Thinking about war

War is mostly unthinkable. It's horrific, devastating and often perpetual. Warriors need to feel the irrational urge to kill enemies, retaliate against disgraces and destroy others' prospects for survival. Wars are usually power games that establish which side can be dominant, in control of the others and the ongoing source of subjugation. Wars operate on the premise that a state or tribe can never have too much power, loyalty, honor and control over territory. There's always a need for more which provokes the next build up of readiness, amassing of a strike force and launching of another attack.

In The Shield of Achilles, Philip Bobbitt helps us think about war. He tells us that wars are fights for more than power. They resolve questions of legitimacy by disgracing and invalidating the losing forms of governance. They impose evolutionary pressures which force the participants to revise their strategies, policies and laws. By "thinking like a lawyer" instead of like a warrior, wars can come to an end. The questions of legitimacy do get resolved. Changes get agreed upon by the sides in contention. There are limits to how much additional power seems desirable. The increase of power gets accompanied by added responsibilities, obligations and investments.

As I've reflected on the transition to a "market-state" that Bobbitt characterizes, I'm seeing two divergent trends getting conflated by his approach. One trend follows Bobbitt's defined transition from "thinking like lawyers" to "thinking like economists" This trend fuels increased warfare to serve it's own commercial interests. The other trend makes war obsolete amidst mind-boggling increases in interdependence, social connectivity and fruitful collaborations. This amounts to "thinking like ecologists".

War on foreign soil has always been good for business. The government becomes a reliable, repeat customer with deep pockets. Their previous purchases get destroyed in battle which calls for more purchases. Wars usually escalate onto several fronts which increases the rate of spending. Wars routinely bring economies out of recession through increased employment and public debt. Factories go onto the double shifts to meet the soaring demand. Labor shortages boost wages and reward educational advances. When we "think like economists" we see the equilibrium price rising as supply cannot keep up with demand. Economic self interest pursues increased military spending at all cost. Public spending supports increased production, profitability and privatization of capital investment.

When we "think like ecologists", capital becomes more mobile and accessible. As Bobbitt says, the playing field gets leveled. There is no foreign soil for profitable wars. There's no escaping war doing harm to our own interests, allies, investments and future scenarios. The commercial interests that privatize the payoffs from war are dumping their externalities onto other populations, regions and generations. The consequences of war come home to roost slowly and often imperceptibly. There's no limit to how responsible we can be as co-participants in vast systems of interdependencies. War is a failure to communicate and to learn about others' viewpoints, commitments and subtle interests. War becomes obsolete as collaboration becomes normal.

Questioning - The Shield of Achilles

Last week I started reading The Shield of Achilles by Philip Bobbitt following Clay Spinuzzi's and David Ronfeldt's look at it. It's been slow going thus far because the book includes too many historical facts below the meta level of conceptual frameworks, well reasoned arguments and theoretical speculations which I thrive on. It's too soon to report on my conclusions, but I can share my process of questioning what I'm reading now.

I'm expecting this book to add dimensions to the Ronfeldt's TIMN framework that I've explored often here. Bobbitt looks through a lens of constitutional law at changes in governance and strategy over the centuries. Constitutional frameworks answer questions of legitimacy. He sees wars becoming epochal when those questions of legitimacy remain unresolved at the end of an armed conflict. This is a new lens for me to look through.

If you've followed my writing here, you know I often look through a lens of enterprise viability. I'm usually concerned with value propositions, business models, disruptive innovations and collaborative employment experiences. I'm often comparing approaches with taxonomies that suggest phases of development and transitions to realize upgrades in those approaches. I view governments, wars and top-level strategy changes as providing value to citizen-customers and commercial enterprises. I share the symmetric view of power with actor-network theory which sees both the governing and governed as valuing each other, using each other and exerting power over each other.

My familiar lenses call into question much of what The Shield of Achilles proposes. Here's some of those questions I'm keeping in mind as I read this book:

1. What-if the "market-state" emerged with the advent of transatlantic steamships and telegraph lines over a century ago, not the end of the "Cold War"?
2. What if the "long war" from the start of WWI to the end of the Cold War occurred concurrently with the Market State throughout the 20th century?
3. What if the unresolved legitimacy issues between fascism, communism and liberal parliamentarism were brought on by the concurrent and competing legitimacy of the market-state?
4. What if the market-state is currently facing it's own legitimacy issues made possible by the concurrent and competing legitimacy of an emergent "networked state"?
5. What if the market-state's legitimacy issues include its unsustainable levels of debt, resource depletion, labor exploitation and ostentatious consumption?
6. What if the market-state is currently fighting out its own ideological stances between free market economics, government interventionist and protected commons economics brought on by the global recession?
7. What if the elusive resolution the market-state ideologies will come about by the introduction of a "networked state", rather than winning battles between these contested economic ideologies?

These questions will enable me to scrutinize Bobbitt's reasoning behind his claim that a market state is next in line. These questions will also use the books argumentation to confront the assumptions I'm making behind these seven what-if questions. Both angles increase the value I will extract from reading The Shield of Achilles.

Solving crime for pattern

We don't usually think about solving crime for pattern. Our laws, enforcement officers and judicial systems are designed to solve crimes for prosecution. We seek to identify the guilty party who deserves to be punished. We assume the punishment will deter repeat offenses as well as discourage others from indulging in criminal acts. There is little evidence to support this assumption. Punishing crimes functions like a bad solution.

We may also misinterpret "solving crime for pattern". We may assume this applies to signature patterns of criminal conduct or underlying patterns of criminal motivations. Recognizing these patterns makes it easier to solve the whodunit puzzle. Most prosecution systems employ profilers who have learned to recognize these patterns of criminality. There profiling patterns feed self fulfilling prophesies. Everyone is thinking "here we go again" from the lowly offender to the highest judge. Profiling also functions as a bad solution.

We begin to solve crime for pattern when we perceive criminal activity as an organic problem. It has a life of its own that defies getting fixed by foreign technologies or mechanistic solutions. The organic problem usually most of the following:

• Childhood and teen experiences with getting abused by authority figures which inspires relentless retaliation, defiance, evasiveness and cynicism
• Acculturation by a tribe with an honor code that shuns members' sensitivity to others feelings, empathy for others pain or sense of fairness in the face of injustice
• Identification with role models' acting out patterns of domination, arrogance and hostility toward others seen as lowly, unworthy, disgraceful or contemptible
• Unforgettably traumatic incidents where personal survival was put in jeopardy that necessitates chronic vigilance, paranoia, defensiveness and suspiciousness
• Profound lessons in "human relations" where one learns to see others as inhuman , expendable objects, or things without feelings
• Convincing patterns of misfortune which substantiates a robust victim story about being cursed, abandoned, useless or mistaken
• Addiction to thrill seeking escapades which alter dark moods, escape insecurities and feel elated during each episode
• Long, consistent histories of getting caught, blamed and punished which justifies negative self concepts, bad attitudes, seething resentments and boatloads of self pity

The organic nature of the problem suggests how to formulate organic solutions. It becomes obvious the solution has to go beyond education, extrinsic/contingent rewards and employment. The offenders need unforeseen experiences that run as deep, make equally lasting impressions and convince beyond the shadow of a doubt. Each component of the organic solution will meet its match at that limbic level of cognition that produces urges, reactions, addictions, moods and apprehensions. The organic solution will appear to change the destiny of individuals, revise their fate and dismantle the omnipotence of their past history to misdefine them.

Solving conflicts for pattern

When we're faced with any conflict of interests, there are two bad solutions readily available. We can win at the expense of our opponent or let them win at our expense. In both cases, subsequent conflicts will involve greater mistrust, suspiciousness and defensiveness. The outcome will leave a residue which undermines initiative, cooperation and follow-through. The losing side will be thinking about how to retaliate rather than how to honor the commitments, improve the relationship or re-establish some common ground.

These bad solutions get produced by taking positional stances against opposing positional stances. These stances may make demands, attack others' positions or seek to intimidate others into backing down. They cannot show interest in others' interests or reveal one's own interests for their consideration. Taking positions overrules authentic dialogue. The positions get black-boxed rather than opened up or looked into.

