SPANDA.ORG

V,1/2014

SPANDA JOURNALb i y e a r l y o f t h e s p a n d a f o u n d a t i o n

S P A N D A

I N N O V A T I O N[

H U M A ND E V E L O P M E N T

‹

E D I T E D B Y

S A H L A N M O M O

A D E B A Y O C . A K O M O L A F E

M I C H E LB A U W

E N S

AL ES S A ND

R OCO

LOM

B O

UFFE

EL

BÆ

K

HE

LE

NE

FI N

IDO

RI

J UR

NA

NG

OO

SE

LZ

AM

AA

LO

UF

AN

DR

EW

GA

VIN

MA

RS

HA

LL

RIC

KM

CK

EN

NY

J E ANRU

SSE L L

S T E P HA N

A . S C HW

A R T Z

A N D R E A S W I T T E L

‹

O p e n A c c e s s s tAt e m e n t ~ p l e A s e R e A d

This publication is Open Access.This work is not simply an electronic publication, it is the OpenAccess version of a work that exists in a number of forms, the

traditional printed form being one of them.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

this work is ‘Open Access’, published under a creative commons Attribution 2.5 (cc BY 2.5) license which means that you are free tocopy, distribute, display, and perform the work as long as you clearly attribute the work to the authors, that you do not use this work for anycommercial gain in any form and that you in no way alter, transform or build on the work outside of its use in normal academic scholarshipwithout express permission of the author and the publisher of this volume.Furthermore, for any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. For more information see thedetails of the creative commons licence at this website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ .this means that you can:

~ read and store this document free of charge~ distribute it for personal use free of charge~ print sections of the work for personal use~ read or perform parts of the work in a context where no financial transactions take place

However, you cannot:~ gain financially from the work in anyway~ sell the work or seek monies in relation to the distribution of the work~ use the work in any commercial activity of any kind~ profit a third party indirectly via use or distribution of the work~ distribute in or through a commercial body (with the exception of academic usage within educational institutions such as schools

and universities)~ reproduce, distribute or store the cover image outside of its function as a cover of this work~ alter or build on the work outside of normal academic scholarship

ATTRIBUTION

please cite the work as follows: momo, s. ed., Innovation & Human Development, the Hague: spanda Foundation.

TRANSLATIONS

If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution:This translation was not created by Spanda Foundation and should not be considered an official Spanda Foundation translation. The SpandaFoundation shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation.

COVER ART

the artwork on the cover of this publication is not Open Access and falls under traditional copyright provisions and thus cannot be reproducedin any way without written permission of the artists and their agents. the cover can be displayed as a complete cover image for the purposesof publicizing this work; however, the artwork cannot be extracted from the context of the cover of this specific work without breaching theartist’s copyright.

DISCLAIMER

note that spanda does not necessarily own each component of the content included in this work. spanda therefore does not warrantthat the use of the content contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of third parties. the risk of claims resulting from suchinfringement rests solely with you.nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of spanda, all of whichare specifically reserved.

SUPPORT SPANDA EDUCATIOANL INITIATIVE / PURCHASING BOOKS

Spanda Educational Initiative makes open access publications available free of charge to underserved individuals who could benefit fromher knowledge and to groups and nonprofit organizations who serve people in need and the common good. The PDF you are reading is anelectronic version of a physical publication that can be purchased through any bookseller, including on-line stores, through the normalbook supply channels, or from Spanda directly. Please support this open access publication by requesting that your organization/institutionpurchase a physical printed copy of this publication, or by purchasing a copy yourself, or by supporting the initiative with a tax-deductibledonation at www.spanda.org/donate .

‹

All queries on rights and licensesshould be addressed to the

Office of the publisher,spanda publishing

laan van meerdervoort 702517 AZ the Hague, netherlands

info@spanda.org / www.spanda.org

‹

S P A N D A | CON S C I OU S N E S S & DE V E LO PM EN T 2 . 0 | 2

I N N O V A T I O N[

H U M A ND E V E L O P M E N T

N | C O l O p h O N

I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | C O N T E N T | I I

s p a n d a j o u r n a l

ISBN 978-88-7778-142-0 - ISSN 2210-2175

EdiTOr-iN-ChiEf SahlaN MoMo

EdiTOrial bOard SuSaNa iNéS PérEz

lauDE lorraiNE ~ SahlaN MoMo

JErEMy STaalBhoM ~ TiM STuPraT

EdiTOrial aNd ExECuTivE OffiCElaaN vaN MEErDErvoorT 70

Nl~2517aN ThE haguE | ThE NEThErlaNDS

T +31 (0) 70 362 6523 | f +31 (0) 70 362 9848

JourNal@SPaNDa.org | www.SPaNDa.org

publishEr SPaNDa PuBliShiNg

dEsigN SPaNDa crEaTivE uNiT

TO subsCribE Journal@spanda.org© MMxiv SPaNDa fouNDaTioN

ù

The designations employed and the presentation of the materialin this publication do not imply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of Spanda concerning the legal status ofany country, territory, city or area or of its attributes, or concerningthe delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or its economicsystem or degree of development. Designations such as ‘developed’,‘industrialized’ and ‘developing’ are intended for statistical conve-nience and do not necessarily express a judgment about the stagereached by a particular individual, country or area in the develop-ment process. Mention of firm names or commercial productdoes not constitute an endorsement by Spanda.

The findings, opinions, statistical data, estimates, interpretationsand conclusions contained in signed articles are the responsibilityof the author(s), including those who are Spanda members or staff,and should not be considered as reflecting the views or bearing theendorsement of Spanda, its Board of Executive Directors, or theinstitutions they represent. Spanda makes every possible effort toensure that the information in articles is accurate. Neither Spandanor any person acting on her behalf is responsible for the way inwhich information contained in this publication may be used.

Every reasonable attempt has been made to identify the ownersof pictures’ copyrights. Errors or omissions will be corrected

in subsequent issues. To report errorsrequiring correction or clarification, please email

Journal@spanda.org.Submissions may be edited for a variety of reasons,

including the need to conform with in-house stile.

No part of this publication can be used or reproducedwithout prior permission in writing from the Publisher.

Spanda Publishing is an imprint of Semar Publishers,www.semar.org.

ù

Spanda maintainS ConSultative StatuS with theunited nationS eConomiC and SoCial CounCil

(eCoSoC).

ù

I NNOVAT ION &

HUMAN DEVE LOPMENT

E d i T O r i a l - SAHL AN MOMO

A Run-Up Towards the ImpossibleTurning Possible v

M ICHEL BAUWENS

The Open-Commons Based KnowledgeSociety as a New Configurationbetween State, Civil Society andthe Market 1

HEL ENE F IN IDOR I

An Ecology for Transformative ActionAwaitig to be Discovered 5

ANDREA S W ITT EL

On the Future Development of theDigital Commons and the Need forGlobal Basic Income 15

J E AN M . RU SS EL LThe Social Era: The Rise of Thrivabilityin Organizational Design 25

S TE PHAN A . SCHWARTZ

The Creative Pattern, NonlocalConsciousness, and Social Change 33

ADEBAYO AKOMOLA FE

The Promise of Promethean Darkness:How a ‘New’ Politics of Astonishmentis Weaving a Global Alliance forthe Possible 43

UF FE E L BÆK

Alternativet: An InnovativePolitical Platform 51

E L ZA M . MAA LOUF

Functional Democracy: A NewParadigm on Geopolitics in theMiddle East 55

A LE S S ANDRO COLOMBO

The Relativity of Innovation 65

g | C O N T E N T

s p a n d a j o u r n a l

year v, no. 1 � January/june 2014

ANDREW GAV IN MARSHA LL

Voice of Access: The People’sFoundation 69

R I CK MCKENNY

Micro-Projects in a Macro World:How to Ensure Non-profitInternational Development ProjectsSucceed Where Others Fail 81

JURNAN GOOS

Lila. A Virtual Edugame for theDevelopment Community 89

a b s T r a C T s :: s u M M a r i E s 95

ù

COL LECT IVE IN TE LL IG ENCE

ù

SPANDA.ORG/PUBLICATIONS

1 | I, 1. 2007 Multicultural Youth

2 | I, 2. 2007 Water-Wise

3 | I, 3. 2007 Gender

4 | I, 4. 2007 Death Penalty

5 | II, 1. 2008 Hunger. A Clima(c)tic Perspective

6 II, 2. 2008 Education & Development. Africa

7 | II, 3. 2008 Indigenous Knowledge (IK)& Environment

8 | II, 4. 2008 Consciousness & Development

9 | III, 1. 2009 Human Rights & Security

10 | I, 1. 2010 Energy & Development

11 | I, 2. 2010 Microfinance

12 | II, 1. 2011 The Placebo Effect

13 | II, 2. 2011 Indigenous Culture & Development

14 | III, 1. 2012 Consciousness & Development 2.0

15 | IV, 1. 2013 Anarchy & Nonprofit. An Emerging Affair

16 | V, 1. 2014 Innovation & HumanDevelopment

ù

C O V E R

The Spring Vajra Gate (detail)~ with Special thanks to Daniëlle Hirsh ~

All works of art reproduced in this issue are fromLimbourg Brothers, Les Très Riches Heures duDuc de Berry, ca. 1410-1413, tempera colours,gold, and ink on vellum. Musée Condé,

Chantilly, France.

ù

I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | C O N T E N T | I I I

P | b a C K   N u M b E r s

R | N E x T i s s u E

e month of July (detail).

turning possible, but not alwayS feaSible

under the burden of time delaying its own becoming –beware, the tribe is growing, the vibe is thriving...whilE iNNovaTioN iS challENgiNg ThE PaST wiThiN ThE liNEar

necessity for performance of our civilized activities, theincoming nominal collective enlightenment contradictsitself beyond its own individual resolve to merge for goodwith the collective intelligence, despite the present contin-gencies deprived of all reasonable doubt and foreseeablehope. ere is much more than what we ordinarily per-ceive as a bare expression of matter with its countlesslabyrinths of thought constantly reshaping the maze:eseus is still chasing the Minotaur in the Menander ofthoughts. verily, the elephant in the darkroom of con-sciousness is in dismay: nobody alone is able to graspthe whole truth save for the paired collective vision.here, the imposed implications of darkness are that, inabsentia of light, none can seize the whole, which isonly intelligible by a pooled endeavour. Mankind as awhole is exploring and re-elaborating its exodus frommateriality as a new cipher of its own becoming, aprocess demanding of us to consciously share actionsto maximize its outcome. e human species isclearly evolving to a new tier of development inwhich the individual paths are purposely joiningtogether to foster its innovative gait. in view of that, let’s then enlighten the dark-room to make innovation prosper in the linearhistoric path affecting its intangible outline. isinnovation a novel eidos yet to be embodied intomatter? e expression of an evolving wholeemerging from the spiritual-material hendiadys?or a new modality of the enriched consciousnesshovering upon the cliffs of a divided self? whereasthe collective consciousness bears an inherentanticipatory insight on the allegedly historicfuture, and space and time define extension – ahypothetical construct of the thinking mind –innovative itineraries from grass-root towardsinstitution and from global to local – bottom-upand top-down at once – hold in the middle-outtheir crown of action, pooling and sharing resource-ful knowledge form nowhere into to now here –beware, a minimal gap in a word may transmute theunbroken lemma into two-sided meanings. onanother level, ontogenetic parallels phylogenetics in

the individual-collective advance, the hyphenbridges the two realities to conclusively rest in itsbinding might: to open and establish a pathbetween them, reinstalling its original contract-ing meaning of ὑπό ἕν [hypó hén] “in one”. onceopened the channel between the two realitiesthrough the unifying function of the self – theinitiation of old – energies can start flowingboth sides1. e point of observation in now inthe middle, neither in the past nor in the future,neither in the medium nor in the message, notin the spiritual nor in the material grounds, butin the open common sourced knowledge inbetween them. our own personal and aware con-tribution to this fresh unfolding of human con-sciousness is indeed a novelty.in fact, these passing remarks along the path arecircling words portraying the presence of a yetunclassified realm, a monad devoid of fissa dimoraseeking ‘itself’ and the ‘other’ to hyphen the spiri-tual-material experience of life. indeed innovationtakes place everywhere at once by rebounding in theindividual consciousness and, by becoming self-aware,fires up its mending process: a golden kintsugi joinery,melting the broken pieces of a fractured life into anedging evolving present. Dream incubators and vision-aries gathered around the dialogical table to checkmatetheir roles: whose turn is it? who are the first and thelast in lila everlasting dancing? creativity delivers itsvision at urgent pace down-up the hills of perceptioninto a steady rest; the hyphen binds the spiritual to thematerial into a transient present, a joyful hiatus in anunfolding while. fastened to its unconfessable truth –neither in account of a past nor for a future stance – theevolutionary path is unifying the polarities all along itscourse, regenerating itself further and farther in its ownbecoming. regretfully, these outmoded terms do notuphold to their own obsolescence, unaware as they areof belonging to an earlier apologetic inspiration, classi-fied by the hands of a well-mannered polite old gentle-man: Death & Destruction vs. immortality. autocracy.Democracy, the ruling of the people, has failed itsmandate in its current expression; sustainable devel-opment is on the verge of collapsing if its paradigm isnot quickly revised. while governance has alreadyacquired a vacuous grim, the scriptural elements ofan unbearable chasm between the self and the other

E D I T O R I A L

Arun-uptowardsthe impossible

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | V

have gained the fore. could we just withdraw andhold back in the presence of all this? indeed weequally need to rapidly attune to the mesotericdimension right in between the eso- and the essotericsides of reality, because being aware of only one of itssides equals sighting the vision with one eye only,depriving it of the perspective and depth of the binoc-ular vision by which we consciously set off-time, historyand matter, and dematerializes at once facts in both ourprofane and ierós-history – Sacred & Profane are a verywell know epitome of duality on the mythical plane, likethe Martian-venusians antinomy, or the archetypal adam& Eve duo. far and wide, the underlying tension betweenthe monistic and the dual perceptive has undergone theentire human linear time to the point that, in its over-represented archetypal dualism, we are lost to the ‘pro-hibited’ golden apple igniting a bursting development ofevents. Shifting the centre of gravity from the collectiveto the individual plane removes one layer of reality toour experience, and replaces it with the space-timedimension as a temporary point of reference. is flightfrom the collective provision makes its contents to beperceived by the individual flattened consciousness asmere symbols; conversely, shifting the centre of gravityfrom the individual to the collective plane disclosesthe symbolic reality. as a matter of fact, the syntropicfunction of the enlightened consciousness in reflexivemode merges the polarities, releases the symboliccontent and mends the karmic remains from boththe individual and the collective assembled history –a conjunction once symbolically represented subspecies aeternitatis as the androgynous opus.it may be noted that this igneous process ‘purifying’matter of its historical account2, has a purposivebehaviour: an inner-outer drive, a final causation,an entelechy, a vocation, a conatus, an élan – anal-ogous to the steer of the human will but on adifferent plane of reference – that from a state ofpermanent creation defines its own existence bybecoming into being. it is an itinerary of a con-scious act indwelling a saddle point, hanging inthe balance between infinity and utopia in themesoteric dimension, keeping its centre of gravityin the pinnacle of action, mastering the balancewhile altering the gaze to both sides at an increas-ing tempo in approaching the threshold of dualitywhere time ceases to be. here the time-spacefactor is at rest, quiet, silent. e still originatingpoint between the opposites does not interfere inthe unfolding act, it comprises them instead.from this stillness of creation – depicted here asthe fulcrum of action, the saddle point, the hyphenuniting the spiritual-material experience, or thehiatus, the point of suspension between inhalingand exhaling, or the point of balance and so forth

– the creative energy bends into the time-spacedimension to ignite innovation: the equilibrium islost, one of the polarities is emerging – the conceptsof free-will is certainly here at stake. in other wordsand within a different framework of reference,once the system reaches its apex, enathiodromycomes into play: the structure bends towards oneof its sides and a new phase kicks off. e pointof equilibrium between the maxima and mini-ma of a function is its optimization; the extremevalues, spatially and timely speaking, located atthe boundaries of the system, are its criticalentry points; the centre is the establishment.all innovations are the result of an eruption,of enlightenment, of an invasion from the criti-cal entry points on the boundaries: from thefringe of the system, not from its centre. forthis, fringe movement, especially in the arts andin science, set off at the boundaries of social sys-tems (grass-root, bottom up) and, step by step,conquer-transmute gradually towards the centre,whose heterogeneous energetic field decreases toits critical minima limes at its boundaries. allinnovations are starting up from the fringe, as thecentre itself is connoted by a very stable and fixed,even though inherently dynamic, stance: indeedthe establishment bears the status quo as its cipher.Ensuing, the conquering fringe will soon turn intomainstream and sit at the centre of action, to be, inturn, challenged by the new fringing waves againand again, scaling up in the order of things. in thisdialogical relation between the centre and its periph-ery, in alternatively and constantly keeping and loos-ing the balance while retaining the centre of gravityanchored on the saddle point of the action in themesoteric dimension, innovation turns the impossibleinto possible. e mesoteric dimension is certainly not an augment-ed, enhanced, or altered plane of reality, but for realthe natural state of consciousness of all human beingsinstead, visioning the spiritual-material gaze on bothworlds, gaining in depth and perspective, digging theirbecoming in the historical self. Moreover, this dimen-sion is nothing new, has always been individually acces-sible, the innovative side of the equation is in that nolonger only distinct individuals but humankind as awhole are now shifting into their new ‘permanent’ sta-tion: the collective bodhi is knocking on heaven’s door:the longer we gaze into consciousness, the quickest itstares into us, actually we all are gradually imbuingthe mesoteric dimension to get it through with com-fortable ease. clearly, humans did not ‘fall’ from a for-mer blessed state of consciousness, from arcadia, thegolden age, Eden, and so forth, to the individualdualistic flattened dimension. ose are conceptual

E D I T O R I A L | S A H L A N M O M O | A R U N - U P T O W A R D S T H E I M P O S S I B L E | V I

representations, pre-figurations, attracting visionsof a handy condition in the making, at no timereminiscences of a past lost stipulation, rather theindividual’s ubiquitous representation on the mentalplane of the élan presumed destination, a symbol forthe driving purposive force resting place beyond time,or of an enriched typological ‘rapture’ within a frame-work intelligible to the thinking mind. Definitely weare not fallen angels: we are spiritual-material beingsconsciously and individually contributing to the mak-ing of our own and the collective state of consciousness:hence, not heading to a lost paradise to be regainedbecause of a fall, rather building the communal founda-tion of a fresh unfolding realm. we all are collectively,genuinely and gradually morphing the mesoteric dimen-sion taking shape by our cooperative endeavour – indeedin this rests the very individual and common responsi-bility of humankind to shape its own becoming. Twodiverging conceptual models are here at play: the static,unchangeable well ordered self-containing universe;and the unfolding ever-changing self-generating cosmos.all in all, the only fixed constant is the ‘law’, the Dharmagoverning them both, not the outcomes of its enforce-ment in the dynamic interplay of the polarities.in this context, figuratively speaking on the plan ofmental representation, even the hypothesis of acausal necessity – Moirai, destiny, .rta – could beperceived as the flow of conscious knowledge attain-ing self-consciousness, upheld by the Dharma link-ing, integrating, organizing the individual pathsinto the whole system. e relations connectingthe individual dots could be seen here as thesynapses connecting the dots-cells by virtue of amindful relation, thereby enabling the flow ofinformation from one dot to the other – on adifferent plan of representation, even the inter-net biomimicries this process.e emerging of the social consciousness, of thecollaborative-sharing-caring economies, of thealternative currencies, the commons, of peer-and co-production, co-governance, co-creationand destructive creation, communitarian cul-ture, inclusive capitalism, knowledge and com-mon based societies and economies, mesotericsociety and meso-economy, together with theobsolescence of the concept of property infavour of that of common possession, are allsymptoms that a capital in pursue of mere profitis no longer viable, it creates inequality, is unsus-tainable, obsolete; but all these emergences arealso indicators of the merging on both the collec-tive and individual planes of a variety of disciplinesand cultures joining to unveil, conceive, forge,draft and implement global innovative insights,thoughts, and viable, sustainable, thrivable processes

and devices. we are no longer questioning thesedays with no answer, pleading for an unbornanswer, but offering innovative solutions to replacea bygone system in its place.in this perspective, the faulty modern economicsystem could be seen as the outcome of a divid-ed self; conversely, the new emergences risingfrom a process of reunification, are the tangibleupshots of i and you merging in the collectiveself, from ego-driven to community driven,form selfish to altruism in which acceptance ofthe other mirrors the image of the self reflectedin the countless points of light on the waves ofthe ocean of consciousness.Everything goes by with a high or low pace, allpasses and changes, today’s craze will tomor-row be obsolete. acceptance of the status quois regressive, as in a very short while it will turninto ante. consenting to be and become, is topersistently accepting the life-driven imperativebeyond the saddle point, at risk of losing it nomatter how. an innovator is an explorer testingnew paths farther beyond the secure zone, open-ing up new directions at each step, and leavingsecurity at risk. e risk is a mental temptationinviting from afar, an attractor, not a pusher, andriding the tiger on a razor blade is indeed risky:leaning too much on one of the polarities and…bye-bye balance! the integral critical saddle point islost, the present took a walk on the wild side…fear is actually a de-organizing principle acting uponthe collective consciousness; qualities instead, areorganizing principle and organized structural patternsinside the collective consciousness. within the limitsof a different terminological framework, or on a paral-lel plan of reference and meaning, qualities might beperceived as devas, angels, malakim. e old metaphorsof the guardian angel holding in front of the carpetweaver the archetypal design to be woven into the cos-mic fabric by means of the vertical warp and the wefthorizontal axes joined at their intersection by the gor-dian knot cut into the present, still very much holdsvery true. e global mind is at work, willingly orunwillingly, consciously or asleep we are all partaking inlila cosmic game, of which much remains to be said.“who is messing around here? – said we, the divided i– e i, the Me or the individual Self?” “Quite a dif-ference… – ‘t wouldn’t have so said Elision? – thehyphen is one, but we are many, many and many,more than a few, turning both past and future intothis present, both ways at both ends, as in the now allboth are but one.”e above de-contextualized inclusion in the bodyof the narration is functional in joining two layersof language: the authorial i and the ‘other’, the

