Re: [ox-en] Terminology: Peer X?
- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:47:48 -0800 (PST)
This is actually a reply to Graham, but I accidentally deleted that email.
I just want to clarify that my own conceptions are not based on Hegel at all, but on the integral approach (i.e. simultaneous taking into account of objective-subjective-intersubjective-interobjective facets of any phenomenon).
Furthermore, while there are many contradictions, as Graham correctly points out, and why eeking out a principal contradiciton might be illusory, this is not the right question.
The question is: which human trend has the most potential for emancipation? Only by identifying a actually existing social practice, which is already more productive in various senses (economically, politically, distibutively) may we hope to effect any realistic change.
Peer to peer, as the general infrastructure of human cooperation, as a new more productive mode of production, of governance and property/distribution, which is furthermore congruent with a preferred set of ethical values, is the one we identify as having that most potential. Furthermore, contrary to Graham, it is emerging in a wide array of internetworked social movements, and it is moving/maturing quite incredibly though of course, still at the germ fase.
Finally, while pure peer producers are indeed a minority, peer production is emerging as a facet of all human beings, and the principle of equipotentiality integrated in design, assures that any motivation becomes productive. What we see is a reconfiguration of both elite and producing classes, to various extents, as becoming part of 'produsage' (Axel Bruns).
The change strategy we see emerging and propose is congruent with how actual civilisational change actually occured, in both transitions we know of, i.e. slavery to feudalism, and feudalism to capitalism. This contrary to Marxist theory, which posited a different change mechanism (taking power a priori), which never materialized successfully and after 200 years of attempts, can be confidently 'suspended'.
Of course, we do not have <all> the answers, and we indeed do not know yet how the peer to peer logic, more easily implemented in the immaterial realm, will interface with material production, though I believe the emerging open design communities will come up with solutions.
Close empirical observation of what works an not, ethical evaluation, and developing a practice based on generalized abstractions from what we learn from facts/ethics is as far as I know, the only way forward.
I agree with Christian below, with the exception that I think that peer projects still need to be 'governed' and therefore, have a governance, though different from other modes of production,
Michel
----- Original Message ----
From: Christian Siefkes <christian siefkes.net>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 12:16:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Terminology: Peer X?
Hi Stefan, hi all,
Stefan Merten wrote:
During the P2P workshop people generally used the term "peer
production" to name the production which is done "based on the
principles of the production of Free Software". The last quotes
contain the term I used so far if I wanted to be exact. As you can
see
it is quite longish.
I wonder whether it makes sense to use that term "peer production" in
general. At least it is far more handy than "based on the principles
of the production of Free Software".
It makes sense -- "peer production" is certainly the most usual term to
identify the phenomenon we are talking about, and I'm not aware of a
better one.
"Peer" is also useful at it may be used as an attribute - like in
"peer economy". So you can name all the phenomenons around peer
production in a similar way which makes up for a nice word family.
Using "peer" as an adjective is useful in some cases, especially when
talking about "peer X" vs. other kinds of X. In my book
<http://www.peerconomy.org/wiki/Main_Page>, I talk about the "peer
economy"
(as opposed to market economy, planned economy), peer producers or peer
prosumers, peer projects, peer cooperation, etc.
But I would be careful about attaching a new prefix to old terms, since
the
old terms might not just give up their old meaning. There is a reason
we
talk about "presidents", not about "democratic kings".
Therefore, I don't talk about "peer governance" in my book, but simply
about
"decision making and conflict resolution", since I think that these
are the
two aspects of governance that remain relevant in a peer context, while
other aspects of governance-as-we-know-it-today no longer matter.
I see three problems with this. First, "peer" reminds me very much of
the peer review done in scientific publishing. That could be a bit
misleading for those used to that meaning of peer but on the other
hand there are also some similarities so it is not too far-fetched.
Yes, there are some similarities so I wouldn't see this as a problem.
Second "peer" in this context reminds probably most people of
"peer-to-peer"/P2P which in my opinion is totally misleading since
virtually all people understand P2P == file sharing == copyright
violation - which is more or less the opposite to peer production.
Because of this concern I didn't like terms like the P2P foundation
BTW.
I too think that the association with "peer-to-peer" is misleading, not
because of any possible "copyright violation" association (who cares?),
but
because file sharing is only about distribution, not about producing
anything new. (Of course, distribution is an essential part of
production.)
But file sharing is still about sharing, and creating free software and
content is also about sharing (though probably a "nobler" sort of
sharing),
so I don't think this association is too bad. We might just want to
emphasize that peer != peer-to-peer and that distribution alone is not
enough.
Third "peer" seems to ring that bell of personal relationships -
which
is certainly not what is the main thing in peer production. But as
I'm
not a native English speaker I may be misguided here. May be a native
English speaker can help with clarifying this?
Well, there are no personal relationships in "peer review" (for
example),
and definitions such as "a person who is of equal standing with another
in a
group" [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peer] (implying that in
peer
production nobody can command or coerce others) are good enough for me.
Best regards
Christian
--
|-------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- christian siefkes.net
----------
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog:
http://www.keimform.de/
| Producto AG: http://www.testberichte.de/ | OpenPGP Key ID:
0x346452D8
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions
is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of
my
apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)
-- Alan D. Sokal, A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de