Solving a conflict for pattern begins by switching from adopting positional stances to embracing one's own assemblage of interests. That provides a basis for then taking in an interest in others' interests. When interests come together, there are often common interests in the mix. There are also diverse interests that may share a common solution. There can even be solutions that evolve the conflicted initial interests into more inclusive, considerate and holistic agendas.

Solving a conflict for pattern takes awareness of communication patterns. When the use of adversarial tactics becomes evident, it becomes possible to de-scalate the adversarial context with any of the following collaborative tactics:

1. acknowledging the opponent's dedication to principles, long standing commitment to do the right thing and compassion for their constituencies
2. speaking the opponent's mind about how they've been treated and disregarded during the conflict
3. picturing the opponent as deserving of respect, consideration and dignity
4. restating the opponents' issues, concerns and objections to show they've been heard and to confirm a correct understanding of that input
5. admitting that one's own prior tactics have had the reverse effect on the relationship, trust levels and distance between stances
6. offering a conciliatory gesture or initial concession to open up the process of mutual exploration
7. posing a side problem where collaboration is non-threatening and both sides can gain experience of working well with each other

These collaborative tactics transform the basis for resolving the conflict. New patterns get introduced for seeing each other, relating to each others' interests and finding solutions together. The resolution of the conflict grows out of these patterns, rather than being in the control of either side. Participants experience letting go to let it happen emergently.

As if learning happens by heroics

Let's pretend learning happens by heroics! Then it's up to my level of commitment and determination whether or not I learn something. It's my own fault when I don't learn it which conveniently lets others off the hook. All any educator can do is give me the content, assignments and grades to support my heroics. Learning is my job to do, my responsibility to take seriously and a linear process for me to make happen.

While we're pretending that learning happens by heroics, we can create big educational institutions. We assume that all these heroics need is some imposed organization to get everybody making the same progress and meeting the same expectations. That way, everyone will know where they stand in comparison to others. If more heroics are needed to meet standards, keep up with the pack or prevent falling behind, it will be obvious how those slackers can apply themselves.

Pretending that learning happens by heroics also blames the learner for every problem that arises. The system cannot be at fault or failing to provide some missing ingredients. The production of learning simply requires concentrated efforts. Considering social contexts, stress levels, legacy influences or environmental factors only makes excuses for the under performing heroes and heroines.

This pretense also dramatically simplifies instructional design. There's no need to be considerate of the learners' motivations, cautious of sending the wrong message, wary setting up a pattern of dependency or mistaken about the learners' contexts of use. All that's required is to cover the content with clear explanations and give tests to objectively measure the understanding of that content.

With so much in favor of educational institutions and the instructors in their employ, it's no wonder it's our mostly unquestioned paradigm that learning happens by heroics.

Measuring immeasurable learning

In a comment worth reading in its entirety on my previous post: Solving test scores problems, Virginia asked me:

So what do you think would be an effective measure of student learning that could be used as they move from state to state?

I came to the conclusion a few months ago that authentic learning is immeasurable. When we isolate a small portion of learning ecologies to measure learning, we have excluded the diversity that makes the learning effective. We've merely captured the useless, showy display of "pseudo learning". We presume the measured learning will predict the subsequent applications of the learning in other contexts, yet 90% of measured learning never gets used. Instead it is quickly forgotten after the test or final exam.

Here's a different set of questions to be asked in order to support learners getting ready for results-only work environments and P2P collaborations:

1. What differences can you make?
2. What results can you produce?
3. What problems can you solve?
4. What outcomes can you realize?
5. What symptoms can you alleviate?
6. What changes can you facilitate?
7. What strategies can you revise?
8. What designs can you create?
9. What critiques can you offer?
10. What future vision can you provide?

The answers to these questions depend on prior learning, but that learning is immeasurably complex. The answers depend on the kinds and quantities of experiences with striving for these achievements. They reflect how much of the learning was hands-on, correlated with immediate feedback and fine turned by making mistakes. They indicate how much intrinsic motivation was engaged by the very selective use of extrinsic rewards. The answers also depend on the amount and quality of reflective practice to integrate those valuable experiences and to make them accessible in other situations. The answers also depend on the social context of interactions among mentors with insights about common mistakes, exemplars worth imitating and cohorts facing similar challenges.

These questions seek answers of quantity. Another level of complexity gets added by considering the quality of the responses:

• How well can you deliver?
• How effective is your impact?
• How enduring are your interventions?
• How valuable are your contributions?
• How supportive are your interactions?

With so much complexity opposed to simplified measures of learning, it seems to me that it's wise to let the results speak for themselves:

• Show us what you can do when immersed in these opportunities
• Demonstrate your ability to handle those challenges
• Prove you have the capability to deliver these outcomes

We have left the realm of testing, and entered the realm of tryouts, obstacle courses, and performances. We've abandoned the false premise that authentic learning is measurable. We let the immeasurably complex learning get revealed by the results.

Solving test scores problems

Student reading abilities are declining. Governments around the world find this decline unacceptable. To counteract this trend, the countries' educational bureaucracies have adopted a bad solution: standardized tests of student achievement. Anyone close to the varied challenges individual students has watched this "solution" take effect destructively. There have been cries for different tests, more diverse standards, more contextual variations in assessment and greater use of individual achievement goals. Most of these cries go unheeded.

As I explored in my last post, test scores are far from a mechanical process. The outcomes of testing procedures get impacted though a vast network of connections. For most students, there are more opposing interests to their improved scores than interests in favor. Applying a mechanical solution to an organic aggregation of interests will predictably backfire.

It seems to me that standardized testing refutes the organic nature of fragile learning ecologies, changing intrinsic motivations and faltering curiosity. They are only appropriate in contexts where there is no need to be self motivated, in school or eventually at work. In those in setting, standardized test scores are merely justifying the distribution of extrinsic rewards disproportionally to actual levels of contribution, growth, or influence. They reduce the vast array of mutual interests to the simple framework of "proven abilities". They make some people into winners at the expense of the rest. They acculturate diverse individuals to endure the abuses of hierarchies, conformity pressures and policy mandated conduct. It's no wonder the majority of the staunch advocates for standardized testing are denizens of governmental bureaucracies.

Most academic environments provide too much structure. They need to provide more open space for learning in order to solve test scores for pattern. When the learners spend more time exploring, migrating, circling back and deepening the adventures, much will change. Their curiosity and self motivation will fluctuate and disappear less often as they are free to follow their interests. They will rely on their self evaluation and the feedback from personal attempts. They will seek coaching from peers and mentors who can see better than themselves what they are doing inadvertently, assuming incorrectly, insisting upon regrettably and forsaking persistently. They will experience their interest in performance evaluation becoming very nuanced, contextualized and considerate of changing pursuits. They will constantly align the ways they evaluate their progress and accomplishments with the natural requirements of their latest adventure.

Simply get better grades next time

Early in my years of teaching college, I had a young man in the front row paying rapt attention to my every word. He submitted exceptional assignments that took longer to produce than the other students ever had the time to commit to my class. At some point I learned that he lived at home with his parents and thus did not have to cook, earn money or even do his laundry. In the world where grades were given fairly, the other students deserved handicaps added to their scores for circumstances that put them at a disadvantage compared to my faithful follower in the front row.

Objective grading presumes that evaluations are made with "all things being equal". That amounts to disconnecting from the phenomenal number of contingencies in the lives of everyone getting graded that impact their performance. Most of those advantages and impairments are out of their control. Objective grading expects people to simply get better grades next time. The added complications get dissociated, consciously dismissed or deliberately overruled. They're regarded as lowering expectations, lessening accountability or weakening the grading system by making excuses for slackers.

This idealization of objectivity often turns grading into negative experiences for those getting graded, as well as for sensitive graders like myself. Getting graded can be a significant experience, not merely an accurate score. Grading can provide negative experiences from:

• confirming proof of negative comparisons to others, inferiority, inability, etc.
• convincing evidence of injustice, abusive systems, persecution, etc.
• vidid reminders of powerlessness, helplessness, defenselessness, etc.
• traumatizing setbacks in self confidence, optimism, ambition, etc.