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | V I I

very individual marker left into matter by bothplanes of language. So that:“An unrestrainable cycle defeated Kronos at HyphenBridge and wrote history. Underneath, egotism andselfishness cognates until never is present in the uncon-strained entangled now, whereas the present is never andever at once.” “You mean that you want to know me ?”“Yes! and hear your soundless voice, the say of the moonis charming” “Hum… What’s for?” said she. “e Moonis appealing, a great archetype, the Moon and the Sun,the opposites, the complementary, the higher and thelower, the lingam and the yoni. Show your beauty said theSun, and the Moon fully shined all night displaying herintangible beauty, enlightening the dark night of thesoul… You see? Some good lines just 4 u – said he turningthe Luna-park lights off while riding the tiger in themoonless night – Night and Day, the co[s]mic couplesare severing the conscious presence in duality: the blend-ing of Black and White does not engender gray night-mares, but the lively rainbows blooming all around fromnowhere: a shower of lights fulfils the soul melted inmatter, and the spiritual-material dimension takes hold.Who could ever have dreamed of your last night elegantlack of reticence at sleep’s expense?” “I hope everythingis fine now, even better than better” said she.Here again the narration changes of level, moves toanother plane. e intersections of the narrativeplanes beyond all quadrants allow for the authorial Ito subside to the We and melt in collectivity. isnarrative, as perceived from the perspective of thehyphen generating the visible-invisible universe, thesacred-profane alphabet collating heaven to earththrough the account of a vertical stroke expressedin verbal language, bear witness to its becoming.Careful! Contraction and expansion, the polaritiesare in hold… qui rationem artis intelligunt.In point of facts, the constant interplay of giv-ing and receiving, of the individual and the col-lective, of expansion and contraction is givingbirth to Lila dance in the mesoteric dimension.ere are no independent beings, nor indepen-dent freedom, intelligences or shining devashere, but the common endeavour to preserveand sustain individuality in plurality, samenessin diversity3. Complimentary implications arethus manifested; ethics and politics are alreadyon stage. Lila is performing her ecstatic danceright in the middle of the two worlds, andaffecting them both.ere remains for discussion the fact that to per-form rituals, postures and gestures from the outerto induce a certain state of consciousness has beenthe work of many practices and disciplines sinceold. In reality, is at first a state of consciousness todetermine, inform and shape a gesture or a posture

that, once codified or ritualized in the performanceas a distinct position or as a set of actions, is thenemployed to regain and reactivate the higher stateof consciousness that originally shaped it. Unfor-tunately, most codified rituals have nowadaysrelinquished their powerful innovative drive, theoriginal vibration has dimmed and, devoid of cre-ativity, their inner flow has nearly come to anend. In these days, the ritual sequel of postures ishardly conducive to any higher, collective orsacred dimension, its actions are empty, deprivedof any innovative and tangible impel. As a mat-ter of fact, innovation is a self-regenerativeaction, a self-innovating act. Mimicking the process of accessing the higherdimensions or the collective intelligence inorder to implement sustainable and tangiblesolutions to current impelling concerns, Spandahas devised the innovative Lila virtual educa-tional game platform, here offered as a dulcis infundo serving at the end of this issue. e Lilaplatform allows accessing the collective ‘virtual’intelligence from the individual ‘ordinary’ reality;therein, by means of a ludic capacity-building andpolicy-making methodological itinerary, collec-tively pool and share global and local knowledge toidentify whatever problem or explicit issue and,collectively, draft the best specific solution toaddress them. Subsequently, withdraw from the vir-tual reality to implement the game winning solutioninto the world, in terra firma. A solution that carriesin itself the vibrational quality of both worlds, aneffective grasp on both reality in which actions andendeavours bear tangible outcomes on the individualand the collective plane. is stipulative definition restson the concept of essence, of course.In concluding, after so many meaningless wor[l]ds wecome to the end of an era while another is blooming,where the once cyclic, sacred and the linear historictimes are no longer individual but glocal. Sacred &Profane, the two layers of being, the I and the Other,and all other complementary are gradually approachingoneness. As in human relationships an acquainted mayturn into a friend, or into a lover, and diverse degreesof proximity, of closeness, of intimacy are then broughtinto being until all distinctions between the subjectsare removed and unity is co-created.But we all should well bear in mind that the femininepolarity so far historically and spiritually compressed isnow emerging after ages of contraction; and keep clearlyin consciousness that this too will be a ‘temporary’ stageon the plan of the manifestation, to perform its maxi-mum expansion towards the saddle point, and thentransmute into its opposite. is alternating in the his-torical time of the two polarities is only apparent, a

E D I T O R I A L | S A H L A N M O M O | A R U N - U P T O W A R D S T H E I M P O S S I B L E | V I I I

perceptual object trouvée on the way to a muchlonged transpersonal and impersonal self andbeyond, clean, safe, devoid of any residual effects,more soaring than boring. Beware, the tribe is growing,the vibe is thriving…

8

——————

1 is bridging function could be equated, on the physiologicalplane, to the corpus callous uniting the right and left brain hemi-spheres specific functions.

2 cf. the purifying power of fire in Mithraic, zoroastrian andhindu rites, the holy ghost baptism by fire, the Phoenix myth, etc.

3 Sustainability and thrivability belong to different planes: theformer is the capacity to endure in time; the latter, the how the ethicalresilience persists in the former.

a b

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | I X

E D I T O R I A L | S A H L A N M O M O | A R U N - U P T O W A R D S T H E I M P O S S I B L E | X

e month of September.

Michel bauwens is the founderof the foundation for Peer-to-Peer alternatives and worksin collaboration with a globalgroup of researchers in theexploration of peer produc-tion, governance, and property.

He has co-produced the 3-hourtV documentary Technocalyps

with frank eys, and co-edited thetwo-volume book on anthropology of dig-

ital society with Salvino Salvaggio. Michel is currently Primaveraresearch fellow at the university of amsterdam and externalexpert at the Pontifical academy of Social Sciences (2008, 2012). Michel bauwens is a member of the board of the union ofinternational associations (brussels), advisor to Shareable mag-azine (San francisco), to Zumbara time bank (istanbul) andSharelex; and scientific advisor to the “association les ren-contres du Mont-blanc, forum international des dirigeantsde l’economie Sociale et Solidaire” (2013-). He functioned asthe Chair of the technology/iCt working group, Hangwaforum (beijing, Sichuan), to develop economic policies forlong-term resilience, including through distributed manu-facturing. He writes editorials for al Jazeera english, and islisted at #82, on the Post-Carbon institute (en)rich list.Michel currently lives in Chiang Mai, ailand, and isresearch director of the transition project towards thesocial knowledge economy, an official project in ecuador(floksociety.org). He is a founding member of the Commons StrategiesGroup and has taught at Payap university and dhu-rakij Pandit university’s international College. in hisfirst business career, Michel worked for uSia, britishPetroleum, riverland Publications, belgacom, and cre-ated two internet start-ups.

haT ExacTly iS aN oPEN-coMMoNS BaSED

economy and society? and how is itrelated to the issue of innovation? Tounderstand it we must first look at the

older social and economic model that it replaces.e neoliberal and present economic formscombine three basic elements, fundamentalchoices that guide their operation. e first is thebelief that the earth’s resources are infinite, whichallows an idea of permanent and compound eco-nomic growth, fuelled in part by a monetary sys-tem based on compound interest that requiressuch growth for its continued survival. Neoliberal

capitalism is therefore based on an illusion of afake or ‘pseudo-abundance’; and its growthmechanism is dedicated to the senseless accu-mulation of material riches. e second is the belief that the flow of knowl-edge, science and culture should be privatized,and therefore serves the exclusive benefit ofproperty owners. Knowledge is made to servecapital accumulation and the profits of the few.e privatizations of knowledge through exces-sive copyrights and patent regimes have a dra-matically slowing effect, and allow for an exclu-sionary financialization. we believe that thissecond element dramatically slows down poten-tial innovation, which is today no longer lockedin the world of the private market and corporater&D departments but has become a general char-acteristic of networked civil society, with millionsof people engaged in innovation for sustainability.a good recent example is the explosion of civicinnovation in the field of 3D printing, which had towait the lapse of the patents.finally, the two first elements, pseudo-abundanceand artificial scarcity, are configured in such a waythat they do not serve social justice, equality, andbenefits for all, but rather the benefits and profits forthe few. under cognitive capitalism, the fruits ofsocial cooperation are enclosed and financialized, andthe majority of the population has to pay for knowl-edge that is largely socially produced. only those withmoney can benefit from technical and scientific inno-vations. ink of the business models of facebook andgoogle, whose platforms would be valueless withoutthe input of the userbase, yet, where none of the profitsare shared with the value-creating public.us we must also look at the positive counter-reac-tions that have emerged and which have been particu-larly strengthened after the crisis of neoliberalism,which was felt by southern countries in the previousdecades but became global in 2008. a first reaction has been the recapture of the state bycitizen movements, such as particularly in the andeancountries and Ecuador. according to the last Eclacreport on latin american poverty, Ecuador andvenezuela have obtained the largest scores in povertyreduction in 20121.

THE OPEN-COMMONS BASED KNOWLEDGES O C I E T Y A S A N E W C O N F I G U R A T I O N B E T W E E N S T A T E ,

C I V I L S O C I E T Y A N D M A R K E T

W

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T

M I C H E L B A U W E N S

e second is a re-emergence and flowering of neweconomic forms based on equity, such as the coop-erative economy, the social economy, and the soli-darity economy. ird, we have seen the emergence of a sharing econ-omy, which is mutualising physical infrastructures(most often in the form of private platforms) in orderre-use and make available the enormous amount ofsurplus material and resources that have been createdin the last thirty years. apart from the explosion of car-sharing and bikesharing, they often take the form of‘peer to peer marketplaces’, allowing citizens to createmore fine-grained exchanges of their surplus. fourth, and perhaps most importantly, we have seen,thanks largely to the potentiality of the global net-works, the emergence of commons-based peer produc-tion. globally and locally, productive communities ofcitizens have been created vast common pools of knowl-edge, code (software), and design, which are availableto all citizens; enterprises and public authorities to fur-ther build on. often, these productive knowledge com-mons are managed by democratic foundations andnonprofits, which protect and enable the commonproductive infrastructure of cooperation, and protectthe common pool of knowledge from exclusionaryprivate enclosure, most often using open licenses;they are sometimes called ‘for-benefit associations’.very often, these productive communities co-existwith a dynamic entrepreneurial coalition of firmsco-creating and co-producing these commonpools, thereby creating a dynamic economic sec-tor. it is very common for these open eco-systemsto displace their proprietary-iP based competitors.a uS report on the ‘fair use Economy’, i.e. eco-nomic activities based on open and shared knowl-edge, estimated its economic weight in that countryto be one-sixth of gDP.yet there is also a paradox: it is most likely thatit is the classic corporate forms that first see thepotential of the new commons-based economicforms, and ally with them; on the other hand,cooperative economic forms still rarely practiceand co-produce open knowledge pools. how-ever, there is an emerging trend to transformthe existing cooperative tradition based on sin-gle-stakeholder governance, into multi-stake-holder governance, and which introduce thecare of the common good in their statutes. what this means is that the emerging globalknowledge economy, can today take two compet-ing forms. in the first form of the knowledge-econ-omy, under the regime of cognitive capitalism, wehave on the one hand the continuation of propri-etary iP, and the realisation of economic rent by

financial capital; combined with a new form of‘netarchical’ capital, which enables but also exploitssocial production.in my opinion, the other, more desirable form ofthe knowledge-based economy is based on opencommons of knowledge, but which are preferen-tially linked to an ethical and equitable economy. in the old vision, value is created in the privatesector by workers mobilized by capital; the statebecomes in the best of cases a regulating mecha-nism for the common good, but in the currentreality rather a market state protecting the privi-leged interests of property owners; and civilsociety is a derivative rest category, as is evi-denced in the use of our language (non-profits,non-governmental). in the new vision of cognitive capitalism, thenetworked social cooperation consists of mostlyunpaid activities that can be captured and finan-cialized by proprietary ‘network’ platforms. Socialmedia platforms almost exclusively capture thevalue of the social exchange of their members, anddistributed labour such as crowdsourcing moreoften than not reduce the average income of theproducers. in other words, the ‘netarchical’ versionof networked production creates a permanent pre-cariat and reinforces the neoliberal trends. in the contrary vision of a open-commons basedknowledge economy and society, value is created bycitizens, paid or voluntary, which create open andcommon pools of knowledge, co-produced andenabled by a Partner State, which creates the right con-ditions for such open knowledge to emerge; and pref-erentially ethical entrepreneurial coalitions which createmarket value and services on top of the commons,which they are co-producing as well. e ideal vision ofan open-commons based knowledge economy is one inwhich the ‘peer producers’ or commoners (the labourform of the networked knowledge society), not only co-create the common pools from which all society can ben-efit, but also create their own livelihoods through ethicalenterprise and thereby insure not only their own socialreproduction but also that the surplus value stays withinthe commons-cooperative sphere. in this vision, thesocial solidarity economy is not a parallel stream of eco-nomic production, but the hyper-productive and hyper-cooperative core of the new economic model.us in the new vision, civil society can be seen asconsisting as a series of productive civic common-sense, common pools of knowledge, code and design;the market consists of preferentially actors of thecooperative, social and solidarity economy whichintegrate the common good in their organisationalstructures, and whose labour-contributing members

M I C H E L B A U W E N S | T H E O P E N - C O M M O N S B A S E D K N O W L E D G E | 2

co-produce the commons with the civic contribu-tors. finally, in this vision, the Partner State enablesand empowers such social cooperation, and createsthe necessary civic and physical infrastructures forthis flowering of innovation and civic and economicactivity to occur. e Partner State is not a weak neoliberal state, whichstrips public authority of its social functions, andretains the market state and repressive functions, as inthe neoliberal model; it is also not the welfare State,which organizes everything for its citizens; but it is astate that builds on the welfare state model, but at thesame time creates the necessary physical and civic infra-structures for social autonomy, and for a civic produc-tion model that combines civic immaterial commonsand cooperative social solidarity enterprise. e ethical economy and market, is not a weak and par-allel economy that specializes in the less competitivesectors of the economy; on the contrary, the ethicalmarket is the core productive sector of the economy,building strong enterprises around competitive knowl-edge bases. it is however, at the service of civil societyand co-constructs the open knowledge commons onwhich society and commerce depends.what needs to be achieved is a new compact betweenthe commons and the private companies that insuresthe fair distribution of value, i.e. a flow of valuemust occur from the private companies to the com-mons and the commoners from whom the value isextracted. Models must be developed that allowprivately owned companies to become fair partnersof the commons. in the end, no privately-ownedcompany, using its own research staff and propri-etary iP, will be able to compete against open eco-systems that can draw on global knowledge pro-duction and sharing; this process of fair adapta-tion must be encouraged and accompanied byboth measures from the commons and theirassociated ethical enterprises, and by the PartnerState, in a context in which all players can bene-fit from the commons. Private capital must rec-ognize that the value there are capturing comesoverwhelmingly from the benefits of socialcooperation in knowledge creation: just as theyhad to recognize the necessity for better and fairpay for labour, they must recognize fair pay forcommons production.

8

——————

1 “Six of the 11 countries with information available in 2012 recordedfalling poverty levels. e largest drop was in the Bolivarian republicof venezuela, where poverty fell by 5.6 percentage points (from29.5% to 23.9%) and extreme poverty by 2.0 percentage points (from11.7% to 9.7%). in Ecuador, poverty was down by 3.1 percentage

points (from 35.3% to 32.2%) and indigence by 0.9 percentage points(from 13.8% to 12.9%). is 5.6 percentage point decrease invenezuela translates into a 19 percent decline in poverty overall lastyear, which cEPr co-Director Mark weisbrot noted last month“is almost certainly the largest decline in poverty in the americasfor 2012, and one of the largest – if not the largest – in the world.”< http://bit.ly/QypxJw >.

a b

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 3

e month of october (detail).

D A V I D G O O D W A Y | N O T P R O T E S T B U T D I R E C T A C T I O N | 4

e Coronation of the Virgin.

Helene finidori focuses on sys-temic perspectives and tools fortransformative action, mainlyinterested in connecting dotsand building bridges betweenpeople, cultures, disciplines,organizations, transitionary

stages. Co-founder and coordi-nator of the Commons abun-

dance network, she teaches Man-agement and leadership of Change in

the international Program of Staffordshire university.born in Canada and raised in france, Helene lived in manycountries including Sweden, the uS, indonesia, australia, andshe currently lives in Spain.after studying entrepreneurship at HeC in Paris she specializedin small and medium enterprise and created a niche specialityat the intersection of strategy, branding and organizationaldevelopment. She worked in the waste management and con-sumer product industry, for business-to-business marketingconsultancies, as an independent consultant specializing ininnovation, it and prospective, as well as in education andsocial development. from brand positioning, culture andstrategy she moved to organizational change and cross-cul-tural collaboration and now focuses on social change, net-works and movements.

vEry Day NEw voicES SPEaK uP agaiNST ThE

toxicity of an economy based on credit-fuelled growth that benefits mostly banksand speculators, depleting finite resources

and destroying much of the social fabric and theplanet in the process. Some call it suicide. The paradox is that the logic we find ourselves intells us that the system can only survive and thrivewith more of the same: a perpetual machine basedon an extract, exploit, deplete model, mindless ofits impossibility and accelerated spiralling sideeffects that make problems worse.

M O S T T R A V E L L E D R O U T E S

our institutions are systemically dysfunctionalbecause of a propensity to travel and consolidatethe most travelled and visible routes in terms oforganization (hierarchies), business processes (bestpractices and winning models), communications(network effect), which are at the same time accu-mulative of power and robustness, and fragile because

they nurture monoculture and mass behaviour bydesign, accumulating risk as well. hierarchical structures are conceived for branch-ing out and consolidating exchanges along path-ways that solidify with time and size, as scale andactivity of each node empowers the higher eche-lons, accumulating resources and power. capitaland power have been steadily concentrating infewer hands since the beginning of the Seventies.This systematization and concentration bolsteroverexploitation, dominant positions and bureau-cratic paralysis in a self-reinforcing process.The fact that banks and global corporations,with the suppression of most limits on activitiesand concentration, have become too big to failand to jail is an illustration. Dominant positionsenable them to secure and reinforce their rightsand power over potential new entrants and sover-eign rules globally. global corporations have thepower for example to sue nation states to enforcetheir right to exploit natural resources under multi-lateral trade agreements (such as canadian gold mineagainst El Salvador under cafTa agreement), andbanks have the power to oppose restrictions (with theuK treasury suing the Eu on Banker’s bonus caps).intellectual property rights are expanded by attemptsto monetize increasing parts of the commons and pub-lic domain, such as water, the genome or seeds, soft-ware, which are forced and over-enforced on emergingbusinesses or countries. intellectual property is also usedto block the development of technologies susceptible todisrupt business models. cases of patent non-use for lit-igation purpose or technology suppression such StanleyMeyer’s water fuel cell abound. innovation is stifled inthe process, and the status quo based on extraction, cap-ture and toxic outcomes is maintained.communication follows a comparable pattern. its poten-tial massiveness and the speed at which it can scale, gainmomentum and trigger reactions, applied to cultures ofpeer reviewed expertise and reputation networks, wherethe largest network or the most famous and showcasedattract ever more members or audience, encourages theconvergence of behaviours towards the same most rec-ognized and travelled routes. as a result these routesremain the most travelled ones, pulling behavioursinto more normalization and sameness, and intodeceit when accumulated capital serves the protec-tion of special interests.

