Group items tagged

Steven Luke’s short article about power

I find the fourth view, the one from Foucault, to be the most engaging, as it approaches a complex view of power

first three views of power assume a Classical, simple (not simplistic, but not complex, either) epistemology

“‘Power’ in its most generic sense simply means the capacity to bring about significant effects: to effect changes or prevent them.”

The One-dimensional View posits two agents disjoined from one another, and power occurs when one agent prevails in some way over the other agent

too simple, too explicit and over

The Two-dimensional view adds agenda control by the more powerful agent, and finally, the Three-dimensional view adds social influence

it also encompasses being able to secure their dependence, deference, allegiance or compliance, even without needing to act and in the absence of conflict.

the successive views move in the direction of complexity, but they are always limited by a Classical epistemology that posits disjoined, discrete agents interacting in deterministic ways across or through clear boundaries, either in accordance with or in violation of some social contract or rules.

its affordances are outweighed by its limitations

This is where Foucault’s view of power comes into play, and note that it’s the only unnamed view

complexity is often nameless, even unnameable

power is the flow of energy, matter, information, and organization throughout a complex, multi-scale system

an agent is formed and informed by the flows of energy, information, and organizational structures of the systems within which the agent lives and functions

we are not discrete entities, independent of an enclosing ecosystem

those flows all implicate power

what does this mean for how we should decide who is in Rhizo14 and how we should behave there?

the more open the use and sharing of information, the more important it is to clarify how we expect that information to be used

This is a fine example of a clear, classical social contract. Independent agents agree on boundaries and behaviors between themselves

This assumes discrete agents with clear boundaries, a simple view of power and reality

A complex view of power and reality—my view—says, however, that Frances is already part of the Rhizo14 group and the document

Likewise, I suspect that Frances has herself been in/formed by the Rhizo14 discussion

circular causality, a core mechanism of complex systems with their complex flows of power

really only a very small part

request not to be part of the group leaves me with some sticky issues

most views of plagiarism are based on the simple view of relationships among agents and social contracts

ole authorship is a reductionist’s fiction, a useful fiction perhaps, but perhaps becoming less useful as online, open spaces emerge

How to behave in an open community, then, where flows of power are unavoidable and many are uncontrollable, even unknowable

if we don’t confront this problem, then we will continue to apply the old social contracts. I don’t think those social contracts alone can address the issue

interested in learning how this group will write this document. Like all good ethnographers, I think I can learn most by living and functioning within the group, by helping to write it. I want to define the process from the inside