These experiences occur by making connections to the grades received. The experiences start making more sense personally. Reflecting upon the experience comes up with realizations like these. The objective scores get deepened with subjective levels of interpretation. They ultimately frame the "objective grading" as biased, insensitive, inaccurate and far from objective.

In the world proposed by actor-network theory, we would seek to make every connection possible to grades received. The back box of an objective grading system would get opened. When someone needed to get better grades next time, we would explore connections to:

• previous experiences with getting graded, apprehensions, patterns of failure
• study circumstances, noise level, lighting, interference with concentration
• schedule constraints, available blocks of time, interruptions, competing obligations
• peer pressures, inescapable comparisons, contrary expectations
• psychological pressures, patterns of depression, sleep disorder, anxiety or paranoia

By making these connections, the absurdity of objectivity would be exposed. Giving useful and valid grading would get problematized as the need to make more numerous and robust connections. Getting better grades would be transformed into an emergent outcome of this complex assemblage of interdependencies.

Solving turnover problems for pattern

To get the hang of solving problems for pattern, I'll offer several examples in the near term. The first is the organic problem of increasing employee turnover after a bad solution has been applied. Here's an inorganic look at the problem for starters:

A enterprise employs a variety of employees. The most valued take a lot of initiative to identify and solve problems. They see what's not working and take personal and collective responsibility to make effective changes. They are largely motivated by intrinsic rewards. They appreciate getting the carrots off the table. These employees contrast with two other types which are both motivated almost exclusively by extrinsic rewards. Some lack initiative and wait to be told to address problems they would rather ignore, endure in silence or dump onto others. The remaining make a show of taking initiative but fail to follow through or deliver on the high expectations they've raised.

The enterprise recently increased pay and benefits for those who merit the rewards by consistently taking initiative and solving problems on their own. This solution backfired resulting in increased turnover of the intrinsically motivated employees. Meanwhile their replacements were extrinsically motivated and much less valuable.

Any organic diagnosis of the problem identifies very different facets of the situation. The intrinsically motivated problem solvers had already identified problems with turnover, misdiagnoses of the turnover problem and ineffective decisions about increasing rewards. Their inclinations to take initiative and solve those problems were frustrated for the same reasons the identified problems persisted. The subsequent increase in extrinsic rewards signaled a deterioration of the situation, greater adversity in preserving their intrinsic motivations, and more reasons to depart company. When asked by colleagues considering the possibility of applying for the resulting job openings, they would be advised to "stay away from that job from hell".

An organic solution would reverse the dynamics that accelerated the churn of the most valuable employees. The recent merit pay increase could be withdrawn to discourage the further influx of extrinsically motivated hires. The problems of turnover, diagnoses and rewards could then be discussed openly. Those inclined to take initiative could join in the design explorations if motivated to do so intrinsically. Those who participate would become rewarded by the inherent challenges, respect, trust and inclusion. This process would end up defining many other problems which could be addressed the same way, increasing the intrinsic rewards as progress was made. This organic solution would take on a life of its own and provide the experiences that typically accompany solving for pattern.

When we're solving for pattern

When we're solving for pattern, the vast majority of the dynamics in question are organic. We're translating those organic problems into organic solutions. The organic problems exhibit having a "life of their own" that defies getting fixed, resisted or denied. If mishandled, they come back with a vengeance and expose the incompetence and excesses of the "inorganic" solution. We see this all time with what Wendell Berry calls "bad solutions". The majority of dynamics get misperceived as mechanistic, technological and controllable. The solutions do more harm than good to the persistent organic dynamics.

When we're solving for pattern, it's to our benefit that the dynamics are really organic. We become part of those dynamics, living in the system that needs a solution. We become enrolled in an actor-network assemblage of interests. We join in what comes back around, cycles in phases, returns what we give it and integrates its contextual diversity.

When we're solving for pattern, we can induce organic problems to vanish. We join the complexity of interdependencies in ways where the organic problems are no longer needed. We see how the problems we're necessitated until we came along and revised the range of available solutions. Vicious cycles go into reverse where the participants get energized, validated and respected for their valuable contributions.

When we're solving for pattern, we see situations as complex dynamics, not as isolated objects. We're wary of being objective about evidence that is driven by underlying and interrelated connections. We refute the claims that problems are simply in need of some added efficiency, technology or spending. We regard objects as relatively insignificant and relationships as profoundly important.

When we're solving for pattern, we utilize technologies sparingly. We're cautious about the perils of "user friendly tools" getting over-used, substituted for relational incompetence or misused as justifications for the routine abuse of victims. We deploy technologies with safeguards that require accurate perceptions, good judgments and insightful interventions.

When we're solving for pattern, our separate interests in finding a solution to problems, gets translated into an ongoing interest in having the problem until something better comes along. We then want what the problem does for participants enacting powerlessness in the context of excessive efficiencies, technologies and bad solutions. We come up better ways to get what the problem does for the participants that incorporates additional patterns more comprehensively.

When we're solving for pattern, we become as complex as the system. Our interests become integrated in the assemblage of interests. We join in accomplishing what the interdependencies yield by their organic nature. We grow with the growing all around us.

Wendell Berry's solving for pattern

When I read the book Ecological Literacy several years back, I did not anticipate that Wendell Berry's essay on Solving for Pattern (free pdf download) would stick with me endlessly. It remains one of the most profound essays I have ever read. I took notes when I reread it the first time which I'll share with you here. This will serve as a preliminary to a praxis I'm evolving to facilitate solving for pattern using some of the insights from actor-network theory.

Wendell Berry tells us there are three kinds of solutions:

1. Bad Solutions that cause a ramifying set of new problems (like warming a wilderness clearing at night with a small campfire that starts a raging forest fire)
2. Bad Solutions that immediately worsen the immediate problem (like compounding the difficulty of moving forward by removing the wheels to lighten the load)
3. Good Solutions that function in harmony with larger patterns (like composting to generate nutrients enriched soil and reduce the mass of disposed waste)

He then details attributes of this third kind of "good solutions":

• The solution accepts given limits of the situation, rather than becoming far fetched or expansive
• The solution accepts the discipline involved rather than imposing foreign disciplines
• The solution improves balance and symmetries rather than pursuing singular improvements at the expense of other facets
• The solution solves more than one problem rather than tackling a complex situation in piecemeal fashion
• The solution satisfies a whole range of criteria rather than optimizing, idealizing or specializing what gets satisfied
• The solution makes a clear distinction between biological and mechanical order rather than perceiving natural dynamics as machines to fix
• The solution incorporates wide margins so the whole is not jeopardized by failure of one component, rather than setting up a cascading system failure
• The solution realizes a right proportion, rather than going for a maximum gain, overkill and heavy handed solutions
• The solution is affordable rather than making individuals rich and forcing others to overspend
• The solution occurs in place and at work within the organism rather than remotely, abstractly or ideally
• The solution understands the minds, bodies and environment as one organism rather than separate entities
• The solution is good for each part as well as for the whole, rather than exploiting weaknesses and vulnerabilities
• The solution is in harmony with good character rather than pursuing novelty, fashion, greed or pride

More than two year ago, I wrote a persistently popular post titled Solving for pattern which explores the cognitive obstacles to this praxis. Last week I realized that we make solving for pattern difficult for ourselves when we picture situations comprised of objects, people and other things. We effectively "black box" all those interactive interests which spawn invisible connections to the other "things". However, when we picture the assemblages of interests in flux, we've set ourselves up to solve for pattern easily. I explore this insight further in my next post.

Assemblages of mutual interests

My favorite idea thus far, from my deepening appreciation of actor-network theory, is picturing everything as assemblages of interests. I've just come back inside from watering and weeding all the flowering plants and bushes. I came up with a great example of this from my friends in possession of green leaves and roots in the ground.

Plants are interested in water and nutrients in the right proportion which allows them to dry out between cycles. I am interested in their growing lots of healthy looking foliage and producing plenty of beautiful blooms. As I become enrolled in their interests, I become mobilized to fill the water can, add some diluted plant fertilizer and make the rounds. My interests get translated into the plants' interests in water and nutrients. There interests in drying out between cycles mobilizes me to stop watering and wait days between watering.