AN ECOLOGY OF TRANSFORMATIVE ACTIONAW A I T I N G T O B E D I S C O V E R E D

H E L E N E F I N I D O R I

E

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 5

Similarly, management recipes are over applied.focus is on the rate of application of models ratherthan outcomes, loosing track of why they were usedin the first place and ignoring possible unintendedconsequence and the associated socialization of risksand costs. ‘winning’ management models or invest-ment strategies that are taught as best practices in busi-ness schools around the world become the most trav-elled route also, systematized. This is how occasionalfinancial leverage (the use of debt to multiply gains)became permanent over-leverage that culminated in the2008 crisis, and how return on capital ratios invented toprioritize investments in post wwii periods of scarcecapital became the ultimate criterion for investment,encouraging short term wins through non productiveinvestments and speculative behaviours, and capitalizedfinancial returns. harvard Business School innovation management pro-fessor clayton christensen notes that companies over-focus on convergent innovation such as efficiency aimedat optimizing productivity in what already exists, whichin the short run frees capital, increases margins andboosts financial market performance. in the long runhowever, efficiency alone when not accompanied bydisruptive innovation tends to draw markets intoprice based competition, leading to diminished prof-its, thus undermining the very activity it is meant tomake more efficient. christensen deplores that somuch effort is dedicated to seeking above averagereturns on the financial markets to the detriment oflong-term investment in disruptive innovation, ina context where capital is particularly abundant. when corporations and investors massively operateon the basis of similar information and use similarmanagement models and investment decision cri-teria, it becomes increasingly difficult to make adifference other than by beating costs, throughrestructurings that are sometimes ‘imposed’ byactivist investors, or by beating the clock, inother words, by getting ‘there’ faster. a race epit-omized on the financial markets by high fre-quency trading, which is finally under criminalinvestigation. in this context divergent or disruptive innova-tion struggles to develop into viable forms not tomention scale, and the multitude of sustainablealternatives that emerge at the margin has diffi-culties to make itself visible. Paradoxically peer-to-peer and many-to-many interactions that weremeant to ‘liberate us’ from centralized power anddistribute innovation and opportunities are alsoaffected as the network effect tends to grow exist-ing networks rather than foster bridge-buildingbetween multiple networks, and multiple ad hocreassembling. The network effect works against the

‘long tail’ that internet was meant to provide accessto: the statistically insignificant possibilities underthe Pareto principle that are the less ‘visible’ oraccessible because they don’t constitute a criticalrecognized mass.... facebook and google contribute to ‘normaliza-tion’ and to preventing the long tail from beingfully visible as they tailor the display of user con-tent automatically to the users’ anticipatedexpectations based on their prior searches orbehaviours, reinforcing identities and what isalready known generating what is called confir-mation bias. and they keep the long tail forthemselves to monetize. They are the new win-ners of the game, using this systematization totheir advantage. Benefitting from the networkeffect that exponentially accelerates rates of sub-scription, they ‘own’ the network, accumulatingmembers and user-generated information thatthey sell as market intelligence, and as a result theygenerate huge profits with little capital intensity.By ‘owning the network’ they own the intelligenceof the crowd, which enables them better than any-one to anticipate trends and watch what emergesin the long tail. Their capital accumulation enablesthem to purchase new technology at unimaginableprices, as evidenced by the uSD 19 billion purchaseby facebook of whatsapp the smartphone chatapplication with 55 employees, zero revenue and 500million seers and its purchase of occulus a virtual realityheadset development not yet commercialized for twobillion dollars, in the face of its crowdfunders whohad proven the concept. Meanwhile, google is activelyacquiring robotic companies and seeking breakthroughsin artificial intelligence. will this intelligence turnagainst the majority of humans and serve the dominantfew, or will distributed collective intelligence prevail,and serve human development and thrivability? This isthe challenge at hand.

O V E R D O S E A N D O V E R S H O O T

our technologies, models and innovations are currentlymostly dedicated to reinforce feedback loops that are self-multiplying and self-reinforcing. These feedback loops aresources of growth, expansion, and abundance. But themore they are at work, the more they drive the system intoone direction at faster paces the momentum and course ofwhich is extremely difficult to change, turning abundanceinto overexploitation, making the system easier to gameand unresponsive to signals of overshoot, unable toengage in self-correction or meaningful disruptiveinnovation, powerless in the face of systemic risk andinstantaneously breakable by glitches or black swans.Just as a medicine becomes a poison when overdosed,

H E L E N E F I N I D O R I | A N E C O L O G Y O F T R A N S F O R M A T I V E A C T I O N | 6

best practices and winning mechanisms can becometoxic if abused.we are in the typical configuration described bySchumpeter three quarter of a century ago, predictingthe demise of capitalism from its own success, withmonopolies and giant corporations taking life out of thecapitalist process, oust-ing the small firms and‘expropriating’ its own-ers, and thus destroyingor tilting creativedestruction by under-mining its sociologicalfoundation based on theentrepreneur. for french economistThomas Piketty capital-ism is destroying itselfbecause capital accumu-lation became an end initself, reducing opportu-nities for entrepreneur-ship. for Piketty, the 20thcentury managed to dis-rupt accumulation ofwealth and power gapsbecause of wars and cri-sis. if we want to avoiddisruptions as catastroph-ic as we experienced inthe 20th century, the sys-temic reinforcing dynam-ics that accumulate riskat exponentially grow-ing paces, must be dis-rupted by real mean-ingful ongoing innova-tion in many domainsthat clearly contributesto humans’ and nature’s renewed thrivability. aprospect that the overwhelming majority ofhumanity is looking forward to, but doesn’tquite know how to bring about, trapped in thecrazy mechanics of the system.

T H E W O R L D I S A

C O M P L E X L I V I N G S Y S T E M

Beyond these dysfunctionalities, in its fundamen-tals, the world is a complex adaptable systemmade of natural and human ecosystems that oper-ate optimally with principles that help it take careof itself, in a stable and non volatile state at theedge of chaos, that is where complexity lies,between order and total randomness or chaos.

The complex adaptive system is formed by a mul-tiplicity of parts or agents in partnership workingindividually as whole local systems, with theirown organizations and rules, and operating atvarious integrative levels and scales, formingemergent nested wholes. individual wholes self-

organize and self-real-ize within their ownboundaries while beinginfluenced by each-other’s behaviours andby their changing envi-ronment, which theyinfluence in return.They cannot be totallycontrolled by exter-nal forces, only shapedand limited by them. Patterns of behavioursemerge – or arise – ineach part out of amultiplicity of interac-tions between agentsadapting their responsesto each other’s behav-iours. Emergent behav-iours initially invisibleoften appear into sightall at once, what wecall tipping points.They are often theonly thing visiblefrom parts or wholesor phenomena thatmay be hidden fromsight, the unknownthat brews under thesurface. as the num-ber of interactions

and types of behaviours increase in number, behavioursand their consequences are increasingly complex andunpredictable. Stability and integrity of a system are the result of con-tinuous successions of adaptive cycles of exploitation,conservation, release, and reorganization which takeplace at multiple levels and scales following differentrhythms, which arise internally and are externally influ-enced, creating emergent dynamics.The figure above illustrates the adaptive cycles of com-plex systems, or panarchy cycles. cycles of exploitationand conservation result in accumulation, the conditionfor the system’s efficiency and robustness. cycles ofrelease and reorganization result in what Schumpetercalled creative destruction, the conditions for the sys-tem’s resilience and renewal. at the individual level

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 7

this succession of cycles corresponds to life or cradle-to-cradle cycles. at the whole system’s level, theprocess of creative destruction is what (re)generatesvariability, or the diversity needed for periodic reshuf-fling within levels to maintain adaptive capability andopportunity, and for reorganization across levels tomaintain integrity ‘at the edge of chaos’. The process asa whole can be related to adam Smith’s invisible hand atwork… Both adam Smith and Schumpeter were some-what precursors of complex adaptive systems theory!in this context a sustainable system is one that has thecapacity to create, test and maintain adaptive capabilityas well as opportunity or potential for self-realization ofall its components, one that can ensure and maintainthe thrivability in time and the regenerative capacity ofthe parts and the whole. The renewed variability of the system is essential for thisprocess. reducing variability and diversity and ignoringthe interactions between all the human and naturalparts as systems themselves that compose the wider sys-tem create conditions that can cause it to switch into adegraded state controlled by unfamiliar processes…

L E V E R A G E P O I N T S

where and how, then, to intervene?Donella Meadows spent much time studying lever-age points, the places in complex adaptive systemswhere small shifts in one place can have verybroad effects. Meadows established a list of twelvetypes of leverage points by level of interventionand order of effectiveness. at the highest level,the most effective points, but also the most dif-ficult to change are psychological and cultural,related to the worldview and paradigm fromwhich a system arises. The goal of a system is the next most impor-tant leverage point from which all the othersderive, enabling the system to self-organizewithin its own boundaries. This includes thesystem’s rules, its accountability and correctionmechanisms, and the elements that help it gothrough its adaptive cycles, such as the struc-ture of the information flows that enable self-correction, the gains obtained from drivingreinforcing feedback loops, and the strengthsof balancing feedback loops relative the impactsthey are trying to correct against, with the delaysof reaction to change, that all have an effect onand are in return shaped by the interactions with-in the system, what is accumulated, how thingsflow, and the actual stocks, buffers and parametersof the system – such as infrastructures, resources,operative principles.

Meadows notes that leverage points are sometimescounterintuitive as the most obvious solutionsmay actually fail to produce the desired change.That is what we are observing here, stuck in anexploitative and conservative phase by a para-digm that focuses generally on driving gainsfrom reinforcing feedback loops epitomized bycredit based resource hungry growth and shortterm based capitalized revenue, with little focuson release and renewal, at least at the main-stream institutional level. The over-reactivity of the economy to instan-taneous news or events combined with theslow rates of change of institutional structuresand practices that are passing thresholds orlimits, are indeed a recipe for collapse. what was meant to accumulate opportunityfor the system as a whole to regenerate poten-tial for its individual parts to thrive in econom-ic, social and natural terms has morphed intoopportunity for concentration and accumula-tion of power and capital reinforcing dominantpositions of the few and accumulating of risk forthe whole. The fact that most of the adaptivecycle panarchy graphs now have capital in abscissaas the purpose of the exploitation and conserva-tion phase (goal of the system) where it used to bepotential, is noteworthy. re-focusing the goal of the system from the accu-mulation of capital and other factors of productionto the abundance of commons as factors of opportu-nities and regeneration for the thrivability and renewalof the system could serve as a medium for accelerat-ing the adoption of practices that address social, envi-ronmental and economic dimensions in a sustainable,cohesive and interconnected manner.

P O W E R P O L I T I C S

what is our margin of manoeuvre for change?This widening gap between the richer and the poorer ata global scale, the subsequent accumulation of power, thevisible effects of climate change, the volatility and specu-lative nature of the financial markets and unsustainableindustrial practices are starting to draw criticism from allcorners of the world and all strata of society. The successof Thomas Piketty’s capital in the 21st century thatexposes rising inequalities can attest it. The challenge isincreasingly recognized as one of political will andpower ascendency in political decision-making, includ-ing in the mainstream. whether at the uN, the worldeconomic forum, prominent economists, now start-ing in the media, more voices are denouncing theexcesses of a power elite that tilts the system to itsadvantage to continue and multiply the status quo,

H E L E N E F I N I D O R I | A N E C O L O G Y O F T R A N S F O R M A T I V E A C T I O N | 8

or who just benefits from the mechanical effects ofdynamics at play.when looking at how the social coupling betweencorporate and human life forms and the economiccoupling between economy and environment can beachieved for our complex system to thrive, Jack harichargues that all the ‘truths’ and solutions necessary tooperate these couplings already exist and are well knownbut that classical activism continuously fails to succeedbecause it deals poorly with the ultimate root cause ofchange resistance which is to be found in the effective-ness of political deceptiveness. accumulated wealth pro-vides the leverage and the means to invest massively onsimplified or false memes that make more complexmemes difficult to convey and grasp, and keep it thatway. Memes that favour the status quo and the self-mul-tiplication and self-reinforcement of self-multiplyingself-reinforcing loops are the ones that win in a race tothe bottom among politicians. we have seen this illus-trated with the recent further weakening of campaignfinance laws in the uS where the first amendment hasbeen invoked to justify the right to massively fund can-didates and advertise – including through negative andattack ads – during election campaigns: Money andpropaganda as freedom of expression! it seems we areon the way to touching the bottom of this race, as thedeception is increasingly coming into sight. Move-ments such as occupy wall Street have succeeded inmaking some inroads because the movement hasfocused on bringing to awareness these systemicaspects and leverage points rather than piecemealdemands. and the demands for separating moneyand politics and limiting paid campaign commu-nication in the uS is probably something thatcould start triggering virtuous loops by openingopportunities for more balancing policies andmainstream practices worldwide.concentrating innovation consciously on themechanisms of systemic change and leveragepoints, at all levels and scales and bringing allpotential change agents that sense the misdi-rection and fragility of the system on boardmay spur radical transformation.

A T T I T U D E S T O C H A N G E

Typical responses on how systemic change canoccur reflect the perspectives people have ontheir possible influence on the system and the‘forces’ at play. This is an area that deceptivememes can significantly affect.on the optimistic laissez faire side, there is anindefectible trust in the genius of mankind andtechnology, helped by the invisible hand of themarket, to naturally take us out of the predicament

we are in while keeping us in control. This form ofevolutionary change is part continuous on itshuman development aspects and part disruptivewith technology breakthroughs. without embed-ded balancing feedback loops, this would probablykeep us on the travelled and accumulative routes,expanding possibilities for hubristic heroes – bil-lionaires ‘on a mission’ – to preside over the sal-vation of the world. one can imagine that whenclimate change becomes ‘reality’, opportunitieswould arise for privately unilaterally deployedgeo-engineering solutions... on the pessimistic resigned side there is a senseof doom and helplessness in face of the magni-tude of the catastrophes that can fall upon us,disempowered by the belief that it is too late,that humans are driven by the impulses of theirgenes and therefore not responsible for theunforeseen consequences of their acts or that theyare cogs in a machine that crushes everything onits path. a mindset that actually serves the self-reinforcing patterns as it affects the capacity to actfor change and keeps reinforcing loops on theircurrent exponential trajectories towards self-fulfill-ing prophecies. This view expects total melt down.radical change, where the glimpse of salvation ifany occurs once we hit a bottom, or earlier it ishoped, with a massive wake-up call around which torally. here also, let’s not assume that this would cause amore enlightened renewal. as Naomi Klein describedin the Shock doctrine, catastrophes are often goodopportunities to secure more power. chaos often is thestart for totalitarian responses.The potential for continuous widespread disruptiveinnovation and radical change rests in the field ofchange agents or activists who are actively engagedand are taking things into their hands. The legions ofrealistic optimists of all types of backgrounds who per-ceive current dangers and the need for systemic change,even when they don’t really know what needs to bedone and how they can get involved. These are the oneswho need to be inspired, empowered and enabled.They observe and are aware of where the world is goingand they have the capacity to apply changes on theground everyday. active realistic optimists prefer not to assume that solu-tions will emerge on their own, neither do they considerthe perspective of a total breakdown as a negligibleremote probability. french philosopher Jean PierreDupuy’s ‘enlightened doomsaying’ approach, suggeststhat holding the possibility of a catastrophe credibleenables us to become more proactive and to chose,among all options available, those that will in the endpush the catastrophe away or make it acceptable... The challenge is to leverage agency and the capacityfor humans to engage and act wherever they may

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 9

find themselves, in a way which can cohesively steerthe system in a new direction to avoid the worst.

W I C K E D P R O B L E M S

The large open discussions i moderated or attended, inparticular those gathering systems thinkers from vari-ous backgrounds, revealed it was easy to agree on thesystemic nature of the challenge, the acceleration, accu-mulation, interconnection of multiple threats, thereduction of the variety and the need to intervene atmultiple levels and scales, the urgency and the need forcoordination. when it came to coordination however, itwas much more difficult to reach consensual agreementson causes, priorities, values, not to mention roles andresponsibilities or courses of action. we could acknowl-edge the existence of a variety of responses, share severalexamples, and even proposals, but unless there was someform of homogeneity of practice or worldview in thegroup, we were unable to construct a ‘common’ coordi-nated response, design a common vision of what thefuture would look like or agree on a framework, evenone that would accommodate a variety of responses. and this is not surprising, because the economic,social, environmental and political mess we are in is anintricacy of interconnected wicked problems, as ack-hoff, rittell and others have described them. Thecharacteristics of wicked problems among others arethat they cannot be formulated in a definitive waybecause there are many different perspectives of asame problem and different narratives to explainthem. There are multiple points of intervention asproblems can be symptoms of other problems.There are no right or wrong, true or false solu-tions. Solutions may be contradictory and involvetrade-offs. There is no history or proven practiceand expert knowledge to refer to, data is uncer-tain and often missing, and the best informationnecessary to understand the problems is distrib-uted in the contexts affected by the problem.angles of approach and solutions are multipleamong change agents and activists. The diversityof people, backgrounds, cultures, disciplines,information acquisition modes and cognitiveprocessing preferences, psychologies, worldviewsinfluence the point of entry into an issue, the‘direction’ of the process involved, the type ofoutcome sought out, and the level of interven-tion. what people say needs to change or thetypes of change they are engaged in amount to awhole universe of possibilities!Bellow is an illustration of how various paradigmsand main engagement and action logics that drivechange can be expressed in relation to the commonsas archetype, and the types of innovation that arisefor each of them.

These engagement and action logics clusters areinspired from Susanne cook greuter’s leadershipdevelopment framework and from Barrett Brown’swork on communicating with many worldviews.They reflect the affective, cognitive and behaviouraldimensions of what motivates people’s engagementand action choices, and therefore are descriptive ofperspectives and preferences, and modus operandiand not prescriptive. There is no ‘better’ actionlogic than another, or no need for people to evolvefrom one to another. all are ‘real’ and present asparticipatory collectives that each function withtheir own logic, organization and unity.

ENG AG EMENT LOG I C S ~ FAC I NG PAG E

N I C H E S A N D C L U S T E R S

change agents driven by their own engage-ment and action logics, linked to the paradigmout of which they would like the new system toarise, gather around the social objects they areattracted to, the leverage points they seek to actupon for effective results, which determine prior-ities and the pathways envisioned. These social objects are the nodes around whichemerging social movements converge and com-mon visions and praxis are shaped, forming clus-ters of cooperating specialized agents. That is wheremeaning is created and shared through languagesthat help us understand each other, where conversa-tions and repeated interactions are initiated, andfrom where new territories are explored. The action frameworks that are built or shaped frompractice to serve movements and communities providea context for co-individuation: the processes by whichidentities of individual and collective change agents areformed, transformed, and differentiated in relation toeach other and to the forces that hold people togetherand fuel their capacity to act and react to signals incohesive and effective ways. clusters grow and bound-aries expand with the arrival of new agents driven bysimilar engagement or action logics that create newopportunities for interaction and adaptation, allowingfor agents to co-evolve and for a system to innovatelocally, this is what makes diversity so important.at the same time however, as these frameworks create‘natural boundaries’ around clusters of cooperation or‘niches of action’ they become ‘exclusive’ of alternativeframeworks. This hinders relational dynamics and ourcapacity to collaborate across groups outside of ourdomains of action. as all niches have different opin-ions about the challenges the world is facing and theways to address them, each tries to convince others

H E L E N E F I N I D O R I | A N E C O L O G Y O F T R A N S F O R M A T I V E A C T I O N | 1 0

that they hold the best solutions and method-ologies, trying to ‘funnel’ all the other solutionsthrough their perspective.our territory of action as a whole is actually com-posed of islands that do not share the logic, themotivators and the narrative…

U N I T Y I N D I V E R S I T Y ?

as change agents, most of us acknowledge thecritical need for systemic change and for collective

intelligence and action, but we are facing a paradox.what seems to make us effective agents focusing onour respective domains of engagement and action isspecifically what prevents us from uniting and beingeffective as a whole. There is a tension between thetranscendent structures that coordinated action seemsto require and the immanent distributed nature ofagency. This structure versus agency debate is one ofthe greatest challenges for systemic change. in practice, attempts to organize a global response toa global challenge and unite ‘across islands’ are often

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 1 1

E N G A G E M E N T L O G I C S

GO I NG B AC K TO TH E SOURC E AND E S S E N T I A L S , A ND MOTH E R E A RTH

This manifests the cultural, mythical, sacred, spiritual dimensions of the commons and commoning. The commonslogic is expressed as replenishment, harmony, attunement, giving, communing with each other and nature, honouringall beings and life. Examples are found in the ancestral traditions of indigenous societies and movements inspiredfrom them, such as the Buen vivir and Pachama traditions of latin america, the spiritual teachings of the Nativeamericans and the aboriginal australians, traditional medicine and meditation practices. They usually intervene inconfrontation with modernism.

