStructure/scale
It seems helpful here to employ an old analogy between biological and social organisms, in
which specialized individuals or cells function together in different kinds of relationship. In
biology, the need for supporting structure increases as the size of an organism grows.
Unicellular or small multi-cellular creatures generally have no need for an internal skeleton, and
the more supportive the environment (like water), the greater number of cells that can cooperate
without a rigid, gravity-defying framework. Even in the smallest multi-cellular creatures, however,
there is a fantastically responsive organizational system of chemistry that coordinates and
communicates between cells.
Perhaps the majority of our interactions as artists/ authors/ co-creators/ collaborative networks
fall into analogy with these kinds of organisms. The organizational system (chemistry) usually
revolves around shared intention, which is sufficient structure for small, flexible and responsive
groups with no massive digestive or nervous system to support. Larger groups can thrive this
way in a supportive environment. The internet is a kind of aqueous (or zero-gravity) environment,
as is, perhaps, a mature collaborative relationship in which initial incompatibilities and power
struggles have already been resolved. (16 Beaver perhaps?)
Outside of this zone of intimate, small scale or environmentally protected relationship, however,
the pressures of the real world are a significant gravitational force, which is when some kind of
sturdy internal structure becomes necessary.
The paradoxical weakness of this strategy is demonstrated in many academic and bureaucratic
institutions, where super-reinforced structures are designed to resist significant perturbations,
but then become so rigid that speed of movement and flexibility of response are sacrificed.
Theoretical ramifications for cooperative structures:
1. Build incredibly flexible structures with lots of joints (nodes). Use these frequently so that they
don?t seize up.
2. Smaller ?limb? structures move more rapidly than the whole organization, but need to be
intensively connected by sensitive motor and feedback loops to avoid wasteful or unhelpful
activities (eg punching oneself in the nose)
3. Stronger, lighter materials could increase the size and mobility of an effective organism
(Titanium alloys versus bone), or faster feedback loops. New forms of communication
technology can serve such a function by enhancing the efficiency of pre-existing connections.
Practical implications of theory:
1. As Jon suggested, could a group such as the conference benefit from investing more in whole
group interaction on a regular basis, which would then devolve into smaller units of action as
desirable? A kind of breathing in and breathing out, periodic, nourishing.
2. This would require also a more decentralized concept of decision-making, more nodes from
which potential actions/forms could be initiated. If anyone knows how slime-mold amoebae
congregate into a grex, or slug, this might be a good model. Basically, by the means of
message relaying, any cell can potentially form the center of a new multi-cellular entity.
3. Establish some kind of communication system to be used throughout the conference to keep
individuals aware of the needs and movements of the group, and vice versa. Some kind of
bulletin board system accessible to all from multiple points?Hierarchy/authority
In a sense, most bodies are a kind of forced cooperation because the operation of all the
separate parts is at the command of one central nervous system. Even though it is fair to say
that the CNS is also dependent upon the cooperation of all the various parts for its own survival,
the directional hard wiring of the motor and sensory functions make this swift and reliable
system into kind of a benign dictatorship. Free cooperation posits a dispersal of authority to
multiple nodes, possibly even to each individual. It is true, however that not all individual cells
are equally endowed to be able to coordinate a whole organism to perform any given function.
Human social organisms undertake far more complex and diverse forms than the slime mould
grex mentioned above. So there does need to be some form of competent nervous system to
coordinate common action on a large scale, but perhaps it doesn?t need to be either central or
even locally/temporally fixed.
Theoretical implications
1. Experience and specialised performance/coordination are essential components for a system
to be able to learn and grow.
2. In changing systems, the centers at which appropriate leadership could reside could shift with
time, depending upon the particular function the organism wished to undertake.
Practical Suggestions
1. How could participants of a meeting be able to share their individual expertise and make their
best contribution to common goals, without limiting the potential participation of others who may
have an equally/more(/less) helpful contribution?
2. How would it be to invite participants to come prepared with materials to talk about their
current project but no fixed ?presentation? at all? Their expertise would unfold through
participation.
3. Or, could presentations be limited to 10-minute (enforced) ?show and tell? of current interests,
grouped together in sessions that everyone could attend? Information could be supplemented as
now, with web sites, papers etc.
4. Could such sessions alternate with free-form plenaries, during which larger discussions could
break off into smaller debate threads according to interest?
5. Could the whole body brainstorm beforehand on some possible topics so that all participants
could prepare themselves according to interest?
6. Could there be planned places and spaces for impromptu gatherings/performances/
experiments to occur?
7. Could a smaller number of topics allow for a more context-sensitive unfolding of information?
8. Perhaps it?s just fine that such exchange should be primarily discovered in personal
conversations or over a meal?Meeting space/location of change.
I had a number of conversations with people this weekend about whether change of this nature
can happen inside a system or be mostly established and accessed outside of it. The responses
I heard were quite varied, but the overall strongest voice was that academia is by and large too
invested in economic viability by current standards, and too immutably rigid a structure, to be
able to support forms of relationship that do not match the current hierarchical norms of
scholarship. Is this really true everywhere? Is the entire existing educational system (outside of
structures like Uo, of course!) really that resistant to thoughtful change? Am I being naïve about
this? And if it really is true, should we then be trying to shift the location of conferences to
physical spaces that are more conducive to cooperation (the difficulty of finding suitable rooms
for interaction, and the resultant physical dispersion this weekend are suggestive). If the location
were to shift outside academia, how could such endeavours be financed? Perhaps this is
already being done through granting agencies and I just don?t know about it?
Cheers, and thanks again for all that great energyJulia