This also gives us a way to see what Gregory Bateson defined as mind (in nature). When I am watering the flowering bushes, there is a complete circuit functioning for all of us in it:

• the news to me of a declining difference in the plants' moisture level
• my interest in increasing that moisture level
• pouring water on the plants from my watering can
• the plants getting news of a difference in their moisture level
• the plants activating growth cycles with that moisture difference
• the news to me of an increasing difference in the plants moisture level
• my loss of interest in increasing that moisture level until the news changes

Combined together, we comprise an actor-network. Every component of this assemblage receives roles from our gathering, gets mobilized in our own ways and makes a difference to all the other components. We are interacting to such an extent it seems realistic to say that: "interacting is all there is".

Beyond physical networks

Actor-network theory has given us lots of new ways to observe complexity in the connections among us. The theory takes us beyond the strange hybrid called "social networks" where people are nodes and connections appear tangible. Both physical and social networks can be quantified and studied empirically. They exhibit the properties of persistent objects which supports the subject/object dichotomy robustly. They transmit some kind of tangible evidence which can be traced and graphed.

According to Bruno Latour in Actor Network Theory and After, the use of the term "network" in actor-network theory is the opposite of it's meaning for physical and social networks. Actor-networks defy conceptualization, oppose objectivity and dismantle persistent objects. Connections between interests in flux are neither singular or enduring like physical linkages. They overlap, combine and intertwine. Connection "points" are passing assemblages, enrollments, mobilizations and alliances. They do not resemble nodes in physical networks. They are imagined places or spaces where transformations occur and circuits realize completion.

Today I've been pondering the qualities that may be inherent in non-physical networks. Here's a few ideas:

• They place emphasis on the impermanence and intertwining of what comes together - rather than persistent objects and established connections
• They invite perceptions of "well-placed" concreteness in non-forms and no-things - not "misplaced concreteness" in objective forms and facts
• They're about relatedness that gets found, uncovered and realized in the face of wonder - not networked, outreached or linked up anew
• They're organized by the convergences upon unknowns, possibilities and mysteries - not positions, stances and opinions
• The movement along connections involves inquiries, explorations and pursuits -- rather than negotiations and persuasive arguments
• They expect news of a difference emerge from complexity - not result from manufacture by objective efforts

These ideas suggest an opportunity to visualize non-physical networks more imaginatively. They involve far more space than physical networks. They make sense through intertwining of interests rather than forming of connections. Plenty here for me to play with further :-)

Rife with double binds

When I read the original texts of actor-network theory, I feel like I'm being trapped by a variety of double-binds. Books about actor-network theory like Clay Spinuzzi's or Graham Harman's, seem to liberate me from those double-binds. They put the theory in other contexts, make comparisons with other theories and show actor-network theory being put to use. Here's a few of the double-binds in actor-network theory texts that "drive me crazy":

• As you develop your comprehension of actor-network theory, dismiss models you've been using to characterize your development and comprehension.
• As you equate yourself with others having their own sociology to see their situations on their own terms, don't use your own sociology to see what they're not seeing.
• As you conceptualize the actants and alliances in an evolving situation to interest others in you as their "passage point", don't apply concepts.
• As you take an interest in others' interests, don't reveal your own interests in either assemblage of interests.

I've wondered about the purpose of these, and other, double binds in actor-network theory. There are several alternatives I've considered:

1. It's possible these are "zen koans". They are intended to stump the mind that has fallen for object-subject dichotomies. The frustration they induce is intended to breakthrough linear thinking into the both/and paradoxes that offers no contradiction.
2. It's possible these are no-win situations that result from experiences of powerlessness among the powerful. Their inherent opposition to winning may pose a challenge to fight this adversity, become stronger and oppose this futility.
3. It's possible these are miscommunications resulting from written words published with ink on paper. They convey the wrong impression because they are not dialogical and conversant with the responses of tormented collaborators and commentators.
4. It's possible these double-binds are schizophrenic. They simply share the experiences of authors who have been set-up to be right in the wrong way, loyal while labeled as disloyal or compatible in incompatible ways.

By holding these double-binds in the context of these four different possibilities, I avoid their trap. The double bind is not an objective fact which I'm subjected to. I've found a point of view that perceives the double binds from a more powerful place than being effected by them. I'm practicing what is preached rather than joining in the preaching. I can enact the reverse these double binds: wrong in the right way, disloyal in a loyal way and incompatible in a compatible way.

Being right or being effective?

Sometimes it's in our best interests to be right. We align ourselves with strategies and models which support our interests in being right. We look for ways to assert our stance convincingly, defend our position, substantiate our claims and win arguments with opponents.

Other times, it's in our best interests to be effective at serving others. We align ourselves with numerous ways to make a difference to others who are in need of strategies and models. We look for ways to make sense to others frames of reference, get applied in a variety of contexts and set up the realization of desired outcomes.

These two interests are usually mutually exclusive. Being right will come across as ineffective to anyone who does not agree with our position. Being effective will seemingly compromise the validity, integrity and purity of the righteous stance. The distinction between being right and being effective appears to be a divisive issue.

When we pursue our interests in being right, we find that we're compelled to make others wrong. We frame others as our enemies, rather than as our customers, end users or fellow designers. Being right is not effective at winning their hearts and minds or their trust and respect.

When we're being right, we presume we're being effective. We conflate the two alternatives. We dismiss the evidence that we're being ineffective, depleting the trust account or dishing our disrespect. We appear hypocritical to others who receive the mixed messages from what we're saying and and how we come across to them.

When we're being effective, we discern the high cost of being right. We see the choices to voice for others to catch themselves being ineffective, toxic or contrary to their best interests. We perceive the effects we can have on others' interests by acting in their interests ourselves.

In actor-network terms, we function as intermediaries when we're being effective. We redefine others' interests as worthy of our respect and alignment which redefines ourselves as respectable and effective. We define roles for them and us where the effects on each other and shared situations will be enhanced or even transformed.

Choose your poison

All the buzz this month about Clay Shirky's post: The collapse of complex business models -- got me thinking about patterns of collapse. There are many different ways to bring an end to an enterprise, society, government or civilization. Here are the eight that came to mind quickly:

1. Bureaucratic stagnation: A complexity of rules & regs or policies & protocols can burden an organization with distractions from adapting to changing environments. This is how I take Joseph Tainter's argument that Shirky quotes. This also relates to the problem of sedimentation identified by actor-network theory.
2. Inadequate complexity: According to the cybernetic principle of "requisite variety", an organization needs to be as complex as its environment to survive. As the populace becomes more networked, interdependent and free to be different, public and private enterprises need to match that complexity. As Harold Jarche observed, complicated models are not complex enough to be sustainable.
3. Positive feedback systems: A system that is closed to negative feedback runs away with itself. It guides itself with self congratulations. It cannot steer clear of dangers because it does not see the bend in the road, dangers ahead or changes "since the map was printed". These closed systems are given to unrestrained excess as I explored in Patterns of economic collapse and The anatomy of self restraint.
4. Exploitation of dependent citizens: When customers are continually exploited, they eventually rebel from, overthrow or pull the plug on the power hungry institution. They realize they've been fed artificial stimulants that offer no real value or benefit. They experience the side effects of the betrayals, poisoning or depletions that infuriates them enough to break their dependency on the "too big to fail" institutions.
5. Erosion of confidence: A parade of weak leaders, bad decisions and flawed strategies will disenchant loyal followers. It will become impossible to trust, respect and follow the leadership, governance and policy changes. Cohesive conduct will disintegrate into chaos.
6. Susceptibility to invasions: Enterprises who are blinded by their own success do not see troubles on the horizon. They function as their own worst enemy when an enemy shows up with any of Jared Diamond's trio: guns, germs or steel. Their long established track record with legacy practices causes them to sabotage their own disruptive innovations. To outsiders, they appear as easy prey, predictable predators or foolish rivals who can be ambushed.
7. Excessive efficiency: According to panarchy theory, collapse becomes imminent when an ecology becomes too efficient. There is a loss of redundancy, novelty and diversity. The adaptation is betting on no big changes in the environment. A similar prediction is made by socio-technical systems theory that argues a core technology will collapse when the buffers cannot absorb the environmental turbulence. The protections are too simplistic to handle the unusual changes and unexpected variety.
8. Cultural rigidity: When any gathering suffers from "hardening of the categories", their future is doomed. They put their faith in one right answer, one way to live and one form of respectability. They adopt a rigid, "stick in the mud" approach to strength which is ultimately shattered. The gathering breaks in two when it tries to bend or cracks when it seeks to accommodate diversity.