S E L F - P ROT E C T I NG L I V E L I HOOD S F I GHT I NG TH E S Y S T EM A S S U RV I VO R S O R H E RO E S

This manifests the empowering, enabling dimension and distributed nature of the commons. The commons logic isexpressed as generative of opportunity, autonomy and resilience. Examples are found in commons and peer-to-peeractivism, intellectual property activism, open source and open access movements, commons based peer productionand makers hackers movements, or new forms of co-working and entrepreneurship, relocalization, alternative cur-rencies. They usually intervene outside of and in opposition to institutional contexts.

C R E AT I NG L E G I T IM AC Y & S T EWA RD SH I P THROUGH GOV E RN ANC E & I N S T I T U T I ON S

This manifests the stewardship and governance dimensions of the commons. The commons logic is expressed asprotection of the commons through institutions, law & policy, ethics & governance, limits and boundaries. Exam-ples are found in conservation, human rights, justice & equity activism, right to access movements, global commonsactivism, or in polycentric or subsidiary forms of governance, commons governance forms, Pigowlian taxes, andopen government. They usually intervene at the global uN or national levels and in Ngo’s, political parties andunions contexts and may be under suspicion from the others as the concept of commons is easily co-optable.

S E E K I NG R AT I ON A L S O LUT I ON S & E F F I C I E N C I E S V I A N EW S T R AT EG I E S & MECHAN I SM S

This manifests sciences, technologies and ‘tools’ serving the commons. The commons logic is expressed throughmanagement and conservation/preservation technologies and models, new macro and micro economic models andpolicies, new organizational forms, governance and business models, integration of externalities, new indicators andmetrics. Examples are found in the conscious capitalism, circular regenerative economy approaches, clean technologiesand renewable energies. They usually intervene in the belly of the beast and may be under suspicion from the othersas the concept of commons is easily co-optable.

F O S T E R I NG EMOT I ON A L R E L AT I ON SH I P S B E TWE EN P EO P L E & W I TH NATUR E

This manifests the commons as social practice and outcome, the loving, caring, sharing, participatory, inclusive, con-sensual dimension of the commons. The commons logic is expressed as community involvement, social responsibility,learning, collaborative practices, practices of wellbeing. Examples are found in new forms of local communities andcommunities of practice such as transition towns or eco-villages, community agriculture, new forms of consumption,the gift and sharing economy, community currencies. They usually intervene at the local community level.

UND E R S TAND I NG S Y S T EM S & COMP L E X I T Y L I N K I NG TH EORY & P R AC T I C E

This manifests the systemic, dynamic and integrative aspects of the commons. The commons logic is embodied as asystem and process generative of opportunity and thrivability, interweaving contexts and development, and the cul-tural, natural and technological aspects. Examples are found in permaculture and bioregionalism, systems and designthinking and process methodology as well as capacity and leadership development, and in advanced dialoguemethodologies. They usually function transversally and integrate interventions at multiple levels and scales.

T R AN S FO RM I NG S E L F & OTH E R S I N T EG R AT I NG TH E MAT E R I A L , S P I R I T UA L , S O C I E TA L

This manifests commons as enlivenment, at the interplay of awareness, thought, action, and effect. The commonslogic is expressed as experience of wholeness of existence through mind and spirit, deep sense making and awarenessof systems interactions and dynamic processes requiring personal transformation. Examples are found in integral andspiritual movements, developmental psychology, grounded in evolutionary psychology. They usually intervene fromthe deepest introspective level to the widest cosmologic level.

associated with ideals of shared vision and discourse,and common structures meant to bring the vision toreality, such as common language and values, organiza-tional forms or systems of governance and action planswhich may be prescriptive and normative. Because ofthe specialization of agents and the non interchange-ability of engagement and action logics, these attemptsoften results in dilution of focus and therefore ofprospects, leaving all parties weakened and in delusion.alternatively they foster the adoption of ‘unifying’ ide-ologies, reductionist both in thinking and action in waysthat can ultimately put systems at risk and lead to totali-tarianism – back to square one, the travelled routes intosameness. Eventually they crystallize existing contradic-tions and perpetuate conflicts between solutions or alter-natives. Something occupy and other recent self-orga-nized movements have worked to overcome, avoidingaction plans and demands, with some success but alsoshortcomings, in particular as far as being able to under-stand each other ‘across islands’, particularly when notspeaking the same ‘language’.

A N E C O L O G Y F O R

T R A N S F O R M A T I V E A C T I O N

The legions of change agents already busy interven-ing on a variety of leverage points or ready to bemobilized form an ecology for transformativeaction, with its multiple niches and clusters, adap-tive and generative processes, patterns of relation-ships, and capacities for co-evolution. They aredistributed within the wider system where theyhave the potential to drive systemic change andhuman development. The critical point is forthese distributed and locally organized efforts tocoalesce in order to change the feedbacks andinformation structures of the system and itscapacity for renewal so that the system cantake care of itself in a healthy way. in the changing image of man report publishedin 1973, a team of researchers from Stanforduniversity established that cultural transforma-tions historically occurred with the presence ofa strong image to embody change and crystal-lize imagination and action toward new visionsof the world. They suggested that such inform-ing image would need to provide a holistic senseand perspective on life, entail an ecological ethic,entail a self-realization ethic, be multileveled,multifaceted, and integrative, lead to a balancingand coordinating satisfactions along many dimen-sions, be experimental and open-ended. Thisdescribes well the characteristics of an ecologyfrom which transformative action and a transfor-mative image can emerge.

The changing image of man approach however,just as many approaches based on developmentalpsychology or vertical development, make a con-ceptual case based on evolutionary predicamentsand consciousness development – and thereforeparadigm shift – as a goal, assuming that tran-scending our levels of consciousness and theorder of complexity from which we developand apply solutions is necessary before engag-ing into effective change. in other words theypostulate that people need to change them-selves before they can change the system. The model i suggest here is founded on thecoexistence and complementarity of the positivecomponents within each paradigm, and at eachlevel of consciousness and perception of com-plexity. it focuses on the immediate operationalcapacity and the existing capabilities of the ‘effi-cacious agents’, and on the conditions underwhich they can leverage the potential for changein their own context, each brushing a stroke ofthe impressionistic changing image of man whilebringing a stone to the systemic change process ina co-evolutionary way. By construction, it includesthe vertical development models.human development is as much an emergentproperty of the collective/aggregated application ofagency through praxis and the outcome of changeitself, as it is a prerequisite for change. There is afeedback loop at work here also.looking at the universe of possibilities for interventionand innovation as an ecology for transformative actionenables to envision change and problem solving not asa transcendent, centralized or controllable process thatencompasses sets of critical and prioritized componentsand leverage points into one master plan or framework,but as an immanent distributed self-directed and self-renewable one composed of myriads of master plans andframeworks that complement each other.

A C H I E V I N G C O H E R E N C E : T H EU N D E R L Y I N G L O G I C

ann Pendleton-Jullian describes ecosystems of changeas scaffold to aggregate the different kinds of powersand mechanisms that are out there, and support theemergence of the new until it becomes strong enough toaffect power structures. She suggests a new type ofmetanarrative. Something strategically ambiguoustowards which to head despite our differences, and thatcan draw coherence from a variety of disparate micronarratives that shape events and build trust at thegrassroots level. for process philosopher Bonnitta roy, the unifyingprinciple or metanarrative would need to increase

H E L E N E F I N I D O R I | A N E C O L O G Y O F T R A N S F O R M A T I V E A C T I O N | 1 2

the diversity of the system. it must not try to tran-scend and resolve differences, but it must preserveand add to them. The unifying principle would beunderlying, not overarching, and act an undertow fortransformative action.There’s a universal aspect to what drives social move-ments around the globe even if we cannot clearlytranslate it in comparable terms across practices andlanguages. Much of what these movements are cur-rently engaged in is dedicated in a form or another toprotecting the environment, people and resources fromenclosure, over-exploitation and abuse, and to generat-ing opportunity for thrivability in various forms. Typically, activist interventions focus on the preventionof overshoot and collapse due to the current accumula-tive feedback loops that generate losses rather than gainsfor the system as a whole in multiple domains. There isalso significant activity and creativity on disruptive inno-vation, oriented towards the release and renewal phasesof the adaptive cycles that enable the system to reorga-nize so that resources are regenerated and remain acces-sible and opportunities remain healthily distributedand renewed, as these successions of adaptive cyclescannot take place naturally on their own in the currentstate of things. This proceeds from Buckminsterfuller’s maxim that you never change things by fight-ing the existing reality. To change something, build anew model that makes the existing model obsolete.as a whole, what drives movements for change con-nects to the commons as archetype – a collectivelyinherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought,image, etc… universally present in individualpsyches. commons in their widest definitionsare embodied in the timeless (re)generative sys-tems that humanity shares to protect, care forand renew resources and opportunities for self-realization and thrivability. They encompass theobjects of care and factors of opportunity andlivelihood, the participatory processes andpractices that enable this caring, and the out-comes and ‘common good’ that result fromthese practices, which become in turn objectsof care and factors of opportunity. in theirmany shapes and manifestations, all need to beprotected, nurtured and renewed. The commons logic is one of protection andaccumulation of factors of opportunity andrenewal for the regeneration of the system (versusconservation and accumulation of factors of pro-duction), mindful of limits and boundaries,which manifests itself as system goal in multipleforms and languages, through different action log-ics, understandings and symbolic representations. The commons logic is versatile enough as underly-ing logic to guide action at various levels and scales,

and tangible enough in operational terms to beexpressed in the form of a pattern language andbuilding blocks that can help existing movementson the ground articulate their own understandingand representation and express converging systemgoals and leverage points accordingly. Such pat-tern language can also serve as vetting system toassess the impact of social change initiatives andsustainability policies and practices and helpoperate inescapable trade-offs, so that peoplewithin mainstream institutions trying to instilother logics into the system can do so in moreconfidence that their efforts would not be neu-tralized or co-opted.Each change agent or movement for changeholds a piece of the response to the wicked prob-lems we are confronted to. The commons logichas the potential to bring the pieces together,aggregating disparate efforts, strategies and narra-tives on the ground as a scaffold for a new systemgoal and dominant paradigm to emerge and steerthe system in a new direction, with no prescriptiveor algorithmic orchestration.if movements, change agents and innovationbased communities could describe the reality andthe phenomena they observe on the ground, andlearn to distinguish in the perspectives of otherswhat is different from their own, if they could dis-cover and travel within the landscape of transfor-mative action, and mutually recognize their coexis-tence, the common ground and potential synergies,then they wouldn’t need to ‘bargain’ a middle groundor a synthesis. Just by acknowledging differences andby learning to discover what they don’t know, naturalchannels would open up through which understand-ing can flow and things (including agreement) canhappen. The awareness that they would gain wouldresult in positive feedback loops reinforcing their ownaction and that of the whole towards a shift, providingforms of orientation that can help decision and action,and improve multi-stakeholder dialog and conflict reso-lution along the way.

8

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

aNDErSEN, c. (2004). “The long Tail”, <http://wrd.cm/1paQQsv>[retrieved 25 april 2014].

BaN Ki-MooN (2011). “Secretary-general’s remarks to theworld Economic forum Session on redefining Sustain-able Development”, < http://bit.ly/QhnjoQ > [retrieved25 april 2014].

BarKEr, a. (2013). “george osborne takes Eu to courtover bank bonus cap”, < http://on.ft.com/1lf4MEa >[retrieved 25 april 2014].

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 1 3

BauwENS, M. & KoSTaKiS, v. (2014). “Network Societyand future Scenarios for a collaborative Economy”,<http://bit.ly/1rvxkvu> [retrieved 25 april 2014].

BEBEar, c. & MaNièrE, P. (2003). ils vont tuer le capital-isme (Paris: Plon).

BrowN, B. (2005). “integral communications for Sustain-ability”, Kosmos Journal iv(2): 17-20.

chriSTENSEN, c. (2012). “a capitalist’s Dilemma, whoeverwins on Tuesday”, the new york times, <http://nyti.ms/1mJvaNd > [retrieved 25 april 2014].

cooK-grEuTEr S. (2002). “a Detailed Description of theDevelopment of Nine action logics adapted from EgoDevelopment Theory for the leadership Developmentframework”, < http://bit.ly/1hzfr9c > [retrieved 25 april2014].

DuPuy, J.P. (2005). “The Precautionary Principle and Enlight-ened Doomsaying: rational choice Before The apoca-lypse”, < http://stanford.io/1gzcskK > [retrieved 25 april2014].

fiNiDori, h. (2012). “we Move… Building an Ecology forTransformative action”, < http://slidesha.re/1hzhBzj >[retrieved 25 april 2014].

——. (2013). “federating efforts towards a thriving world. howto make it happen?”, <http://slidesha.re/1kex4Jy> [retrieved25 april 2014].

——. (2014). “an Ecology of Transformative action & Sys-temic change”, <http://slidesha.re/1kex4Jy> [retrieved24 May 2014].

haNacEK, J. (2014). “Beyond Network feudalism”, <http://huff.to/1mNj3ll > [retrieved 25 april 2014].

harich, J. (2011). “analysis of the change resistanceSubproblem”, < http://bit.ly/1in5v7Q > [retrieved 25april 2014].

hollaND, J.h. (2012). Signals and boundaries: buildingblocks for Complex adaptive Systems (cambridge,Ma: MiT Press).

holliNg, c.S. & guNDErSoN, l.h. (2002). Panarchy:understanding transformations in Human and nat-ural Systems (washington, Dc: island Press).

iNTErNaTioNal alliES agaiNST MiNiNg iN El Sal-vaDor (2013). “open letter To The President ofThe world Bank in Defense of El Salvador” <http://bit.ly/1lSbjuk > [retrieved 25 april 2014].

McKiNSEy & coMPaNy. (2014). “Disruptive entre-preneurs: an interview with Eric ries”, <http://bit.ly/1injmKQ > [retrieved 25 april 2014].

MEaDowS, D.h. (1997). “leverage Points: Places tointervene in a System” < http://bit.ly/1rsfidv >[retrieved 25 april 2014].

MoriN, E. (2011). la Voie: Pour l’avenir de l’Human-ité (Paris: fayard).

PENDlEToN-JulliaN a. (2012). “Power and Ecossys-tems of change”, < http://bit.ly/1inncEh >[retrieved 25 april 2014].

PiKETTy, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty first Century(cambridge, Ma: The Belknap Press of harvarduniversity Press).

riTTEl, h. & MElviN w. (1973). “Dilemmas in ageneral Theory of Planning” in Policy Sciences: 155-169 (amsterdam: Elsevier).

roy, B. (2009). “The shape of human action”, <http://bit.ly/1pB9EbM > [retrieved 25 april 2014].

——. (2013). “The Magellan courses an experiment inself-organizing, co-creative transformative education”,< http://bit.ly/1ilvgiu > [retrieved 25 april 2014].

SchuMPETEr, J. (1947). Capitalisme, socialisme et démocra-tie (Paris: Payot).

STiEglEr B. (2010). “Transindividuation. conversa-tion between Bernard Stiegler and irit rogoff”, <http://bit.ly/1gzJf4k > [retrieved 25 april 2014].

STigliTz J.E. & hENry, c. (2010). “intellectual Proper-ty, Dissemination of innovation and SustainableDevelopment” in Global Policy 1(3).

a b

H E L E N E F I N I D O R I | A N E C O L O G Y O F T R A N S F O R M A T I V E A C T I O N | 1 4

e Visitation (detail).

Andreas Wittel is Senior Lec-turer at the School of Arts andHumanities, NottinghamTrent University (UK). Pre-viously, Research Officer atthe Centre for CulturalStudies, Goldsmiths College

(1998-2000), and at the Institutfür Arbeitswissenschaft, Univer-

sity of Bochum (1996-98). He holdsa PhD in Social Sciences at the Univer-

sity of Tübingen. Originally he comes from a German culturalstudies background where he has specialised in a series of ethno-graphic explorations of work, industry, and organisations. Withhis move to the UK his research shifted towards media studiesand the creative industries. His current research interest couldbroadly be described as work toward a political economy ofdigital media. It refers to topics such as peer production; non-market production of cultural objects; free culture; intellectu-al property; value; free labour; the digital commons; ethicsand practices such as openness, sharing and collaboration;the politics of anonymity and surveillance; gift economiesand economies of contribution.

1 ~ C O M M O D I F I C A T I O N

ommoDIFICAtIon IS A term tHAt DeSCrIBeS

the transformation of something, a good ora service that does not have an exchangevalue, into a commodity, into somethingthat can be bought and sold on the market.

Before this transformation, the commodity mighthave been a public good or a common good, orsomething that did not have any property relationsat all. Commodification is a process that origi-nates with, and is driven by, capitalist economies.Commodification turns gifts into commodities. Itturns both material things (objects) and immaterialthings (services) into goods with a very specificand measurable value. In social theory, the commodification process hasreceived much attention from both marxist andnon-marxist commentators. ere seems to be abroad consensus that commodification is a fact,the capitalist market has become increasingly pow-erful, pervasive and hegemonic, the logic of thecapitalist market colonises and destroys the logic ofcommunity, and that the market swallows moreand more areas and aspects of life that hitherto havenot been regulated by monetary measurement and

monetary exchange. We find first theorisations ofthis view in the work of Lukács (1967, first pub-lished in 1923), Polanyi (2001, first published 1944)and Debord (1994, first published in 1967), andmore recently in the work of Wolfe (1989), Jame-son (1991), Giddens (1998), rift (2000), Gude-man (2001), Harvey (2005, 2007), Hochschild (1983,2003, 2012), Illouz (2007), Boltanski and Chiapello(2007), Zelizer (1994, 2007), and many others.In the neo-liberal age the process of commodi-fication has expanded considerably. But it hasalso turned severely sour. It has become bothmore brutal and more absurd. In this article, Iwish to argue that this might not be just anotherstage, it might be the final stage of commodityglorification. It might be the moment wherecommodification is reaching a dead end. ere are not that many things left that have notbeen commodified. Furthermore, the pathologiesthat are produced by a commodified world arebecoming increasingly obvious. When capital replaceshuman relationships, houses which could shelter thehomeless remain empty, food which could feed thosewho are starving rots in silos, care, love and friendshipare replaced by services, trust gets replaced by qualitycontrol, connectedness is replaced by a network social-ity, and the diktat of measurement transforms whatev-er was unique at some point into modular buildingblocks that become comparable, exchangeable andreplaceable. If everything can be bought the gift loses itsvalue. If everything can be bought human relationshipslose their value. It is common sense that this is not adesirable future. Arguing from a geopolitical perspectiveHarvey (2010: 217) makes a similar point:

What spaces are left in the global economy for new spa-tial fixes for capital surplus absorption? China and the ex-Soviet bloc have already been integrated. South andsouth-east Asia are filling up fast […] What new lines ofproduction can be opened up to absorb growth? […] Atsome point quantitative changes lead to qualitative shiftsand we need to take seriously the idea that we may be atexactly such an inflexion point in the history of capital-ism. Questioning the future of capitalism itself as an ade-quate social system ought, therefore, to be in the fore-front of current debates.