With so many choices of poison, it's no wonder leaders are not even considering these options. They assume "all is well" when "hell is about to break loose". And so goes recorded history ad infinitum.

Assemblages of interests in flux

Actor-network theory tells us to get between someone and their interests. When we can make ourselves indispensable to where they want to go, we become an "obligatory passage point". They come to us, go through us and get where they are going with us as intermediaries. We then have put ourselves in a position to enact our definition of the problem, enroll them in scenarios which resolve the problem and mobilize them in their roles. (Spinuzzi, Network pp. 88-90)

I previously explored one obstacle to following this advice: the resistance some people display when we take an interest in their interests. Another obstacle is the complexity of people's interests. It may be possible to interpose ourselves with single-minded researchers in focused pursuit of a scientific breakthrough. Their extreme convergence of interests would make it possible to become an "obligatory passage point" in their quest. However, most of us present a far more diverse and complex assemblage of interests to anyone seeking to interpose themselves between us and our interests. Here's some of that complexity I explore when I teach the practices of negotiation.

1. We often have a main interest that comes across to others as a demand, an ultimatum or something we cannot live without
2. We usually maintain secondary interests as a fallback position when our main interest makes us vulnerable to getting rejected, shot down or manipulated
3. We've had experiences with prior negotiations which have given us interests in repeating, or avoiding a repeat of, previous tactics
4. We're operating in a context of other obligations which spawns interests in slowing it down or getting it done quickly
5. We may be conducting this negotiation under the scrutiny of our constituencies which gives us added interests in looking good, protecting our pride or avoiding particular criticisms
6. We may want others to make the final decision for us rather than burden us with total responsibility in situations where we lack authority, control or adequate information
7. We can get backed into a corner where we need to be right at all cost or win at others' expense regardless of the long term consequences
8. We are continually making assessments of the others' trustworthiness, integrity and honesty which updates our interests in being deceptive, manipulative or dishonest
9. We're always making predictions about future developments which can result in our losing interest in working a deal or revising our interests in the middle of negotiations
10. We may experience cognitive dissonance when faced with an unforeseen opportunity that contradicts our chronic victim story or justifications for personal limitations
11. We may get a hot button pushed by an interaction which gives us an urgent interest in lashing out against others or intimidating the opposition to get them to back off
12. We may become interested in seeming like a doormat, pushover or easy mark in order to generate others' sympathy, guilt feelings or entanglements

These complications give us a picture of others' interests as a rhizome. The assemblage of interests is "running off in every direction". The interests are in flux and highly interdependent. There's no way to approach the challenge of interposing ourselves with objectivity or a single interest in becoming an "obligatory passage point". The process of mutual intermediation, interacting with other interests, will transform us and them.

What every aspen grove knows

An aspen grove is one of the largest organisms in the world. The root system is sufficiently intertwined and interactive to constitute a single creature called a rhizome. Up above, there are individual trees tied into the single rhizome underground. The trees exhibit tree-like growth while the roots go crazy. The trees above create sugars from sunlight while the roots below deliver minerals and moisture. The inter-relationships are both symmetric and asymmetric. Aspen groves know they "have it together". They wonder what our problem is that makes for such contentious models of growth among humans.

Actor-network theory is giving us a way to incorporate rhizomatic growth models into our techno-mediated culture. As with any change, it's necessary to begin with a positional stance against the established order. So it seems to the aspen groves that actor-network theory is saying "down with trees" and "branching growth is wrong". Of course, aspen groves know their own rhizomes are in the dark and cannot see the light either.

Nowadays there are rhizomes seated in every college class and conference session. There's a robust, rhizomatic back channel of communication among those formerly known as the audience, attendees, students or enrollment. But somehow the trees and rhizome are disconnected. Instead of feeding each others' growth, the tree-like presenters of front channel content are getting drained by the boredom, disinterest and distracted attention of the back channel rhizome. It's as if everyone is enacting a role of zero-growth "rocks in my head" instead of the dynamic of "porous surfaces nurturing continual growth".

This will change when presentations get subjectively mediated by the end users. Instead of getting objectively mediated by expert content, presentation hardware and scheduled sessions, the content, timing and end uses will get co-created through collaborative interactions. The back channel will support the front channel and vice versa. The trees and roots will grow together. Aspen groves will take interest in this "pattern that connects" them and us.

Being an emergent actant

This writing thing I'm doing at this very instant is something that comes and goes. I don't always have something to say or the clarity to express what I have in mind to say. I'm not always reading, reflecting and journaling in the ways that usually give me more to say. I don't always have the time to take away from all my other alliances, obligations and pursuits to do this thing. I'm not always seated at my objective mediator (a.k.a. my web-connected computer) to assemble typed text for publishing in html for web pages and XML for RSS feeds.

So when it comes together for me to be doing this writing thing (or enacting an author role for the time being), a lot ties in relationally. I don't get a picture of contradictions propelling me to create a blog post. I don't imagine that I'm dealing with persistent objects. I don't see myself engaged in activities supported by tools in hand and in mind. I'm not making irreversible progress toward some desired outcome. That makes this network of alliances into bad news for dialectical materialists and activity theorists who frame this production of writing in all those ways.

What comes together comprises an emergent actant. The assemblage will disassemble once I return to everything else. In the meantime, there are these many alliances that give me something to say, the clarity to say it, as well as the time and mediational means to say it. I'm not functioning in isolation or by indulging in heroic individualism. I'm teaming up with everything else that comes together. This is a collaboration with every contributing alliance that can fall apart at any moment or continue until news of another difference reassembles my alliances of the moment.

Changing forms of mediation

This morning I've been having fun using Clay Spunizzi's book to refine my understanding of the TIMN framework. Having been introduced to Activity Theory, I've been pondering "mediated action" and changing mediators as it applies to epochs of social evolution. I have yet to clarify the fourth phase that has been labeled "Network" by David Ronfeldt, but the Tribal, Institution and Market forms are getting clearer. Here's my first pass at how this is all coming together in my mind.

The activities within tribes are mediated by the tribe itself, as I explored in Tribal Activity Theory. The tribe's mediator get experienced as omnipresent. This supports the tribe thinking it is the center of the universe and anything beyond the tribe is a "no-man's land. To be excluded from the tribe is regarded as a "fate worse than death". The tribe's inclusion of deceased ancestors and nature spirits in this pervasive mediator keeps internal actions from becoming antisocial, divisive or violent. There is no escape from watchful eyes on all activities, as well as support, guidance and accommodations for their activities. The experience of mediators in rocks, trees, animals, and weather obstructs the emergence of rationality, objectivity and detachment from their surroundings. They are devoted to immersion in their immediate experience due to the mediation by their omnipresent unity. The tribe naturally accounts for acts of honor and dishonor toward its own tribal members, traditions and roles. By taking actions to honor the honorable and dishonor the dishonorable actions by tribal members, omnipresent ancestors and attentive spirits, tribal cohesion, stability and continuity get maintained.

Pervasive mediation of all tribal activities eventually loses its exclusive role. Tribes realize there are other tribes in that "no-man's land". This renders that outside territory as really somewhere beyond their omnipresent tribal mediator. The sacred bond with their land can now be invaded, violated and dishonored by those with no interest in cohesion, stability and continuity of the tribe. The time-honored activities for dealing with ever-present evil spirits do not stop these opposing tribes from acting dishonorably. The transition from pervasive to objective mediation has begun. Tribes develop physical weapons, defenses and trained warriors. Activities get mediated by allies and enemies as well as the traditionally pervasive mediators. The tribes are caught between two epochs. The institutional phase is making inroads into their "participation mystique" experience. They are losing their hold on being the center of the universe around which all of life revolves.

Objective mediation replaces pervasive mediation with the advent of walled encampments and protected cropland. Subjects observing objects become clearly separated from each other. Situations call for realism, pragmatism and rationality. The prior phase appears delusional, impractical and irrational from this epoch's frames of reference. It becomes possible for the rule of law to replace codes of honor. Administration becomes formalized which allows for expansion, colonization and empire building. Actions get recorded, filed alphabetically and referenced by clerks assigned by the division of labor into jobs. Actions get mediated by hand tools, powered technologies and specialized settings. They also get mediated by those with jobs to oversee, police or recompense the activities. The mediators are the opposite of pervasive. They have to be located, borrowed, acquired or stolen. Either you have it to use or you don't. You find out if it works for you or not, and if not, whether there's something wrong with you or it. There's tons of objectivity called for when objective mediators are used.

Objective mediation begins to fade from dominance with the introduction of design. The subjects begin to consider the objective uses, functions and work involved in using the objective mediators. The hand tools, powered technologies and specialized settings become more user friendly, functional and easy to use. The mediators get more done in shorter time or at less expense. The designers become more considerate of the users, laborers, workers and customers. There is now much more to be subjective about which eludes the "one size fits all" and "one right answer" solutions endemic to objective mediation.

Subjective mediation replaces objective mediation with the emergence of market forms. Designers become more empathic, sensitive to multiplicity and open to cognitive dissonance. Discoveries get made about different users' uses for what was assumed to be the correct and universal applications. New interactions arise as if the customers were the designers and the end users were consultants to the institutionalized and professionalized processes. Design and production activities get mediated by people the activities are intended to serve. Instability gets introduced into established institutions as the systems become far more responsive, innovative and exploratory. Objectivity now appears delusional, impractical and irrational from this epoch's frames of reference. The center of gravity shifts from inside the experts institutions to the market of highly subjective, individualized and contextualized users finding new uses and unmet needs on their own.

That's all for now. To be continued at a future date ...

Problematizing a communication breakdown

Communication breakdowns take many different forms. There may have been a promise made and then broken to keep the others informed of developments. Initial attempts to coordinate schedules, efforts or plans failed to realize any follow-thru. A conversation about collaborating to find a mutually beneficial solution never got past the talking stage. Independent initiatives to keep the customer satisfied lacked coordination in order to eliminate contradictory messages. You get the picture.

There are many ways for a disconnect to get problematized (diagnosed, redefined, framed). Actor-network theory has given me several new ways to perceive a communication breakdown:

1. The breakdown may be "black-boxed" so everyone takes it for granted and never looks into it free of prior concepts, agreements and sedimentation
2. The process of changing alliances may have to go through someone with no interest in this breakdown but with a consuming interest in being a clearinghouse for changes
3. The outlooks of the participants in the disconnect are maintaining objectivity which refutes their interrelatedness and the complexity of their shared situation
4. The current alliances, roles and scenarios in use work around this disconnect rather than remedying the implicated texts by first problematizing them
5. The participants take an asymmetric view of the breakdown as an inferior concern compared to their superior, non-negotiable interests
6. The breakdown is misperceived as a persistent object instead of emergent from the symmetric interdependencies among transitory phenomena
7. The disconnect is an enrollment and mobilization from previous negotiations where they agreed to distance themselves in order to translate their other obligations
8. The breakdown functions as an intermediary which redefines the participants as powerless to change it which recursively defines the breakdown as inevitably persistent
9. The challenge of interesting others in better communication provided test of their strengths which in turn exposed their weaknesses
10. The breakdown has transformed cooperative intentions into politicized rhetoric about their opposing interests, incompatible projects and conflicted alliances
11. The breakdown has been problematized with a reductionistic model which presumes that communication can be switched on/off without vast repercussions
12. The opportunity to improve communication has been framed idealistically as neither perfect or perfectible, rather than pragmatically as an assemblage of interests in doing what works
13. The actors have presumed to possess centralized power over their constituencies instead of parts to play in serving the distributed power of those constituencies
14. The participants in the breakdown are getting mediated by demanding physical networks which preempts mediation by emergent actants, end users and beneficiaries of better communication

Writing this out has helped my get this bounty of new models to be more deployable in my mind. These problematizations strike me as supportive of much more complexity than my familiar frameworks for diagnosing communication breakdowns. They avoid the usual linear rationalizations which misrepresent both social and wired networks. They challenge me to use fewer concepts and more process diagrams when conveying a communication breakdown to others. In other words, they look effective, useful and valuable to me.

Revisions added 4/24/2010

Realizing the best of both

When we're relying on our eyesight to organize our experience, we entertain an illusion of objectivity. We see separate objects that are certainly cut off from ourselves. The connections are minimal like physical contact when we touch them, breathing the same air in their proximity or being supported by the same surface under our feet.

When we combine our eyesight with our biased perceptions, we switch from objectivity to subjectivity. We've left Modernism for Post-Modernism. We regard objectivity as a dominant narrative in need of deconstruction. We get a sense of relating to physical evidence with our own filters, frames of reference and enduring narratives. We subject the objects of our attention to our inability to be objective.

Both of these abuses of immersive experiences are asymmetric. They privilege our objective or subjective point of view over what we're immersively experiencing. We're somehow different, separate and special compared to whatever needs our point of view to experience it as it really is.

When we lose the subject/object distinction, we can no longer think about our experiences logically. We're left to experience them as interrelated, interdependent and interconnected. Whatever seems to be separate arises from the interwoven fabric of life. We are symmetric with whatever we experience.

With this symmetry comes negotiations. The others-than-us have interests in common and different from us. The connections afford opportunities to work a new and/or better deal. We may be facing a no-win double bind or an irresolvable dilemma. We may perceive a zero-sum game where winning can only occur at the expense of the loser. We may recognize an opportunity to sacrifice for the greater good whether the other's winning brings about a mutual change for the better. We may even capture one of those win/win paradoxes where interests synergize into a combination of benefits instead of conflicting in mutually exclusive agendas.

When these negotiations emerge from experienced symmetries, interests become objects that we subject to our inquiries and understandings. We take an interest in other's interests to find common and compatible interests. We can achieve an objective without indulging in objectivity. We realize particular benefits with our own point of view without subjecting the experience to relentless subjectivity. We realize the best of both: common & different interests, objectivity & subjectivity, as well as asymmetry & symmetry.

Taking an interest in others' interests

For actor-networks to grow, constituent elements cannot be entirely self absorbed. Their attentions need to be, at least partially, amassed at the border. Outlooks need to be concerned with others' outlooks. Interests need to be shown in others' interests. Concerns with whatever is concerning others need to be considered. Or as I explored yesterday, they need to be feeling some compatibility pressures.

This outreach to grow a network is easy with actants that put their interests on display for all to see. The plants I care for are quick to show me whether I'm too generous or stingy with water. My cutting tools will let it be known whether I've been neglectful about sharpening them. Engines will announce their "dissatisfaction" with their levels or oil or fuel. Perishables will give me a strong indication about the efficacy of my food storage tactics.

Actors present a different story. They can make it very difficult for us to take an interest in their interests. They may put up barriers to finding out what interests them. They can react to our show of interest as a threat to their composure; as if they have a hot button that gets pushed by anyone's attentiveness. They may even launch an attack on those who want to understand them better in order to punish others for being nosy. In short, our attempts to make a deal may prove to be a "deal breaker" in itself.

As I pondered the underlying psychology to these ways that actors stifle the growth of networks, I came up with the following possibilities:

1. Some us of us assume our own interests cannot be interesting to others. We've learned from convincing experiences that our interests will never find common ground with others and will always experience distance in relationships.
2. Some of us experience envy when exposed to others who can show an interest in others. We've learned that we cannot stop being self absorbed due to crippling insecurities, neediness or inhibitions.
3. Some of us have developed very high control needs to handle our inner turmoil. We experience the situation as getting very out of control when others take an interest in our interests.
4. Some of us have experienced nightmarish situations by letting others in. We've become sensitized to the dangers of getting manipulated, betrayed or put-down when we've put ourselves in the vulnerable position of trusting others.
5. Some of us take pride in being productive, focused and wary of distractions. We're feeling confident when keep to ourselves and reveal nothing of our interests in order to accomplish more in the available time.
6. Some of us have a history of others being extremely clinging, possessive and annoying. We now withdraw the instant it appears others' attention is not really in us, but rather in using us as a listener or antidote to their loneliness.
7. Some of us relentlessly compare the latest inquiries to previous ones in search of unattainable perfection. We find that any show of interest in us is never good enough because we've never been satisfied with others' interests in our interests.