It is obviously impossible to back up a claim such asthe end of commodification with any evidence.

O N T H E F U T U R E D E V E L O P M E N TO F T H E D I G I T A L C O M M O N S A N D T H E N E E D

O F A G L O B A L B A S I C I N C O M E

C

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N N O V A T I O N [ H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T | 1 5

A N D R E A S W I T T E L

is is the territory of prognosis. however, i wantto offer more than pure speculation or wishfulthinking. i would like to develop two argumentsthat demonstrate why the process of commodifica-tion might indeed be hitting the wall. e first isabout digital technologies and the crisis of capitalistproduction. it is about the classic Marxian argumentabout the internal contradictions of capitalism. esecond argument, which really is at the core of thisarticle, is about the digital commons as an emergingprocess of countercommodification.

2 ~ D I G I T A L T E C H N O L O G I E S

A N D T H E E N D O F W O R K

for Karl Marx, capitalism is characterised by an inherentconcentration of capital. e accumulation of capitalcreates competition, which in turn leads to monopolies,the concentration of means of production in the handsof fewer and fewer producers, and more generally to theconcentration of wealth. e more capital becomesconcentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer capital-ists, the less the working classes can afford to buy thegoods they produce. ultimately the growing polarisa-tion of the class structure produces social instabilityand class struggle. is analysis is famously known aswhat Marx calls the inherent contradictions of capital-ism. ere is also an inherent contradiction betweenthe forces of production (the tools and technologies,but also the knowledge and the organisation oflabour that are used for the production of goods)and the social relations of production (the classstructure, the distinction between those who ownthe means of production and those who do not).is is about the consequences of technologicalinnovation. in a nutshell the argument goes like this: inno-vations in science and technology increase pro-ductivity. But they also replace labour power –at least to some extent. Technological innova-tions throw people out of work. Marx writesabout a ‘disposable industrial reserve army,which belongs to capital quite as absolutely as ifthe latter had bred it at its own cost’ (Capital,vol. 1, chap. 25). as technological innovationsdo not create surplus value, the replacement oflabour power with machinery leads ultimately toa decline in the profit rate.recently, Kliman (2012) published an analysis ofthe underlying causes of the contemporary crisis.he argues against the conventional wisdom thatthis is a crisis of financialisation or a crisis of neolib-eral capitalism. Marx’s law of the tendential fall inthe rate of profit is at the heart of Kliman’s argu-ment. his analysis of statistical data demonstrates that

capitalist economies never fully recovered from therecessions of the mid-1970s and early 1980s. in fact, hehas gathered an overwhelming set of data to supporthis claim. e rate of profit did indeed decline afterthe post–world war ii boom. Kliman argues thatthere is no such thing as good capitalism, whichneeds to be protected against bad capitalism:us the contradiction within capitalism and theeffects of the contradiction do not stem from anyparticular form of capitalism, and they cannot beovercome by replacing one particular form of thesystem with a different one. To overcome them, itis necessary to do away with capital, which requires,as we see, doing away with commodities and theproduction of commodities. (Kliman 2012: 27).

if Marx is right and technological innovationhas the tendency to save wage labour, then wemust get seriously worried if we apply this logicto digital technologies. castells (1996) was prob-ably among the first theorists to outline howdigital technologies fundamentally transformwork and society. Digital technologies providethe basis of what castells calls the informationage. what characterises the current technologicalrevolution is not the centrality of knowledge ofinformation, but the application of such knowledgeand information to knowledge generation and infor-mation processing/communication devices in acumulative feedback loop between innovation and theuses of innovation (1996: 31).it is this relation between knowledge and informa-tion on the one hand and digital technologies on theother hand and their feedback loops, which has pro-duced technological change at such, an acceleratedpace. castells argues that in the digital age, informa-tion is becoming a product. So the fundamental dif-ference between industrialism and informationalism isthat now all industrial sectors (agriculture, manufac-turing, the service industry, finance) operate with digi-tal technologies. us, if technological innovation haslabour-saving effects, digital technologies are capable ofproducing labour-saving effects on an enormous andunprecedented scale as these technologies are now atthe very heart of all productive activities.in a recent study, Brynjolfsson and Mcafee (2011) explorethe exact impact of digital technologies on productivity,employment and wages, analysing statistical data aboutjobs growth in the uSa. is is a rigorous analysis, with aconvincing conclusion that rejects conventional explana-tions about the rise of unemployment such as cyclicalityor stagnation and puts forward instead an ‘end of work’argument. e end of work argument, developed byrifkin in a book with the same title, makes a case for adevelopment in capitalist economies ‘in which fewerand fewer workers will be needed to produce thegoods and services for the global population’ (rifkin

A N D R E A S W E T T E L | O N T H E F U T U R E D E V E L O P M E N T O F D I G I T A L C O M M O N S | 1 6

1995, quoted in Brynjolfsson and Mcafee 2011: 6).is, they argue, is a direct consequence of the rapidprogress in the development of digital technologies.Brynjolfsson and Mcafee make a compelling caseabout the rapid inroads of computers. referring toexponential developments in artificial intelligence, theydemonstrate how pervasive and unexpected innova-tions in the development of computers turned out tobe. Translation programmes and fully automated carsthat perform in traffic without any human involvementare good examples to support this case. Brynjolfsson andMcafee make similar claims about innovations in med-ical diagnostics and voice recognition. increasingly com-puters are able to demonstrate skills and abilities thatused to belong exclusively to humans. ‘of course, theseare only a small sample of myriad iT-enabled innovationsthat are transforming manufacturing, distribution, retail-ing, media, finance, law, medicine, research, manage-ment, marketing, and almost every other economic sec-tor and business function’ (22). lanier (2013) makes asimilar argument and hits home the message with somecompelling figures. Kodak, says lanier, employed140,000 people, instagram employs just 13.So how is it possible that innovations in digital tech-nologies have accelerated on such an unprecedentedscale, while incomes are stagnating or even declining?Brynjolfsson and Mcafee see a clear correlationbetween technological innovations and disappearingjobs. ey also see a correlation between growingproductivity and growing inequality. ‘recent tech-nological advances have favoured some skill groupsover others, particularly “superstars” in many fields,and probably also increased the overall share ofgDP accruing to capital relative to labour’ (51). it isthe feedback loops between the production ofknowledge and information on the one hand andinformation processing software on the otherhand which are so crucial for castells that makedigital technologies ever-more pervasive, createunimaginable accelerations in technological inno-vations and lead at the same time to a decline inemployment and an acceleration of inequality.while i am far from claiming that technologicaldevelopment is the only cause for the currentcrisis of capitalism, it is certainly one importantfactor and a factor that is often neglected bythose who focus on finance and neo-liberal capi-talism. it is also important to emphasise that thedecline in employment is not a decline in labourin general, but merely a decline in wage labour.ere is enough work for everybody. unemploy-ment is not caused by (digital) technologies, it iscaused by capital, by the use of technology in avery specific political economy and a very specificorganisation of work. is brings me to my second

argument regarding why we might not exactly be‘living in the end times’ (Žižek 2011), but perhapsmore hopefully, in the end times of an increasinglycommodified world.

3 ~ T H E D I G I T A L C O M M O N S A S

C O U N T E R - C O M M O D I F I C A T I O N

e realm of production is where social inequali-ties are clearly revealed and, moreover, where themost effective resistances and alternatives toEmpire arise. (hardt and Negri 2000: xvii) obvi-ously there is no such thing as commodity deter-minism. like all processes, resistance and thesearch for alternatives have accompanied theprocess of commodification. Not everybody seekshappiness through purchasing power, appreciatesa branded life, likes celebrity culture, and valuescommodities more than social relationships.Not everybody gives in to the pressures thataccelerate commodification. is has always beena contested field and a field of struggle. in everyperiod in the history of capitalism, the processes ofcommodification have been accompanied by socialpractices of counter-commodification such as thelate 1960s counter-culture or the back-to-naturemovements at the turn of the twentieth century.while these processes of counter-commodificationhave articulated a powerful critique of capitalism,they were never strong enough to develop alternativepractices that pose a serious threat to capitalism.over the last three decades, the digital commons, anew movement and space of counter-commodification,has emerged and continuously gained in strength. iwant to argue that the digital commons is not just anyother disruption of the process of commodification, it isthe field of a fierce struggle over the future of the internetand the future of capitalism. it is potentially the momentthat pushes back the frontiers of measurement, value andquantification towards qualities, values and an expansionof the gift economy.e commons refers to natural and cultural resources thatare shared by a community of commoners. ese resourcesare not privately owned, they are owned and shared by thecommunity of commoners. ese resources can be suchdifferent things such as land, language, music or software.ey are either created or administered by the common-ers. Every commons consists of three elements: 1) peoplewho share the commons (the commoners), 2) resourcesthat are being shared, and 3) a normative framework thatsets out how the common resources should be created,shared, maintained and developed further. underesti-mating this normative framework and the possibilities ofestablishing rules that are accepted by all commonersmight have been the crucial weakness in hardin’s (1968)

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 1 7

analysis of the tragedy of the commons. his arguments,which have been highly influential over several decadesand which were used by neoliberal politicians to trans-form various commons into private property, are rootedin an assumedly unsolvable conflict between the individ-ual interests of the commoners on the one hand and theinterests of the commoning community on the otherhand. for hardin, the individual interests of the common-ers tend to destroy the common good eventually.however, hardin did not take into account that thecommoners are able to communicate, establish norma-tive frameworks and to manage possible conflicts overindividual interests in a productive way. Much of thepolitical economy of Elinor ostrom is dedicated to thisissue. her work, which received the Nobel Prize for eco-nomics in 2009, inspects the governance of a great num-ber of commons in the material world (land, air, water,etc.) that achieve sustainability and avoid destruction.without getting into too much detail, ostrom (1990)argues that a range of principles needs to be in place forthe commons to function properly. i want to mentiontwo of these principles. firstly, any commons in thematerial (natural) world has to establish a set of rules.Secondly, those who do not obey to these rules haveto be sanctioned by the community of commoners. over the last few years, the commons has had anenormous revival. Surely this is also a consequence ofostrom’s work, but it has a lot do to do with theastonishing rise of the digital commons. e digitalcommons does not refer to the material world andthe realm of nature, but to the immaterial worldand the realm of culture. it refers to ‘results ofsocial production that are necessary for socialinteraction and further production, such asknowledges, languages, codes, information,affects, and so forth’ (hardt and Negri 2009: xiii).it does not refer to things that are already thereused and maintained by humans (e.g. the land),but to things that are being created. it refers, asdiscussed ahead in more detail, to immateriallabour. furthermore, the digital commons refersto those areas of the internet that are not builton market production. is is a new form ofproduction, which Benkler (2006) calls variably‘non-market production’ or ‘social production’or ‘commons-based peer production’.he has coined these terms to describe a newmodel of socio-economic production, in whichlarge numbers of people work towards commongoals without any financial compensation for thosewho contribute to the common good. e digitalcommons is an internet repository of code, infor-mation, knowledge, and culture that is collectivelyproduced and freely available to everybody whowants to use or modify these resources. while the

digital commons is often associated with the socialweb (for very good reasons though), it has emergednearly two decades earlier with the rise of hackercultures. it started in the 1980s with free softwareand the open-source movement. But it haswidened and accelerated on an astonishing scaleonly during the last decade, with the emergence ofthe social web. it has spread from the peer pro-duction of software and code to text, sound,images, and moving images, with wikipedia,wikileaks, Pirate Bay and the creative com-mons as some of their iconic websites.e digital commons consists of a multitude ofinternet-based commons such as the softwarecommons, news commons, information com-mons, knowledge commons, art commons,entertainment commons and many more. edigital commons does not have do deal with theproblems outlined by hardin. ere is no con-flict between the interests of individual common-ers and the interests of the community of all com-moners. is is due to the nature of the resourcesthat are being shared. Material things being sharedbecome reduced. an apple being shared betweentwo people leaves each of them with half of an appleonly. e more people share a house the smaller thehouse gets for everyone. e sharing of digital thingsdoes not reduce these things, but multiplies them. afile being shared with others becomes many files. fora more in-depth analysis of the qualities of sharing inthe digital age see wittel (2011). clearly, hardin’sassumed conflict between individual commoners andthe community at large does not make much sense inthe digital world.ere is another conflict, however, that needs to be theo-rised carefully – the conflict between the practices ofcounter-commodification by the community of digitalcommoners and capital’s attempt to capture the digitalcommons. is is a struggle about open access to digitalresources, access to knowledge, copyright and intellectualproperty, the freedom to connect with others without sur-veillance and data mining, and about capital’s push for newlaws and policies such as anti-counterfeiting Trade agree-ment (acTa), Stop online Piracy act (SoPa), and Pro-TEcT iP act (PiPa) to restrict the digital commons. is is afierce struggle indeed, and the case of Julian assange, thelawsuits against activists such as Bradley Manning andJeremy hammond, as well as the suicide of aaronSchwartz are personal testimonies of what is at stake.‘what is possible in the information age is in direct con-flict with what is permissible,’ writes Kleiner (2010: 7):e non-hierarchical relations made possible by a peernetwork such as the internet are contradictory withcapitalism’s need for enclosure and control. it is a battle

A N D R E A S W E T T E L | O N T H E F U T U R E D E V E L O P M E N T O F D I G I T A L C O M M O N S | 1 8

to the death; either the internet as we know it mustgo, or capitalism as we know it must go.

obviously this is a rather simplified analysis whichdoes not take into account the various developmentsand forms of co-operation and new models andarrangements between both sides. Nevertheless, it is apointed and condensed outline of the political economyin the age of digital media and distributed networks.ere is a technology that opens up new productiveforces, there is a political-economic system with estab-lished relations of production. ere is struggle betweenthose who want to conserve existing relations of produc-tion and those who attempt to overcome them. andthere is an indication of how to create a better world.could the digital commons teach us how to think aboutsociety at large?over the last decade, the digital whirlwind has createdhavoc in the so-called creative industries. Non-marketproduction is now competing with cultural goods pro-duced for a market. however, the threat that the non-market production of the digital commons poses tomarket production does not have to be limited to copy-right industries only (music, film, publishing, software,etc.). as explained earlier, digital technologies are nowembedded in all productive activities. erefore thedigital commons has the potential to disrupt marketproduction on a much broader scale, deeply affectingsectors such as finance or manufacturing. we canalready see the seeds of such developments in variousopen manufacturing projects as well as in peer-lend-ing initiatives and new digital currencies such as Bit-coin. undeniably the digital commons has an enor-mous potential as a space of counter-commodifi-cation. at the same time, this is a rather fragile andvulnerable space. To understand this, we need toexplore in more detail the notion of free labour.we also need to explore the rather specific politi-cal economy of the digital commons.

4 ~ F R E E L A B O U R ?

e free labour debate has been initiated byautonomist Marxists close to the italian operais-mo School. it is connected to the writings ofMaurizio lazzarato and Michael hart and anto-nio Negri on immaterial labour, which is situatedwith the turn towards a post-fordist mode of pro-duction and its related processes such as the trans-formations in the organisation of work (the organi-sation of the labour process), the production ofsubjectivity and social relations in work environ-ments, and biopolitical capitalism where capital ulti-mately captures life. immaterial labour is both intel-lectual labour and affective labour.

e concept of immaterial labour is inspired by afew pages in the grundrisse, where Marx (1973)writes about wealth creation and the production ofvalue which is increasingly independent of labour:(T)he creation of wealth comes to depend less on labourtime and on the amount of labour employed […] butdepends rather on the general state of science and on theprogress of technology […] labour no longer appearsso much to be included within the production process;rather the human being comes to relate more as watch-man and regulator to the production process itself […]it is, in a word, the development of the social individ-ual which appears as the great foundation-stone of pro-duction and of wealth (Marx 1973: 704f.).

according to Marx, at some stage in the devel-opment of capitalism, knowledge, technology,and the general intellect firstly become somehowdecoupled from labour and secondly replacelabour as the source for the creation of value.ese observations in the grundrisse sit uneasywith Marx’s (1996) analysis in capital, vol. 1,where he develops the labour theory of value andcategorically insists that labour is the only sourcefor the creation of exchange value. it is not hard tosee why these pages in the grundrisse become socrucial for the concept of immaterial labour.Terranova (2004) is perhaps the first theorist whothoroughly engaged with the concept of freelabour. in an essay, which was first published in2000, before the arrival of the social web, beforewikipedia and social media platforms, she conceptu-alises free labour as the “excessive activity that makesthe internet a thriving and hyperactive medium” (73).is includes “the activity of building web sites, modi-fying software packages, reading and participating inmailing lists and building virtual spaces” (74). consis-tent with the operaismo discourse on immateriallabour, she situates the emergence of free labour withpost-fordism. “free labour is the moment where thisknowledgeable consumption of culture is translated intoexcess productive activities that are pleasurablyembraced and at the same time often shamefullyexploited” (78).undoubtedly the ‘free labour’ concept has proven to behighly productive for an illumination of new develop-ments in the social web. it is one of the key challenges indigital capitalism to rethink labour for those humanactivities that blossom outside wage-based relations.however, the concept suffers from a severe lack of ana-lytical rigour. Elsewhere i have argued that the fre-quent pairing of free labour with both exploitationand alienation is rather unsubstantiated. e claimthat free labour is being exploited by capital has neverbeen convincingly supported, either with any empiri-cal evidence or with a plausible theoretical argument

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 1 9

(wittel 2012). here, i want to focus on the problemof free in free labour. or to be more specific, on thenotion of free labour as unpaid labour.it is usually assumed that free labour is labour that isnot financially compensated. ings are more compli-cated, however. e digital commons is createdthrough a variety of forms of labour with respect tocross-subsidisation. let us look at the production ofopen-source code. ere is a growing tendency towardsthe funding of open-source projects by companies suchas iBM’s support of the linux foundation with subsidiesand the financial support of some linux developers. fur-thermore, it is important to point out that an open-source software developer is usually not a shopkeeper dur-ing the day, who starts producing code in her spare time.e overwhelming majority of open-source programmersare employed programmers, who work for software com-panies. often, open-source code is produced anyway butthen made available to the open-source community(weber 2004). So the labour that goes into the develop-ment of open-source software is often indirectly paidfor. a similar argument could be made for the knowl-edge commons. a wikipedia entry on, say ‘modernity’is likely to be written by a specialist on this topic, aphilosopher perhaps. it is likely written by someonewho is or has been employed by a university.is is the reason why some areas within the digitalcommons have developed with mind-blowing speed,whereas other areas remain largely underdeveloped.e open-source commons and the knowledge com-mons are spearheading the digital commons for agood reason, as those who invest in building itoften do get an income for their work. other areas,for example the arts commons, remain largelyunderdeveloped, as other parties do not pay forlabour invested here. ese commons growindeed with unpaid labour only, they rely on thepassion, the love, and the enthusiasm by thosewho contribute and invest in it without anyfinancial compensation.