These insights into underlying "deal breakers" ought to inform our "rhetorical practice in network formation". Persuading others to link up will succeed more often when consider how they may be opposed to our show of interest in their interests.

Using actor-network theory as an ontology

Actor-network theory imagines the social world as a buildup of sedimentation as alliances appear to become irreversible and asymmetric. The processes of interesting and enrolling others get replaced. As I played with this image in my mind, I got to wondering about the varied pressures involved. While sedimentary pressures explain a portion of this phenomena, I came up with three others to round out the picture. Here's a taxonomy of four varieties of pressures involved in alliance formation and perpetuation.

Sedimentary pressures: When we're looking for patterns of alliances, interconnections and mediations, sedimentary pressures become obvious. Agreements become settled and remain the same over time. Pressures to honor traditions and execute legacy practices keep situations "set in cement". On a personal level, sedimentary pressures result in habits that are hard to break and deeply held beliefs that defy attempts to change them. We settle into routine roles, reactions and categorizations which show up in organizational settings as "bureaucratic stagnation", "resistance to change" and "failed attempts to revise policy, culture or strategy".

Performance pressures: When we're looking for results. progress and successes, performance pressures become readable. Pressures arise from rival efforts, time & budget constraints or self imposed targets. We're feeling pressured to get ahead, get closer to goals and get better at moving forward. We're keenly aware of the passage of linear time which can be wasted, lost or misused. We're captivated by a game to play by the rules, a contest to win or a challenge to endure victoriously.

Compatibility pressures: When we're looking for benefits of interacting, valued realized from cooperating or differences made by relating, compatibility pressures stand out. There are pressures to become more tolerant, accepting of differences and open to diversity. There are pressures to lose rigid opinions, to let go of grudges and to abandon our attempts to be in control. Likewise the others are pressured to accommodate our potential contributions, understand our different outlooks and work with our set of resources. When these compatibility pressures take hold, the space is created to become interested in others interests and find they are interested in our own interests. We become enrolled in their projects and they in ours.

Transformational pressures: When we're enjoying the fruits of collaborations, rapport and mutual respect, there are transformational pressures to renew the situation with this energy. There are opportunities to revise underlying beliefs about what always and never happens. There are ways to explore previous unimagined solutions to chronic problems. There are expectations that the collaborations can take lasting effect in others lives which have been touched by these examples of working together effectively. The growth then becomes contagious and rhizomatic.

One impression I got from these this taxonomy is how pressures can be good. Another is how one kind of pressure leads to the next. There also appears to be sense where added pressures expand the awareness of the participants. This could result in becoming more inclusive, relational and symmetric which would add connections with other mediating & translating actants. Actor-network theory would then be used as an ontology that shows us a way to be in this world.

Tribal Activity Theory

In his book Network - Theorizing Knowledge Work, Clay Spunizzi introduced me to Activity Theory. I was previously familiar with Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and some facets of dialectical materialism, but not their combination in Activity Theory. By contrasting that model with actor-network theory, I gained a far better grasp of ways I can use ANT in my projects.

One of those pursuits is applications of David Ronfeldt's TIMN framework to smaller scales than societal evolution. With that as my frame of reference, I've considered which of the Tribe, Institution, Market or Network phases that Activity Theory applies to. I've tentatively concluded there is a good fit with the Institution phase. That raised a question of how the Activity Theory triangle might get modified to fit a Tribal Activity Theory. I marked up a "Institutional" triangle in red to identify facets that do not fit tribal dynamics. Here's my summary of my modifications to arrive at a Tribal Activity Theory triangle.

When interpersonal communication was entirely oral, it's been widely argued that no one had a concept of being an individual separate from others or their surroundings. The identification with everything in their midst did not support causal, logical reasoning. Happenstance seemed to occur magically which engendered what we now label superstitions, irrationality and paranoia. There was no separate subject to observe, define or work toward an object of attention, desire, intention or pursuit. There would have been no sense of "mediational means" such as tools to use in hand or in mind.

Marshall McLuhan's studies of scholarly analyses of pre-literate cultures suggest there were no jobs to get done until print cultures came along. There was no division of labor or separate responsibilities. There were rituals to reenact that utilized weapons, headdresses, costumes and totems. But these were likely perceived as facets of the community, not as individual items, private property or separate responsibilities. Likewise, there were honor codes and traditions to maintain, but nothing was written down. Conformity was perpetuated with stories, threats of rejection and celebrations of traditions.

Mircea Eliade's research explored other facets of pre-literate cultures. He discovered that progress and the passage of time were regarded as profane, the opposite of sacred. The facets of life that seemed real where repetitious. They honored the ways the orbs in the sky and repeat of changing seasons maintained the myth of eternal return. They would not pursue objectives or deem it necessary to make improvements.

When print cultures emerged, it became possible for institutions to manage large locations, inventories, infrastructures, populations and borders. Technologies were developed to aid construction of buildings, roads, aqueducts and bridges. Tools enhanced the arts of defense, agriculture and governance. Putting "mediational means" at the top of the triangle makes perfect sense once technologies created a stream of dramatic improvements. Putting triangles into chains also fits the emphasis on linear progress "as the new sacred realm". Modeling advances as the result of resolving contradictions fits this technological progress against natural resources, other cultures and past traditions. Prior to those institutions, the tribe itself remained supreme among it's honorees. It was their means to survival and their protection from adversities. The community orchestrated the rituals to remain in the good graces of potentially avenging spirits. The community mediated everything that got done.

All this suggests how Tribal Activity Theory could model those tribal dynamics comprehensively with a simple triangle in spite of our current complexity and sophistication. Nowadays the conformity pressures of a tribal community would seem oppressive to most. We forget how unaware of exploitation the illiterate peasants were prior to Paulo Freire bringing literacy and liberation to their lives. The tribal freedom from production and schedule pressures may seem luxurious to us, but at a high cost in the array of technological advances we take for granted. We almost cannot conceive of getting mediated by an all powerful community of no individuals, separate interests or political strife.

When the community mediates all activities, everyone gets what they need to survive, multiply and reenact traditions. What needs doing gets done without job descriptions, policy requirements or managers. People play the essential parts as needed. What needs doing is routine and easily learned by imitating others who've been doing it repeatedly for as long as anyone can remember. The numbers are small so everyone is on a "first name basis" and accepted within the close knit community. The community mediates all the roles that fulfill the full array of timeless traditions. It's that simple.

Mediated by transitory objects

I've recently been rereading parts of Marshal McLuhan's The Gutenberg Galaxy while I continue to integrate actor-network theory into my mental models. Here's how I've been able to articulate the intersection of those two great conceptualizations in my mind thus far.

There's a pervasive world we can perceive that seems reversible, impermanent and symmetrical. It captures our attention by flirting with us, alluring us and captivating us. It does not hold still or stay the same in other ways either. This world makes sense to us as a cacophony of sounds, a jumbled up bunch of aromas or a tantalizing combination of tastes. It does not require that we pay focused attention for long on one thing and thereby miss out on all the other attractions. This world invites us to take it all in and let most of it remain unexplainable. We use it and it uses us. We are observed and observing or getting read and reading. Objectivity is inconceivable in this relational world. We feel our actions are getting mediated by transitory objects.

There's a modern world we can perceive that seems irreversible and asymmetric. Things that appear do not disappear. We're predisposed to perceive this world of persistent objects when we're adept at reading texts. Strings of letters on pages or screens do not sway in the breeze, bend toward the sunlight, fly like the birds or grow off the page or shrivel up at night. Texts also do not make a sound, give off an odor or leave a taste in our mouths. They privilege our visual sense to reign supreme over all the other four or five senses. They help us see the arrangements of things as linear, causal, persistent and ordered just like lines of text on a page. We do the observing, analyzing or reading, and the evidence gets observed, analyzed or read. It's never the other way around that would compromise our objectivity, detachment and "realism". We assume actions are getting mediated by persistent objects.