5 ~ T H E D I G I T A L C O M M O N S

A S E C O N O M Y

O F C O N T R I B U T I O N

handa wants to surprise her friend akeyo witha gift. She puts seven delicious fruits in a basket,a banana, a pineapple, a guava, an orange, amango, an avocado, and a passion fruit. She car-ries the basket on her head and walks towardsakeyo’s village, wondering which of these fruither friend would like best. without handa notic-ing it, animals take the fruits in her basket. amonkey helps himself to the banana, a zebra eats

the orange, an elephant picks the mango, a giraffegoes for the pineapple, and so on. Eventually thebasket on handa’s head is empty. while she keepswalking towards akeyo’s village she passes a tan-gerine tree. at this moment, a goat cuts loose froma rope and runs straight into the tree. as a resultof this jolt a good amount of tangerines fall offthe tree. Many fall straight into the empty basket,thereby refilling it. when handa eventuallymeets akeyo, she tells her friend that she hasbrought her a surprise. She puts the basketdown. “Tangerines!” shouts akeyo with joy andexcitement. “My favourite fruit”. handa replies:“Tangerines? at is a surprise.”Handa’s surprise by Browne (1994) is a famouschildren story. it is a beautiful tale of friendshipand gift giving. e children featured in herbook are from the luo tribe in southwest Kenya.is narrative in a very rural setting in africa, iwant to argue, is also a narrative about the econo-my of the digital commons. is economy islargely based on the principle of gift giving.in order to understand the political economy ofgift giving, we should turn first to the work ofMarcel Mauss. for my line of thought i want tohighlight two things about Mauss’ (1954) seminalwork on the gift. Even though this is research onfar-away non-capitalist economies, Mauss makes animportant contribution with respect to Marxist con-cepts of the nature of capitalism. while Marx went togreat lengths to demonstrate in his theory of historicalmaterialism the fluidity and the transitional potentialof dominant modes of production (like the feudalmode of production already contained some seeds of acapitalist mode of production, every dominant mode ofproduction in history already contains the seeds for whatis to come next), his analysis of the capitalist mode ofproduction did not really make an attempt to explore theseeds of a mode of production that could be a successorof capitalism. with the work of Mauss, we get an ideathat these seeds might be forms of gift exchange. we alsolearn to understand that there never was and never will bea pure capitalist economy where everything is being sub-sumed under capital. a capitalist economy will always co-exist with a gift economy. in fact, they have an importantcommonality. Both, gifts and markets are examples ofhuman exchange. Two decades after Mauss, Polanyi(2001) made a similar point, and more recently hart(2008) and hart, laville, and cattani (2010) originatedthe term human economy, pointing to areas of humaneconomic activity that are not primarily driven by thelogic of measurement and the logic of the market. e second point about Mauss’ analysis of the gifteconomy that is relevant for my argument is his insis-tence on the reciprocal nature of gift giving. forMauss, gifts are not just gifts and not just free

A N D R E A S W E T T E L | O N T H E F U T U R E D E V E L O P M E N T O F D I G I T A L C O M M O N S | 2 0

lunches. ey come with obligations. ey have tobe returned. Each gift is part of a system of relation-ships between the gift-givers and the recipients. issystem is being built over time. for him, gift-givingexchanges are contracts; they are not legal contractsbut contracts nonetheless. ey are just less visiblethan the contracts of capitalist markets. e obligationto give and to return the gift is part of a moral frame-work that structures interactions. is is a moral systemthat highly values solidarity.ere is something very reassuring in Mauss’ analysis ofgift giving. we do not need money; we do not needquasi-objective systems of measurement with respect toeconomic exchange. People will not abuse this system.in fact, there is overwhelming empirical evidence thatthey will try very hard to comply with it. for if theycannot, they might lose status and respect, and lose facewithin their communities. ey might, or they mightnot. all this depends on context and circumstances.e gift economy described my Mauss is a system thathas a great deal of similarities with Marx’s possibly bestoutline of what communism could mean: ‘from eachaccording to his ability to each according to his need’(critique of the gotha Programme).Marx’s idea of communism and Mauss’ analysis of thegift economy are not about quasi-objective measure-ment and individual gain, they are about very differ-ent values, relationships, community, solidarity, bal-ance and equilibrium. for an analysis of the politicaleconomy of the digital commons, i wish to arguethat we can only draw on Mauss in a limited way.is is largely due to his insistence on reciprocityand on the obligation to return the gift. clearly,the gift-giving practices in the digital commonsare not based on reciprocity. an open-source pro-grammer does not expect that everybody whouses her code will return the favour and writeopen-source software themselves. e author of awikipedia entry does not expect that those whoread the entry will be obliged to write an entrythemselves. a teenager who puts a home-madevideo on a social media platform does not expectthat those who watch her video will also uploadmoving images on this platform. e gifts pro-duced and distributed in the digital commonsare not addressed to specific individuals, they aremuch more unspecific. it is not quite clear who isat the receiving end of this exchange. ese gifts,very much like works of art and very much likeblood donations, are gifts to abstract communi-ties. ultimately they are gifts to humanity.So how can we theorise forms of gift giving andgift receiving that are not being returned? ework of Serres (2007) on the parasite provides richinspiration for such a task. e parasite is a book

about relationships, about human relationships andabout relationships between humans, nature and theuniverse. very much in stark contrast to Mauss –and for that matter to all structuralists – Serresdoes not see much tidiness, harmony, and order.for him there is asymmetry, imbalance, noise,interruption, and transformation. ere is move-ment and metamorphoses. he rejects binarymodels for an understanding of relationships.his concept is ternary and involves the host, theparasite, and an interrupter who shakes thingsup, reverses roles, and reconfigures relations.“for parasitism is an elementary relation […]e relation upsets equilibrium, making it devi-ate. if some equilibrium exists, or ever existedsomewhere, somehow, the introduction of a par-asite in the system immediately provokes a dif-ference, a disequilibrium” (182). ese relationsare a succession of parasitic chains. he describeshow flows of energy between organisms are neversymmetrical and equal, but always asymmetricaland unequal. e parasite is feeding on the energyof others, stealing this energy without giving backanything to the host. history hides the fact thatman is the universal parasite, and everyone aroundhim is in a hospitable space. Plants and animals arealways his host; man is always necessarily their guest.always taking, never giving. according to Serres, man is always a parasite to thesun and the sun is always a host for all living beings onthe earth. is is a vitalist perspective that also appliesfor social relationships and economic relationships.in the natural world, it is sometimes not easy to distin-guish hosts from parasites. Bees and flowers need eachother, both give and take, but they give and take differ-ent things. in the digital realm, it can be equally difficultto distinguish parasites from hosts. we have to take a sit-uational approach. Depending on the circumstancesusers and producers, hackers and pirates can be eitherhosts or parasites. like the parasite the pirate is imagina-tive, creative, and innovative. like the parasite the pirateremixes, interrupts and disturbs things, creating disequi-librium and metamorphoses, thereby turning into a hostto give new life for new parasites or new pirates. e digi-tal commons partly gets built through social exchange orcollaboration, through people who are – in love or inhate – working together on a wikipedia entry, whoexchange knowledge, ideas, information and affect.however, the digital commons also works in asymmet-rical, one-way flows described by Serres, where somepeople just give and others just take.Serres’ vitalism also applies to the realm of work, which“undoubtedly […] is a struggle against noise” (86). lifeworks. life is work, energy, power, and information.it is impossible to translate this description into an

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 2 1

ethical discourse […] e work of life is labour andorder but does not occur without borrowing fromelsewhere (88). at a first glance, Serres’ parasite sounds dark and dystopi-an. however, this is only true if we focus on the para-site. it is important to note that Serres focuses hisattention on both, the parasite and the host. his bookmight as well have been called the host. ere is no par-asite without host, no taking without giving. also, whatmight be seen as a dark undertone in Serres’ philosophysounds beautiful in Handa’s Surprise.handa makes a big effort to carry her gift (the basketfilled with different fruit) to her friend. on her way toakeyo’s village, different animals behave like parasites.ey steal fruit from the basket without giving anythingback. fortunately a tree comes to handa’s rescue. etree is the host who is interrupted in its calm existenceby the goat who bumps into it. Due to this interruption,the tree gives its tangerines to handa without takinganything back from her. in the end all the interruptionsof the original plan turn out to be just perfect as tan-gerines are akeyo’s favourite fruit. or in Serres’ words:

what travels along the path might be money, gold orcommodities, or even food – in short, material goods.you don’t need much experience to know that goodsdo not arrive so easily at their destinations. ere arealways interceptors who work very hard to divert whatis carried along these paths. Parasitism is the namemost often given to these numerous and diverseactivities, and i fear that they are the most commonthing in the world (11).

e difference between Mauss on the one handand Serres and Browne (the author of Handa’sSurprise) on the other hand is not a moral differ-ence; it is a conceptual difference only. whereMauss sees reciprocity and therefore equilibri-um, balance, mutualism, and exchange, Serresand Browne see asymmetry, imbalance, inter-ruption, and transformation. for an under-standing of the digital commons the asymmet-ric relationships of Serres might be conceptuallymore productive than the reciprocal relation-ships of Mauss. in this respect, the digital com-mons is not so much a gift economy but aneconomy of contribution. e contributionsmade for the digital commons surely are gifts,but these are gifts to humanity, not to specificand selected people. ey are gifts without anobligation to return the favour.Distinguishing peer production as a new mode ofproduction from market-based production (withan emphasis on equivalent exchange) and firm pro-duction (with an emphasis on hierarchical organi-sation) Siefkes (2007: 9) writes: “Peer production[…] is based on contributions. People contribute to

a project because they want it to succeed, notbecause they need to earn money or have to realisesome previously established plan.” ose who wantto contribute to the digital commons will do so. itis their own choice, there is no coercion.e difference between a gift economy based onreciprocity and a non-reciprocal economy of con-tribution is not just an academic subtlety. it mat-ters and has profound implications for the devel-opment of the digital commons. a gift economydoes not need to be regulated from outside orfrom above. it regulates itself in bottom-upprocesses as balance and equilibrium are an inte-gral part of such a system. it sorts itself out. Butan economy of contribution is uneven, withsome people contributing more and others less.So we need to ask if uneven contribution posesa problem for the development of the digitalcommons. e problem obviously would beabout compensation for contributions.

6 ~ B A S I C I N C O M E

as argued by ostrom (1990), the commons canwork and does work. is is even truer for the dig-ital commons where scarcity of material resources isnot an issue. when everything is available to every-body we do not have to worry much about humanselfishness. erefore the conclusion is straightfor-ward: if the digital commons can work, it needs to besupported. it is vulnerable, however, as it developsunevenly. us we have to think about ways that sup-port especially those areas of the digital commons thatso far remain underdeveloped. roughout the last century, labour has been analysed inthe western hemisphere as wage labour only. it was acommon perception that there was just no alternative towage labour. obviously this theoretical orientation was areflection of an economic reality characterised largely bywage labour as the dominant form of production. howev-er, the perception that there is no alternative to wagelabour is increasingly being challenged. recently, calls fora basic income have gained momentum, which is partlydocumented and reflected in the journal Basic incomeStudies, founded in 2006 with two issues per year.it is not possible here to outline this debate in greatdetail. instead, i want to focus on an argument for aglobal basic income brought forward by the late gorz(1999). gorz is one of the most prominent scholarsknown for inquiries beyond the wage-based society. hebegins his argument with the claim that work has lostits magic. it has lost its magic on the road to post-fordism. it goes without saying that work duringfordism was all but perfect. in fordism, work wasnot a source of social cohesion or social integration.

A N D R E A S W E T T E L | O N T H E F U T U R E D E V E L O P M E N T O F D I G I T A L C O M M O N S | 2 2

however, it gave everybody a sense of usefulness anda sense of entitlement.

ose entitlements were not attached to the person ofthe wage-owner, but to the function the job fulfilled inthe social process of production. Never mind whatwork you do, what counts is having a job. is was theessential ideological message of the wage-based society(56).

in post-fordism, the ideological message has profoundlychanged:

fear and tremble […] Never mind what you are paid, solong as you have a job […] Be prepared to make any andevery concession, to suffer humiliation or subjugation, toface competition and betrayal to get or keep a job, sincethose who lose their jobs lose everything (56).

in post-fordism, employment has become a privilege.while we are all taught to think that a wage-based soci-ety is all we can hope for, it is in fact already dead. “eypersuade us, it is right, normal, essential that each of usshould urgently desire what in fact no longer exists andwill never again lie within everyone’s grasp” (58).gorz goes to great length to demonstrate that the short-age of work thesis is a myth created by capital. work isnot disappearing, what is disappearing is what Marxcalls “abstract labour”, labour as a commodity, labourthat can be bought and sold in the market. it is correctthat capital can not afford it any more to providesecure employment for all members of a society. “eactual problem is not a shortage of work, but a failureto distribute the wealth which is now produced bycapital employing fewer and fewer people” (72).as work time ceases to be the dominant social timewe need to prepare for a multiactive life. “eissue, in a nutshell, is the development of people’sautonomy irrespective of companies need for it”(74). is means, to give people more rights overtheir own time. on the basis of this argument,gorz proposes the introduction of a guaranteedsufficient income for everybody. a basic incomeshould not be understood as a form of subsis-tence, on the contrary, it is a resource to enablenew social practices. e aim is to:

[…] free them from the constraints of the labourmarket. e basic social income must enablethem to refuse work and reject inhuman work-ing conditions. and it must be part of a socialenvironment which enables all citizens to decideon an ongoing basis between the use-value oftheir time and its exchange value (83).

in his earlier writings, e.g. gorz (1989), he hasadvocated a formula that ties a basic income torequired periods of time where citizens performwork for the community, for society, and for thegeneral production of wealth. later (gorz 1999) hehas abandoned this position to promote a basicincome that is unconditional. he argues with Marx

of the grundrisse that time has ceased to be a mea-sure for value. in post-fordism, where work isincreasingly immaterial and imagination, creativity,and intelligence turn into the main productiveforce, the value of labour can not be measured anymore. obviously this is also true for emotionallabour. if emotional and affective investment inwork is beyond measure its commodificationbecomes nonsensical. obviously gorz does not refer to the digitalcommons, his argument is more general. how-ever there is a very straight connection betweengorz references to immaterial labour and to the‘general intellect’, a term coined by Marx in thegrundrisse, and the digital commons. whateveris part of the digital commons has been pro-duced with immaterial labour. and most thingsthat are created with immaterial labour, withemotion, creativity, imagination, and intellect,can be made available in the digital commons.is is not just some niche within the real econo-my, this is the realm where all knowledge produc-tion and cultural production can be shared andfreely accessed. for this to happen on a large scale,we have to think about policies that compensatecontributors and stimulate what is emerging as aneconomy of contribution.e digital commons, i have argued, is a new fron-tier for struggles over commodification. it is a spacethat enables counter-commodification – not just ona personal but also on a global level. it demonstrateshow creative work can flourish without the chains ofintellectual property regulations. however, this is alsoa vulnerable space as it does not flourish evenly, withsome areas (in particular the cultural commons and theart commons) remaining rather underdeveloped. efostering of all parts of the digital commons is a politi-cal question. is is about the creation of spaces inwhich alternative social practices and alternative formsof work can develop in the best possible way. it is aquestion to be addressed by social movements. with thecrisis of capitalist production deepening, there is a realpossibility that one day the value of human bonds andthe spirit of the gift (hyde 1979) will outshine the com-modity.

8——————

* is is a shortened preprint of an article whose final and defin-itive form has been published in the Culture and organization ©2013 copyright Taylor & francis; Culture and organization is avail-able online at < http://bit.ly/1pJhhrh> [with the open url of thearticle] < http://bit.ly/1pJhnQk >.

r E f E r E N c E S

BENKlEr, y. (2006). e wealth of networks. How SocialProduction transforms Markets and freedom (Newhaven, cT: yale uP).

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 2 3

BolTaNSKi, l. aND E. chiaPEllo. (2007). e new Spir-it of Capitalism (london: verso).

BrowNE, E. (1994). Handa’s Surprise (london: walkerBooks).

BryNJolfSSoN, E. aND a. McafEE. (2011). race against theMachine: How the digital revolution is acceleratinginnovation, driving Productivity, and irreversibly transformingemployment and the economy (lexington, Ma: Digitalfrontier Press).

caSTEllS, M. (1996). e rise of the network Society (Mal-dan, Ma: Blackwell).

DEBorD, g. (1994). e Society of the Spectacle (New york:zone).

giDDENS, a. (1998). e ird way: e renewal of Socialdemocracy (cambridge: Polity Press).

gorz, a. (1989). Critique of economic reason (london: verso).——. (1999). reclaiming work: beyond the wage-based Society

(cambridge: Polity).guDEMaN, S. (2001). e anthropology of economy: Community,

Market, and Culture (oxford: Blackwell).harDiN, g. (1968, December). “e Tragedy of the com-

mons” Science 162 (13): 1243-1248.harDT, M. aND a. NEgri. (2000). empire (cambridge, Ma:

harvard uP).——-. (2009). Commonwealth (cambridge, Ma: harvard uP).harT, K. (2008). e Human economy <http://bit.ly/1lthNKv>.harT, K,, J-l. lavillE, aND a. caTTaNi. (2010). e

human economy (cambridge: Polity Press).harvEy, D. (2005). e new imperialism (clarendon lec-

tures in geography and Environmental Studies)(oxford: oxford uP).

——. (2007). a brief History of neoliberalism (oxford:oxford uP).

——. (2010). e enigma of Capital: and the Crises ofCapitalism (london: Profile Books).

hochSchilD, a. (1983). e Managed Heart: eCommercialization of Human feeling (Berkeley:e university of california Press).

——. (2003). e Commercialization of intimate life:notes from Home and work (San francisco: uni-versity of california Press).

——. (2012). e outsourced Self: intimate life inMarket times (New york: Metropolitan Books).

hyDE, l. (1979). e Gift. Creativity and the artist inthe Modern world (New york: vintage Books).

illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: e Making ofemotional Capitalism (cambridge: Polity Press).

JaMESoN, f. (1991). Postmodernism, or e Culturallogic of late Capitalism (Durham: Duke uP).

KlEiNEr, D. (2010). e telekommunist Manifesto(amsterdam: institute of Network cultures).

KliMaN, a. (2012). e failure of Capitalist Produc-tion: underlying Causes of the Great recession(london: Pluto Press).

laNiEr, J. (2013). who owns e future? (london:Penguin).

luKácS, g. (1967). History and Class Consciousness(london: Merlin Press).

MaNDEl, E. (1978). late Capitalism (london: NlB).Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse: foundations of the Cri-

tique of Political economy (london: Penguin).Marx, K., aND f. ENgElS. (1996). Karl Marx frederick

engels: Collected works. Vol. 35: Karl Marx; Capital, vol.1 (london: lawrence and wishart).MauSS, M. (1954). e Gift: forms and functions of

exchange in archaic Societies (london: cohen &west).

oSTroM, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: e evo-lution of institutions for Collective action. Vol. ePolitical economy of institutions and decisions(New york: cambridge uP).

PolaNyi, K. (2001). e Great transformation: ePolitical and economic origins of our time(Boston, Ma: Beacon Press).

SErrES, M. (2007). e Parasite (Minneapolis: uni-versity of Minnesota Press).

SiEfKES, c. (2007). from exchange to Contributions:Generalizing Peer Production into the Physicalworld (Berlin: Edition c. Siefkes).

TErraNova, T. (2004). network Culture: Politics forthe information age (london: Pluto Press).

ThrifT, N. (2000). “commodities” in e dictionaryof Human Geography, ed. r. Johnston, D. gregory,g. Pratt and M. watts, 99-100 (oxford: Black-well).

wEBEr, S. (2004). e Success of open Source (cam-bridge, Ma: harvard uP).

williaMS, c. (2005). a Commodified world? Mappingthe limits of Capitalism (london: zed Books).

wiTTEl, a. (2011). “Qualities of Sharing and eirTransformations in the Digital age”, internationalreview of information ethics 15<http://bit.ly/1iwaoBj >.

——. (2012). “Digital Marx: Toward a Political Econo-my of Distributed Media”, tripleC 10 (2): 313-333.

wolfE, a. (1989). whose Keeper? Social Science and Moralobligation (Berkeley: university of california Press).

zElizEr, v. (1994). Pricing the Priceless Child: e Chang-ing Social Value of Children (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonuP).

——. (2007). e Purchase of intimacy (Princeton, NJ:Princeton uP).ŽiŽEK, S. (2011). living in the end times (london: verso).

a b

A N D R E A S W E T T E L | O N T H E F U T U R E D E V E L O P M E N T O F D I G I T A L C O M M O N S | 2 4

As a founder of the thrivabilitymovement, Jean M. Russellauthored Thrivability: Break-ing Through to a World thatWorks and curated Thriv-ability: A CollaborativeSketch. Her work on thriv-

ability, innovation, philan-thropy, and cultural shifts has

been highlighted in the Econo-mist, Harvard Business Review, Stan-

ford Social Innovation Review, and Worldchanging. Shereceived an honourable mention on the (En)rich List, as one ofthe top 200 people of all time “whose contributions enrich pathsto sustainable futures.”

I N T R O D U C T I O N

ILOFER MERCHAnT COInEd THE ExPRESSIOn “THE

Social Era”1 to describe the stage of businessevolution where organisations with adaptivesocial flows, capturing value outside theusual organisational structure, outperform

their predecessors. is article examines the socialdesign structures that give rise to what are comingto be known as thrivable organisations in whichstructure is less rigid and more adaptive. e the-sis of the article is that thrivability2 arises from ahigh degree of individual agency that enables anorganisation – loosely defined rather than strictlylegally structured – to be responsive both inter-nally and externally and to fully sense the ten-sions within and outside itself in a way thatfacilitates purpose-driven innovation. Social Eraorganisations capture external value by attractingengagement and contribution toward shared pur-pose, the so defined “Power of Pull”3.rivable organisational designs exhibit one ormore of the following characteristics: non-cen-tralised decision-making; adaptive systems; andself-governance, all features that have characterisedinnovative organisation design for several decades,as with the contributions of Ricardo Semler, PeterSenge, and Gerard Fairtlough amongst others. But,while such approaches have usually been inspiredby the search for output improvements in the formof zero defects, Taguchi methods, business processand reengineering, and Total Quality, thrivability

seeks to decrease waste in the organisational sys-tem by capturing the value and benefits of net-work production. rivable organisationaldesigns reflect the new opportunities offered by anetworked world and look to take advantage ofnew ways of working together to facilitate theemergence of anti-fragility4 in resource-con-strained environments.It will also be argued that Ostroms’s institution-alism encourages an evolutionary dynamic, root-ed in polarity management5, of evolving tensionbetween creativity and order. From there, theHolacracy One model of distributed emergentorganisational self-governance as one possible wayof practicing this social philosophy is explored.e article examines the distributed organisationalstructure and social protocols of several case studies:London Creative Labs, Edgeryders, Ouisharefest,and Peers Incorporated organisation in general, seenas living organisations that foster social change usinginnovative business models and clear social protocols.

P O W E R , P O L Y C E N T R I C I T Y ,A N D L E A R N I N G

e Bloomington School Social Philosophy6 eluci-dates two perhaps interlocking philosophies. e first,proposes polycentricity as an alternative to standardpolitical and economic models. Polycentricity, at itssimplest level, describes systems as having multiplepoints of power and decision-making. e second,involves an evolutionary model of social order wherethe tension of creativity and order play out. Both sup-port self-governance, freedom, and ingenuity. To shiftorganisational design toward these, we must examine thestory we have about how organisations work. As arguedin rivability, the story or vision of what we believe ispossible shapes what we create and what actions wetake7. e visions we have contain the bounds of whatwe believe is possible.

“Visions” frame the perception of reality, and differentvisions imply different analytical approaches. Because theentire Wilsonian approach is based on the notion that“there is always a centre of power […] within any systemof government” (Wilson, 1956 [1885], p. 30), the issue ofthe location and application of power is shaping thefocus and the vocabulary of the monocentric approach.e entire exercise comes to be power-centrered in

THE SOC I A L ERA :TH E R I S E O F TH R I VA B I L I T Y I N O RG AN I S AT I ON A L D E S I G N

J E A N M . R U S S E L L

N

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 2 5

ways that may become extreme and limiting. Choices,decisions, rules, preferences, ideas, values become sec-ondary. ey are just inputs or outputs in the powerprocess or, even worse, a “veil” that is clouding the viewof “reality” (i.e., power and its workings) (V. Ostrom,1972, 1991b, 1993b) 8.

If we allow that power might not always be centrallylocated, a whole new set of possibilities emerges. ismovement from single point to distributed points is notlimited to the political and social domain described bythe Bloomington School; rather, in parallel, we have seenshifts toward multiplicity in numerous domains from net-work science to the humanities emerging in the 1970s andevolving since.is multiplicity leads to interesting insights commonlyignored in group or community design. Amongst theseare:~ that people themselves have multiple centres of power and

may have antagonistic or cooperative relations withothers;

~ that we are each a network of identities participatingin overlapping networks of communities and groupsthat some of our roles or identities may give uspower while others disempower;

~ that our identities only exist in the space or flowbetween ourselves and others.

e root infrastructure and protocols of thrivableorganisational design address this multiplicity witha polycentric approach. In organisations we havewitnessed a trend away from organising by func-tion because it is too siloed and difficult to link toorganisational output. In its place, there has beena shift toward redesigning organisations by out-put. rivable organisations recognise that there isvalue in being with domain experts as well asvalue in associating by output. us, as withHolacracy (see infra), we can have multiple cen-tres around which to organise. ese multiplepoints of decision-making and authority docomplicate the thrivable organisation, since bud-gets and authority may need to flow throughmultiple channels to empower and compensateindividuals.e Edgeryders network offers some compellingexamples of polycentricity in practice. e initialimpetus for the network came from a project ofthe Council of Europe and the European Com-mission on engaging the wisdom of youth andthe disenfranchised to provide a voice and com-munication channel of many to many. It took ona life of its own. nadia El Imam describes: “Asocial enterprise, Edgeryders, is building on itsexperience to provide work that is both paid andmeaningful to members of the community – and,the community is open to anyone who wants to be

involved. e online community has grown to 1600members in over 30 countries9.”Edgeryders has organised several Living On e Edge(LOTE) conferences using a bootstrap approach: get-ting borrowed space, borrowed resources, andenthusiastic collaboration. e online space careful-ly crafts out work methods, culture, and gover-nance that then attract a diverse collection of self-directed change agents. Bubbling up from the con-ference comes the idea of finding a space to livethat is free of financial cost but paid for by com-munity engagement and support. us theunMonastery arose.“[…] unMonastery wanted to give an organic answerto the local high number of unused spaces, unem-ployment and the impoverishment of social services,bringing together people who are passionate anddedicated to sharing their expertise for the benefit ofthe community. UnMonastery is like an artist resi-dency, but for people who want to solve problems ina local community in collaboration with the localinhabitants. Residencies last 1-4 months during whichtime you work on a personal project, alone or withothers. e only criteria is that it acts as a solution toone of the identified challenges and that people in thelocal community and other unMonasterians get excitedabout working on it together with you10.”

If we look at the network of people engaged inEdgeryders, LOTE, and UnMonastery, there is sig-nificant network overlap and yet, in each case, theteams emerge organically as a result of the partici-pating individuals asserting their desire to partici-pate. In an interview with El Imam, she shared:

“Communities with a prospective site can contact theproject, sharing the details of the physical location itself,the needs and assets of the community, and what supportcan be offered. e location must accommodate at least 10individuals and be minimally liveable, electricity, shelter,water and internet; but may be in need of work toimprove it. Potential members are then matched to thatoffer based on availability and fit to the conditions, and thesite can begin to become a reality.“Members commit to up to 18 months of involvement atany one time, and each new unMonastery site begins bygaining an understanding of what the community needs.e running and conduct of internal and external activitiesis guided by best practice accrued by the unMonastery pro-ject network, but is ultimately autonomous, selected by themembers in that location. “At the end of each 18 month cycle of the unMonastery,the local community is consulted as to what should hap-pen next. Perhaps the activities begun will be continuedin the hands of the local people alone, or new ideas havebegun to develop for a new wave of activities11.”

Polycentricity enables multiple sites of decision-making, preferably as close to the impact of thedecision as possible. Edgeryders does not require

J E A N M . R U S S E L L | T H E S O C I A L E R A | 2 6

that a given unMonastery get approvals from thecore of Edgeryders. Instead, the local communityhas collective decision-making authority with theparticipants in the unMonastery at that location forwhat is done there. Only the process of governanceand criteria for participation are created by the origi-nal organisation. For Edgeryders, decision-making andaction are always being pushed out – and pulled byparticipants – to the edges and away from the core. Yetcomplete anarchy is avoided by having clear process forengagement and clear purpose for coming together.rivable organisational models also often decreasewaste in the organisational system, capture the valueand benefits of network production, and demonstrateanti-fragility in resource constrained environments.

N E T W O R K P R O D U C T I O N

Ton van Asseldonk has been developing an argumenton network production efficiency. He distinguishesbetween craft or capacity production, which is wherean individual makes something alone, creating each ofthe parts and putting them together; and factory pro-duction where many individuals each specialise on apart and place it into a whole in turn. In networkproduction, an interconnected collective of peopleinnovates and builds together. readless, the t-shirt design company, serves as an example of net-work production. e shirts are factory producedbut the designs are sourced from the communityrather than paying a small set of graphic designersto create designs for the shirts. Ton compellinglyshows how capacity systems fail to produce at therates that factory production systems do and,moreover, that, given the need for variety, net-work production outperforms factory produc-tion under conditions where there is a need forvariety, say when we need to have 10,000 varia-tions. We can consider this volume of variationsto be a form of ‘customisation’ that factory pro-duction models can handle, but the cost ofsearching for solutions and testing them andthen providing them quickly outweigh the bene-fits12.Let’s take Etsy as an example. If a manufacturerwanted to produce the extreme variety that isavailable on Etsy, the costs of that variety of pro-duction would not be outweighed by efficiencies ofscale in production. Etsy enables capacity (craft)production to a scaled-up market with low searchcosts. Still, this is not the full networked productionmodel. Full network production model is more likeBuzzcar, a company founded in France by the creatorof Zipcar in the US. Rather than having company cars

provided for members, Buzzcar connects people whowant to use a car with those who have cars. Leverag-ing a network of people who own cars already drasti-cally cut the operating costs as they don’t have tobuy and maintain cars, leveraged the excess capacityin the cars that owners had but were not using all ofthe time, and captured an immense amount ofvariation – the ability to provide cars in locationsthat Zipcar couldn’t have made profitable and toprovide a variety of car types that Zipcar couldn’thave offered, as efficiencies of scale in car purchas-ing limit the different kinds of car available. Buz-zcar operates as a network production system insimilar ways to many of the sharing economy orcollaborative economy businesses – leveragingexcess capacity for low cost by mediatingexchange through internet software that reducestransaction costs to next to nothing. Furthermore, network production models tendtoward high resilience. Prime examples of theSocial Era, Peers Incorporated models capture valueof a collective of interconnected people outside theorganisational boundaries. With few or no assets onthe books – cars they own, rooms to build and main-tain, products to keep in stock – they adjust rapidlyto shifts in the market. Robin Chase, Zipcar founder,argues in her Peers Incorporated talks, and forthcom-ing book, that these organisations marry the best ofcorporations and collective individuals as they can getthe financing, insurance, and software that large corpo-rations can leverage while also capturing the sense ofcommunity, variety/customisation, and localisation thatcorporations, using factory production models, cannot.Chase describes the Peers Incorporated concept as:

“Resource efficient, flexible, resilient, innovative, person-al, and high growth. e Peers Incorporated structuredelivers the power of the corporation while retaining thecreative, local, and unique strengths found in individuals— just what our rapidly transforming world demands13.”

Robin Chase expands on this in talks she gives aroundthe world:

“Big companies (institutions and governments) use theirinherent strengths – the ability to make long and largeinvestments, marshal teams with many kinds of expertise,extract economies of scale, apply standard forms of interac-tion – to create platforms for participation. ese plat-forms make the complex simple and put the full power ofthe company into the hands of the autonomous partici-pating peers (and small companies). e peers in turnprovide what is in the nature of the small and expensivefor the large – localisation, customisation, specialisation,and access to social networks – almost all of which isoffered under the economics of excess capacity14.”

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 2 7

A N T I F R A G I L I T Y

network production can be one path to increasedanti-fragility. Taleb coined the anti-fragility term asthe antonym to fragility, since even the word robustdoes not speak to the ability to get stronger when asystem is perturbed. is is extended by InternationalFutures Forum’s use of the term ‘bounce beyond’ todescribe the resilience of anti-fragility in place of theconventional aspiration simply to bounce back. Whenthe options space is tightly contained or limited, anorganisation may have focus but also becomes brittle,reducing its capacity to respond, rapidly or at all, toshocks to the system. However, network productiontakes full advantage of variety, maximising the optionspace and increasing the ability to route around whatdoes not work and quickly innovate and build uponwhat does work.OuiSharefest and the OuiShare network demonstratethis anti-fragility with surprising grace and coherence.

“OuiShare is a think and do-tank with the mission toempower citizens, public institutions and companies tocreate a collaborative economy: an economy based onsharing, collaboration and openness, relying on hori-zontal networks and communities […] Started in Jan-uary 2012 in Paris, OuiShare is now an internationalleader in the collaborative economy field. A non-prof-it organisation which has rapidly evolved from ahandful of enthusiasts to a global movement in 25

countries in Europe, Latin America and the MiddleEast, our network of 50 expert “Connectors” engageover 2000 members and contributors worldwide15.”

Promoting their first event to my own network, Ilearnt that they did not have very many womenspeakers and brought this feedback to the organis-ers. Having done the same thing at numerousevents, I was shocked at their response. Usuallyorganisers defend and resist, placing blame else-where. OuiSharefest organisers invited me tojoin the program committee and took my guid-ance seriously. is is anti-fragility at work – adisturbance and opportunity for bad pressturned upside down into participation and advo-cacy. More than this, once engaging with thecore, I discovered that this was not an isolatedincidence but was built in to the very dnA of theorganisation. ey had a clear project manage-ment system that enabled broad, open participa-tion. People coming from outside the original corewere encouraged to take on responsibility for theimprovements and additions they wanted to bringto the event. not only did this leverage a great dealof ‘free’ talent that was passionate and committed toexcellence and innovation, it also scaled the event

rapidly. e challenge when quick scaling can be‘how to maintain coherence?’ e core originalorganisers established a strong culture of design,play, openness, and vision that enabled thoseattracted to it to join and participate. Where andhow to engage was clearly visible and permissionto take the next action was simple and straight-forward. Using this strategy around the topic ofsharing increases coherence too, since the visionis aligned with the method of participation andamplifies the shared principles through ongoingpractice.

L E A R N I N G E V O L U T I O N

Building on anti-fragility principles, thrivableorganisational design enables and depends onongoing learning. e second important socialphilosophy coming out of the BloomingtonSchool creates an evolutionary dynamic wherethe tension and movement between two oppos-ing forces models this enablement of learning.

e argument is shaped by a bold ontologicalassertion that choice is the basic and defining ele-ment for both humans and the social order theycreate. Choice – loosely defined as being able toconsider alternative possibilities and to select acourse of action from among a range of such possi-bilities – is not only a fundamental part of humanbehavior, but also the source of social order and socialchange. From an evolutionary standpoint, choicecould be seen as a particular form of selection: alterna-tive possibilities are assessed and compared. […] Yet,argues V. Ostrom, the cycle of adaptation does not stopthere: organisation solves problems but also creates newproblems. Humans have to adjust to them throughlearning and new choices16.

Each step forward may also have unintended conse-quences. So even as we create a solution to an existingchallenge, the solution often creates a new challenge.Given that these tend to be complex adaptive environ-ments, we cannot just keep performing slight variationsof our experiments to find the best practices. Rather,the first experiment changes the conditions for the sec-ond, and, as dave Snowden writes, the best we can dois to find “emergent practice.”Where the Ostroms did not speak in terms of explicit“polarity management” they set it up as two poles intension. Barry Johnson explains in Polarity management:Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems that wevacillate between two, or more, poles in tension, eachpole offering positive characteristics and negative onesdepending on where we are in the cycle.

J E A N M . R U S S E L L | T H E S O C I A L E R A | 2 8

P O L A R I T Y M A n A G E M E n T.

e Ostroms place innovation on one side and orderon the other. When we are threatened by tyranny orconstrained by order, we seek to innovate and benefitfrom creativity to transcend the limitations of tyrannyand order. However, innovation and creativity can alsolead to chaos, making it difficult to navigate and coop-erate (entropy). en we create rules and order to levelup our ability to navigate the uncertainty of creativechaos. Yet what creates order will slide into the tyrannyof order over time (disentropy).

Let us take a step further with a brief look at such two keychallenges: the “threat of potential chaos” and the “threatof tyranny.” […] e future course of human develop-ment is always influenced by the generation of newknowledge. new knowledge opens new possibilities;and challenges more often than not the status quo – ithas destabilising effects. Increasing the potential varietyin human behaviour, the multitude of combinations,combinations of combinations and patterns of inter-actions, threatens with chaos the maintenance of apredictable order (V. Ostrom, 1982, p. 18)17.

P O L A R I T Y M A n A G E M E n T R I S I n G C O M P L E x I T Y.

To sum up, social order and its institutional dynam-ics are seen as being shaped by, and operating underthe shadow of the ongoing tension between the“threat of chaos” and the “threat of tyranny.”

If a society accepts that all decision makers are fallible,then it recognises the need to create institutional bulwarksagainst error. at is to say, it responds to the necessity ofreducing error proneness by building “error-correctingprocedures in the organisation of decision-makingprocesses” (V. Ostrom, 1982, p. 32; 1973, 1990). eseerror-correcting procedures are nothing else than organ-isational and institutional processes aimed at facilitatingand speeding up the rate of learning. Learning is thequintessence of error-fighting mechanisms. Correctingerrors is part of a learning process. In this respect, sys-tems of organisation, including systems of govern-ment, can ultimately be viewed as arrangements thateither facilitate or stifle opportunities for learning tooccur (V. Ostrom, 1982, pp. 31-32; 1973; E. Ostrom,Gardner, & Walker, 1994)18.

S E L F G O V E R N I N G A N D

N A V I G A T I N G T E N S I O N S

ere remains a tension between human errorand the inbuilt inconsistency error of rules.Rules arise to address specific issues and at somepoint reach a conflict with other rules. So wenavigate between the fallible judgment of indi-vidual humans and the fallible use of rules appliedto complex situations. To design to minimise errorresulting from both, we use rules to govern whereand how the adaptive complexity of human judg-ment needs to be applied. Social systems designedfor self-governance do not require a centralised deci-sion-maker or mediator for tensions. Instead theycreate processes for all involved to evolve the terms ofinteraction over time. Holacracy offers one suchmodel for enabling self-governance. While the other case studies here show models ofsmall-scale distributed governance, the Holacracymodel has been used with larger-scaled organisations asan antidote to the efficiencies lost by the bureaucracyusually required to manage large numbers of people. InHolacracy, the structure of the organisation is emergent.It emerges from the combination of Roles, with associ-ated Purposes, domains and Accountabilities, thatevolve over time and in response to conditions. Holacracy begins with a core document stating the con-stitution and then builds out in a very polycentric waythe working groups needed to fulfil the organisation’spurpose. Where many organisations attempt to silencetension, Holacracy brings tension to the table. A ten-sion is seen as a tell-tale of potential growth and evolu-tion, as a by-product or emergent property of theorganism evolving and growing in its environment.Meetings are created by the voicing of a tension andhave clear and rapid process for taking action onthose tensions. Sociocracy is the non-trademark ver-sion of Holacracy.

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 2 9

I interviewed the founder of Holacracy One, BrianRobertson, to ask about how these tensions playout in organisations.

“We can so easily get stuck in our head, designingeverything up front without enough data about whatis actually happening. We can over-design. So whatHolacracy does instead is not about designing the perfectorganisation up front. Instead, allow the organisation torespond – it is an evolutionarily designed algorithm - toadapt over time. […] e fuel for Holacracy is tensions –wherever you perceive a gap - where we could be andwhere we are and the distance between the two is a tension.It is a stretching. Most organisations ignore that. e sys-tem doesn’t support them into processing that tension intomeaningful change. Holacracy’s goal – Any tension sensedby anyone anywhere in the company has somewhere to gothat can get rapidly and reliably processed into meaningfulchange as long as it is relevant to the purpose of the organi-sation. e whole system is designed to have channels andflows to process those tensions. at forces clarity19.

L E A R N I N G S Y S T E M S

After Sofia Bustamante had been studying the Grameenmicrofinance model in the field, and both she andMamading Ceesay had engaged in years of innovativesocial change, the two came together to work on Lon-don Creative Labs (LCL). In a discussion with both ofthem, they described LCL as follows:

“As a small startup, we saw urban poverty was rathertoo large a challenge for us to tackle, so we decidedto focus more specifically on disadvantaged peopleliving in social housing who are stuck in povertydue to persistent un(der)employment. Social Start-up Labs were designed by LCL as a Grameen-inspired systemic intervention to poverty that bothcreates new opportunities for work through enter-prise and uses that enterprise to address other bar-riers to employment. e accompanying inter-ventions, such as Skills Camps and Social StartupIncubator, are required to deliver a holistic solu-tion to worklessness20.”

LCL is not just a social entrepreneurial endeavour, itis a system entrepreneur organisation. As each pro-gramme launched in the community, informationwas gathered on what worked and what was stillneeded. Each additional programme added to asystem of support that empowered a communitywith what it most needed – responsively andresponsibly. Social Startup Labs helped communi-ty members get information on starting their ownendeavours. But too many needed to increase theirskills, so Skills Camps started for the community tooffer career coaching for each other. Startup Incu-bator helped move start-up ideas into action.LCL not only provides community support, it alsoengages people at different phases of development. Ithas a highly sophisticated model of self-development

and leadership that it uses to actively invite and sup-port community members to level up. It uses socialimpact metrics to quantify and qualify the success ofits efforts and engages in continuous learning andadaptation to optimise its social impact.LCL demonstrates deep thrivable organisationaldesign, it optimises processes to increase agencyand build the autonomy of its participants, and itcontinuously facilitates and encourages decision-making by its participants and allows projectsborn within its programs to move freely into theworld at large; it generates coherence throughclearly framed purpose and deep embeddedcommunity engagement. LCL listens carefully fortensions, regarding them as opportunities toevolve and improve the organisation in service toits mission. It innovates based on need, creativelyreframing problems into opportunities.