Bruno Latour tells us "we were never modern". The pervasive world has remained available for

perceiving, interacting with, relating to and experiencing immersively. This world makes the modern world of visual dominance seem unreal. Objectivity appears to be a setup to trash the environment, exploit the pervasive world and feel unrelated to surroundings. The concepts to explain tools, technologies and progress seem self serving, inconsiderate, alienated and hostile.

This pervasive, never-modern world got a foot in the door of the modern world via electricity. Starting with the telegraph, phonograph and light bulb, we've begun to change our minds. While we were getting modernized by ink on paper and mediated by persistent objects, we acted strangely. We're now coming back to our senses. We're getting mediated by transitory objects like the baby bunny at my door. We're immersed in film, television, computer games, and messages on handhelds. We're making sense of all those instantaneous and transitory inputs like we were letting in all those sounds, smells and tastes. It seems like a constantly changing flux of flirtations that needs no big explanation, just lots of fascination and relations.

So I'm like "whatever" when some modern dude gets all strung out on explaining some specific change, like everything isn't always interchanging or what?

Amassed at the border

In Network- Theorizing Knowledge Work, Clay Spinuzzi recognized a pattern at his research site where everyone in the organization appeared to be amassed at the border. The organization appeared to have "no interior" with so many employees devoted to the interfaces with outsiders. This image resonated with me deeply. My careers have been immersed in similar experiences. As a project engineer, I was coordinating my work with customers while keeping the production plant fed with the resulting documents. As a management consultant working in the clients premises so my time was devoted exclusively to their conflicted agendas. As an adjunct instructor for a local college, my time was spent with the students or for the students. That image of "no interior" fits perfectly.

As I reflected on other situations where this "amassed at the border with no interior" pattern might apply, I came up with the following list:

1. brokerage outfits interacting with both buyers and sellers of investments, real estate, consignment goods or used vehicles
2. local retailers serving customers with goods that have been negotiated with distributors, wholesalers or manufacturers
3. field sales representatives interfacing with business customers and the home office, factory or sales support functions
4. restaurant wait staff caught between their patrons seated at tables and the kitchen staff who are "up in arms"
5. first responders always on call, dealing with victims, the endangering facets of their situation and the overloaded support services for the victims
6. contractors on film projects, convention staging or touring companies who are required to coordinate their work on the fly
7. design professionals caught between their clientele and the contractors who are building, assembling or installing the designs

Anyone in these situations would experience being a hub in a network with many incoming and outgoing linkages. Interactions would be chronically intense, demanding and consuming. There would be no timeouts to collect one's thoughts, regroup or change strategies. The pressures would preclude much concurrent documentation for later use. When pushed to keep a better record, frustrated replies would include "do you want the work or the paperwork?" Turnover of the most talented staff would remain high. Those that stick around would have learned to minimize their own initiative, curiosity and responsiveness in order to control the frenetic network of interactivity.

This "no interior" pattern contrasts with it's opposite where employees have gone into a huddle and never come out of the all-consuming interior. These personnel appear to always be in meetings, unable to return phone calls, incapable of making decisions on their own and under constant scrutiny by internal watchdogs. Their internal politics seem so tense and distracting that those who are expected to serve outsiders cannot: focus on the troublesome issue, take the time to reconsider it or get enough cooperation internally to respond resourcefully. Meanwhile, every internal move would get documented. Paperwork gets prioritized over actual work. Abstractions like "mission", "policy" or "reorganization" would be under constant review by standing committees. Outcomes would ultimately be delayed by the insular dynamics that appear so indifferent to outsiders.

I suspect the "all consuming interior" occurs when an organization seems "here to stay". This may result from a huge investment in a physical plant, a distribution system or a network of affiliates. The organization would get regarded as irreversible and asymmetric. There's "no way to pull the plug on the thing". It has exceptional staying power, consensus among diverse constituencies and interwoven dependencies on it. The enduring stability comes from the network encompassing it.

Then it fits that the "amassed at the border with no interior" pattern occurs when an organization is agreed to be an interim arrangement. Its days are numbered by changing economy, technologies, market rivals, scarce resources or fashion conscious consumers. For cadres of employees in this pattern, the end is imminent because it a limited scope project, a temporary assignment or a high turnover position. There is no incentive to invest in "interior functionality" under these provisional arrangements. Its investment in networking, alliances and outreach does not parlay into longevity. It lacks the staying power produced by a robust interior.

Finally, I wondered how there could be a "best of both" combination that avoided the perils of these two extremes. What if employees amassed at the border could:

• occasionally retreat into a war room in person or online?
• discuss with colleagues a visualization of the changing terrain, imminent threats, movement among rivals, and forthcoming invasions on the horizon?
• formulate projects to prevent chronic problems, alleviate rework and improve anticipation of consequences?
• projects could be tracked on a wall in person or online so individuals could maintain a sense of where things stand, how they could help others out or make recommendations on particular projects?
• communities of practice met regularly to learn from each other, think out-loud about concerns and share solutions to problems that others could utilize?

When an enterprise implemented these approaches to "providing an interior", I believe the responsiveness "at the border" would be enhanced. These additional "actors" would mediate the actions of those employees to become less stressful, more collegial and better for the constituencies in the long run. The impression on outsiders would change from "passing ships in the night" to "enduring organizations that offer exceptional service". In other words, the best from a balance of reaching across the border and coming inside for a change.

Caught in the crossfire

Activity theorists and actor-network theorists have been sniping at each other. They been saying "no" to each other's position. In his book: Network- Theorizing Knowledge Work, Clay Spinuzzi placed himself in their crossfire and said "yes" to both positions. He found common ground between the two positions as well as valuable ways they differ. Rather than invalidate their differences, he found uses for them like a practicing pragmatist. Rather than indulge in a reductionism of their positions to simplify their attacks on each other, he allowed for each to be complex and multifaceted. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Actor-network theorists have been caught in a different crossfire between modernism and post-modernism. While those two positions have been saying "no" to each other, Bruno Latour has gotten in the middle and said "no" to both. Rather than identifying common ground, he has defined a third position that refutes both of the others as lacking realism. Both added layers of conceptual baggage which obscure the flat reality of subtle tracings, changing alliances, reversible agreements and symmetric interactions. Latour restores innocence, wonder and fascination with each immediate occasion. Blessed are the meek.

As I've entertained both of these strategies in my mind, I've been to see a pattern to the variety "interstitial arguments". Here's the possible framework for considering our options when caught in the crossfire of opposing positions:

• It's possible the positions remain opposed because they occur in a causal or developmental sequence. One leads to the other, provides preliminary "sedimentation" or lays the groundwork for the other to follow. Then it can be argued the two are different phases, stages or developments of a shared process. Acorns and oak trees cannot be the same size, enact the same growth patterns or relate to other trees in the same ways.
• It's possible the positions remain opposed because they need each other as rivals, enemies or missing halves. Together they form vicious which go round endlessly. They perpetuate dramas of reacting to each other's prior reactions in order to compensate for each other's shortcomings. Then it can be argued there is no end in sight until the need for each other enters into the squabbling and exposes the perpetual uses made of the disagreements.
• It's possible the positions remain opposed because they need to be redeemed by an outsider position. Both lack the perspective to recognize interaction patterns, possible exit strategies or reversals of single-minded pursuits. Then it can be argued that it takes both to achieve the overall effect as if they are two sides of one coin or two ingredients in one concoction.
• It's possible the positions remain opposed because it's time for a transformation. Both positions are constituents of the emergent disintegration which is getting replaced or facing it's imminent extinction. Then it can be argued the two have taught us how to experience the "worst of both" alternatives while we're learning how to realize the "best of both" paradoxically.

A framework like this changes how we problematize getting caught in the crossfire. Our actions are mediated by these possibilities to become more pragmatic and strategic. Our effects on the opposing positions will be improved. We will have argued effectively for different definitions of positions, players and interactions.