C O N C L U S I O N

ese elements of organisational design encour-age thrivability, not only because the design ele-ments act as structures that promote positivesocial impacts in resourceful ways that engagestakeholders, but also because the people insidethose organisational structures have increased pur-pose, mastery, and autonomy, described by danielPink21 as the key motivations for people. ey oftenhave clear sense of what is expected, how processunfolds, giving participants a sense of social safetywithout getting lost in rigid bureaucratic, organisa-tional bloat. e individual satisfaction and sense of choice is, infact, what makes these structures so effective. Becausethese organisations use purpose as part of their lure forengaging a social network of participation, they begin toblur the boundaries between business and social changeefforts. Additionally, social change efforts leverage busi-ness structures and profit models to become more viablein a shifting market operating under tight financial con-straints. rivable organisation designs, from Peers Incor-porated and Holacracy to systemic entrepreneurship, fos-ter individual well being while serving a greater socialpurpose, filling participants with a sense of meaning intheir lives without trapping them in rigid fixed structuresthat don’t adapt to our quickly shifting environment.Furthermore, they source innovation through diversityof participants in a network, sourcing tensions, or navi-gating resource constraints. rivable organisational designs tend toward anti-fragility– they bounce beyond when perturbed. Part of thisbounce comes from leveraging external resources keep-ing internal organisational overhead low, some of itcomes from accessing a diverse network of participants

J E A N M . R U S S E L L | T H E S O C I A L E R A | 3 0

and contributors, and some comes from putting thepower of decision-making at the edges, where theimpact of decisions is felt and the challenges bestunderstood. ey often use clear processes designed forongoing evolution and learning. ey source and navi-gate tensions and polarities as opportunities rather thanthreats. Welcome the rise of the Social Era throughthrivable organisational design and evolution.

8

——————

1 Merchant, n. (2012). “Traditional Strategy Is dead. Welcome tothe #SocialEra”, Harvard Business Review blog <http://tinyurl.com/l4yjsg9> [retrieved 30 April, 2014].

2 Russell, J. (2013). Thrivability: Breaking Through to a World ThatWorks (devon: Triarchy Press).

3 Hagel, J., Brown J.S. Seely and davison L.. (2010). The Power ofPull: How Small Moves, Smartly Made, Can Set Big Things in Motion(new York: Basic Books).

4 Taleb, n.n. (2012). Antifragility: Things that Gain from Disorder(new York: Random House).

5 Johnson, B. (1996). Polarity Management: Identifying and Man-aging Unsolvable Problems (Amherst, MA: HRd Press).

6 Aligica and Boettke. (2011). “The Two Social Philosophies ofOstroms’ Institutionalisms”, The Policy Studies Journal 39(1).

7 Russell, J., Op. Cit.8 Aligica and Boettke. Op. Cit.: 32.9 nadia El Imam. (2011). Interview, 10 november.10 Idem.11 UnMonasteryMatera. (2014). “About UnMonastery “ <

http://tinyurl.com/m9uoahz > [retrieved 30 April, 2014]. 12 Asseldonk and Hartigh. (2008). “Economic Productivity

and Value Creation under Various Organizational Configura-tions of Business Processes - A Toolkit for Phase Transitions” <http://tinyurl.com/n55c2or> [retrieved 7 november, 2013].

13 Chase, R. “Home page” < http://bit.ly/1ucKCPO >[retrieved 3 April, 2014].

14 Robin Chase. (2013). Interview, 11 October.15 “About Page” < http://bit.ly/1fVfcEh > [retrieved 28

April, 2014].16 Aligica and Boettke. Op. Cit.: 38.17 Idem: 39-40.18 Idem: 43.19 Brian Robertson. (2013). Interview, 2 december.20 Sophia Bustamante and Mamading Ceesay. (2013).

Interview, 12 november. 21 Pink, d. (2011). Drive: The Surprising Truth About

What Motivates Us (new York: Riverhead Books).

a b

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 3 1

e month of April (detail).

E R V I N L A S Z L O | T W O W A Y S O F K N O W I N G T H E W O R L D | 2

e Anatomical man.

Stephan A. Schwartz is a ResearchAssociate of the Cognitive Sciences

Laboratory of the Laboratories forFundamental Research. He is thecolumnist for the peer-reviewedjournal: Explore (www.explore-

journal.com/content/Schwartz)and editor of the daily web publica-

tion: www.schwartzreport.net. Email:saschwartz@earthlink.net | www.stephanaschwartz.com.

OR ALMOST 200 YEARS, THE nATURE OF COnSCIOUSnESS

has been largely explored from the assumptionthat it was an as yet not understood neurophysi-ological process entirely resident in the organ-

ism. Its inherent physicality became a canon. Fromthis materialist perspective moments of genius aregenetics and conditioning, spiritual epiphany is delu-sional, and psychic functioning – or nonlocal con-sciousness as it should more properly be called –impossible. And yet these three mysterious humanexperiences have played, and will continue to play,a major role in social change. e experiences ofindividuals and our reactions to them create thesocial trends that transform our world. An indi-vidual has an insight, it impresses others and, inresponse their small quotidian acts, individualchoices, made in the same time frame createsocial trends. ink how quickly Gay was sup-planted by LGBT, representing a change in thesocial gestalt. Consider the change in attitudetowards marriage equality, or shift in consen-sus concerning marijuana prohibition in theUnited States.e process is most easily seen in religion, whereit can be particularly powerful, even though itmay be intellectually irrational which empha-sizes the emotional quality of these insights atthe social level. An individual has a nonlocalconsciousness experience which they share. If itfinds social acceptance, the interpretation of thatnonlocal experience(s) becomes the dogma of anew religion. Joseph Smith and the rise of Mor-monism in the 19th century, or L. Ron Hubbardand the growth of Scientology in the 20th are twoclear examples of this process.

It may be less charismatic but it is no less power-ful in science. Consider the German chemistPaul Ehrlich. e public has forgot his name,even as history and the lives of millions havebeen profoundly affected by his creativity. He,and the teams he led, were responsible for a longlist of pharmaceuticals, including the first syn-thesis of a quinine substitute, a cure for sleepingsickness, and the most effective pre-antibioticcure for syphilis. Although he died in 1917, sogreat was the creative momentum produced bythis man that, as historian Henry Hobhousenotes, “In explosives, fertilizers, pharmaceuticalsand synthetic substitutes of all kinds the Germanchemical industry was able to survive defeat inWorld War I, poor government and inflation inthe 1920s, even the slump (e Depression, ed.),largely because of the technological lead derivedfrom Ehrlich and his pupils1.”History tells us that creativity is a broad river flow-ing through any culture. From our collective mass,with an egalitarian democracy that confounds elites,and breaks through privilege, mothers and fathersseen as the most ordinary folk, bring in souls whoselives blaze like comets through our history. ese indi-viduals speak to us from some deep place in our collec-tive psyche and these singular people compel us totransform our world. Illumined moments, whether reli-gious, psychic, creative, or scientific, come to individu-als, but their power arises from their social acceptance. e challenge for science is not to dismiss what the indi-viduals say is happening to them as a delusion or fantasy,but to seek to understand the processes by which theyoccur, and the domain into which they lead us. It isimportant I think to learn what we can about invokingthis state of consciousness, and nurturing it in our cul-ture. We are going to need a 21st century equivalent ofthe two bicycle mechanics from Ohio who taughthumanity to fly, two young men in a garage creating thepersonal computer, a lone woman geneticist livingabove a garage who showed us how part of evolutionworked and, three decades later everybody understoodwhat she had seen, and Barbara McClintock wasawarded the nobel Prize2.We are going to need such people, perhaps as neverbefore. We face extraordinary challenges resulting fromclimate change, the collapse of anti-biotic medicine,

THE CREAT I V E PAT T ERN ,NONLOCAL CONSCIOUSNESS , AND SOCIAL CHANGE

S T E P H A N A . S C H W A R T Z

F

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 3 3

the breakdown of marine eco-systems and the acidifi-cation of the oceans. Projected sea rise that threatens toinundate many of the world’s great urban areas.drought so severe it will lead to migration. e transi-tion out of the carbon energy era. All this and more willrequire great genius, and we should learn all we canabout nurturing these breakthrough moments. But weare not doing that because we are trapped in a paradigmthat, by its nature, cannot consider these experiences forwhat they are: a change in consciousness, a special state ofmindfulness, as described by psychologist Charles Tart, inhis classic 1972 Science paper “States of Consciousness andState-Specific Sciences3.”e individuals who have these experiences are very articu-late in explaining what happened to them. Although thedetails vary according to their context – scientific, creativearts, spiritual disciplines, remote viewing – they all shareone thing in common: a sense of being connected to agreater unity incorporating everything, a sense of being ina “spaceless space, a timeless time.” ey are describingand experiencing an aspect of consciousness not physio-logically grounded, nor limited by space and time.omas Kuhn, of the Princeton Center for AdvancedStudies, and author of the Structure of Scientific Revo-lutions, arguably the most important book on the his-tory and philosophy of science in the 20th century,who coined the term paradigm, notes, “no ordinarysense […] fits these flashes of intuition throughwhich a new paradigm is born. ough such intu-itions depend upon the experience, both anomalousand congruent, gained with the old paradigm, theyare not logically or piecemeal linked to particularitems of that experience as an interpretation wouldbe [emphasis added.]”4. He goes on to say, “Sci-entists then often speak of the ‘scales falling fromthe eyes’ or of the ‘lightning flash5.’”Brahms says “[…] in this exalted state I seeclearly what is obscure in my ordinary moods;then I feel capable of drawing inspiration fromabove as Beethoven did […] ose vibrationsassume the form of distinct mental images […]Straightaway the ideas flow in upon me […]and not only do I see distinct themes in themind’s eye, but they are clothed in the rightforms, harmonies, and orchestration. Measureby measure the finished product is revealed tome when I am in those rare inspired moods […]I have to be in a semi-trance condition to getsuch results – a condition when the consciousmind is in temporary abeyance, and the subcon-scious is in control, for it is through the subcon-scious mind, which is part of the Omnipotencethat the inspiration comes6.”Einstein mirrors this same concept “A humanbeing is a part of the whole, called by us ‘Universe,’

a part limited in time and space. He experienceshimself, his thoughts and feelings as somethingseparated from the rest, a kind of optical delusionof his consciousness. is delusion is a kind ofprison for us, restricting us to our personal desiresand to affection for a few persons nearest to us.Our task must be to free ourselves from thisprison by widening our circle of compassion toembrace all living creatures and the whole ofnature in its beauty. nobody is able to achievethis completely, but the striving for suchachievement is in itself a part of the liberationand a foundation for inner security7.”Edgar Cayce, the father of holistic medicine,whose entire career is a study in his ability toopen to nonlocal awareness states “In this statethe conscious mind becomes subjugated to thesubconscious, superconscious or soul mind; andmay and does communicate with like minds,and the subconscious or soul force becomes uni-versal. From any subconscious mind informa-tion may be obtained, either from this plane orfrom the impressions as left by the individualsthat have gone on before, as we see a mirrorreflecting direct that which is before it […]8.”e Patanjali Yoga Sutras, which date at least tothe second century BC speak at length about mov-ing into nonlocal awareness through meditation.Psychologist William Braud made a particular studyof the sutra, notes: “e sixth, seventh, and eight‘limbs’ of ashtanga Yoga are dharana (concentration),dhyana (meditation), and samadhi (profound absorp-tion), respectively9.”e Patanjali source refines this further, Braudexplains. ‘e repeated continuation, or uninterruptedstream of that one point of focus is called absorption inmeditation (dhyana), and is the seventh of the eightsteps” (tatra pratyaya ekatanata dhyanam). When thesethree are practiced together, the composite process iscalled samyama. Samyama might be translated as con-straint; thorough, complete, or perfect restraint; or fullcontrol; it might also be translated as communion ormind-poise. Samyama conveys a sense of knowingthrough being or awareness through becoming what is tobe known. rough mastery of samyama comes insight(prajna), and through its progressive application, instages, come knowledge of the Self and of the variousprinciples of reality (tattvas). With increasing yogicpractice come a variety of mystical, unitive experiences,states, conditions, or fulfillments – the various samad-his – along with the attainments or powers (siddhis)2.”And Christian saint, Maria Teresa of Avila counsels“is magnificent refuge is inside you. Enter. Shat-ter the darkness that shrouds the doorway. Be bold.Be humble. Put away the incense and forget the

S T E P H A N A . S C H W A R T Z | T H E C R E A T I V E P A T T E R N | 3 4

incarnations they taught you. Ask no permissionfrom the authorities. Close your eyes and follow yourbreath to the still place that leads to the invisible paththat leads you home10.” “Follow your breath” a state-ment a Buddhist could make.Max Planck, the father of Quantum Mechanics,framed it very clearly in an interview with the respectedBritish newspaper, e Observer in its January 25, 1931edition. He did not mince words: “I regard conscious-ness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative fromconsciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.Everything that we talk about, everything that we regardas existing, postulates consciousness11.” After more that adecade of additional research in 1944, in a lecture in Flo-rence, Italy, Planck doubled down on his point. “As aman who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as aresult of my research about atoms this much: ere is nomatter as such. All matter originates and exists only byvirtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom tovibration and holds this most minute solar system ofthe atom together. We must assume behind this forcethe existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. ismind is the matrix of all matter12.”In spite of the words of Planck, Einstein, Brahms,Catholic saints, Hindu masters and, so many others,the men and women who have changed our lives,the current prevailing model of consciousness isentirely physiological. It posits:

THE PHYSICALIST/MATERIALIST MODEL

1 ~ e mind is solely the result of physiologicprocesses;

2 ~ Each consciousness is a discrete entity; 3 ~ no communication is possible except through

the defined physiologic senses; 4 ~ Consciousness dwells entirely within the

time/space continuum.e problem with this model is that it con-forms to neither the observed experimentaldata, nor the words of the people who have hadthe experiences. So what do we know about theprocess by which these experiences happen? ere are clearly neurophysiologic correlates.Beginning in 2003, and continuing with a shiftinglist of collaborators, cognitive neuroscientist MarkJung-Beeman at northwestern University hasstep-by-step sought to understand the neurobio-logical process of insight: the aspect of conscious-ness that solves problems. To study this he has usedfMRI and an innovative protocol. He places partici-pants in the instrument and gives them a puzzle thatcannot be worked out with the intellect alone13.From his research he concludes, “We observed twoobjective neural correlates of insight. Functional mag-

netic resonance imaging revealed increased activity inthe right hemisphere anterior superior temporal gyrusfor insight relative to non-insight solutions14.”University of Pennsylvania radiologist has come atthis nonlocal opening of consciousness from a dif-ferent angle, the spiritual epiphany experience.Working with participants who are all defined bytheir practice of an established spiritually contextedpsychophysical self-regulation discipline, he scanstheir brains while they carry out their practice. eparticipants are nuns, Sikhs, and Buddhists. eresearch has detected changes in their brains andreported, “Meditation involves attentional regula-tion and may lead to increased activity in brainregions associated with attention such as dorsallateral prefrontal cortex (dLPFC) and anterior cin-gulate cortex (ACC)15.” e research has reached apoint where it constitutes a new sub-discipline:neurotheology. It is also important to note another correlate:nonlocal perturbation, consciousness directlyaffecting material reality at a distance. It can beclearly seen through direct observation as well asstatistics in Jeanne Achterberg’s very elegant thera-peutic intention study. As she describes it, “Eachhealer selected a person with whom they felt a spe-cial connection as a recipient for erapeutic Inten-tion. Each recipient was placed in the MRI scannerand isolated from all forms of sensory contact fromthe healer. e healers sent forms of (TI) that relatedto their own healing practices at random 2-minuteintervals that were unknown to the recipient. Signifi-cant differences between experimental (send) and con-trol (no send) procedures were found (p = 0.000127).Areas activated during the experimental proceduresincluded the anterior and middle cingulate area, pre-cuneus, and frontal area. It was concluded that instruc-tions to a healer to make an intentional connection witha sensory isolated person can be correlated to changes inbrain function of that individual16.” But it clearly is not just neurophysiology, as that is usuallyunderstood. A new sub-discipline in biology, QuantumBiology, has emerged in the last decade that takes thephysical to its limits. Life through this lens is a molecularprocess; molecular processes operate under quantumrules. us, life must be a quantum process. Experimen-tal evidence is beginning to accumulate that this quan-tum view of life processes is correct. U.C. Berkeleychemist, Gregory S. Engel, led a team that ingeniouslyfound a way to directly detect and observe quantum-level processes within a cell using high-speed lasers17.In early 2012 a team led by neill Lambert at the AdvancedScience Institute, RIKEn, and Yueh-nan Chen of thedepartment of Physics and national Center for

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 3 5

eoretical Sciences, national Cheng Kung Univer-sity in Taiwan, published a meta-analysis review ofthe Quantum biology literature to that date. eirconclusion: “Recent evidence suggests that a variety oforganisms may harness some of the unique features ofquantum mechanics to gain a biological advantage.ese features go beyond trivial quantum effects andmay include harnessing quantum coherence on physio-logically important timescales18.”is work is of enormous importance because it is build-ing step-by-step to the most refined quantum physicality.But even its most ardent exponents recognize it has notgiven us the fullness of the mind. It has not answeredwhat CU Smith of the Vision Sciences Laboratory at AstonUniversity calls the ‘hard problem’ – the neural correlatesof consciousness (nCC). Smith examined “the work ofprominent modern investigators: J.C. Eccles/FriedrichBeck; Henry Stapp; Stuart Hameroff/Roger Penrose anddavid Bohm and their attempts to show where in thebrain’s microstructure quantum affects could makethemselves felt. Smith reluctantly concluded that nonehave neurobiological plausibility.”neuroscientists Jeffrey M. Schwartz and Mario Beaure-gard, working with physicist Henry Stapp, have alsorecognized this: “neuropsychological research onthe neural basis of behaviour generally posits thatbrain mechanisms will ultimately suffice to explainall psychologically described phenomena. isassumption stems from the idea that the brain ismade up entirely of material particles and fields,and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuro-science can therefore be formulated solely in termsof properties of these elements. us, terms hav-ing intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential con-tent (e.g. “feeling,” “knowing” and “effort”) arenot included as primary causal factors. is theo-retical restriction is motivated primarily by ideasabout the natural world that have been known tobe fundamentally incorrect for more than three-quarters of a century [emphasis added]19.”In my view, it is the new medical sub-disci-pline of Resuscitation medicine that is finallygoing to push science into a new paradigm,more consistent with Planck’s observations. In the beginning near death Experience (ndE)studies were all retrospective, people recountingexperiences that had happened to them whilelittle or no monitoring was underway, some-times decades after the fact. ese accounts wereriveting, and the recurring elements common toso many of these subjective experiences wasnotable. e child studies by a team led by paedia-trician Melvin Morse were particularly compellingbecause the children were too young to be knowl-edgeable about near death20.

en dutch Cardiologist Pim van Lommel led ateam that took the research to another level. eypublished a major prospective study in a majormedical journal, e Lancet21. In this prospectivestudy, they included “[…] 344 consecutive car-diac patients who were successfully resuscitatedafter cardiac arrest in ten dutch hospitals.” eycovered every variable they could think of “[…]demographic, medical, pharmacological, and psy-chological data between patients who reportedndE and patients who did not (controls) afterresuscitation.” Of the 344 patients in the study 62(18%) reported ndE, “of whom 41 (12%) describeda core experience.” e study became longitudi-nal and they followed up both groups and com-pared the data two and eight years later.rough all of this skeptics have been able toargue the dying brain model. In August 2102,neuroscientist dean Mobbs, of the British Med-ical Research Council, Cognition and Brain Sci-ences Unit, and Edinburgh University SeniorLecturer Caroline Watt published a paper inTrends in Cognitive Sciences saying “Taken together,the scientific evidence suggests that all aspects ofthe near-death experience have a neurophysiologi-cal or psychological basis: the vivid pleasure fre-quently experienced in near-death experiences maybe the result of fear-elicited opioid release, while thelife review and REM components of the near-deathexperience could be attributed to the action of thelocus coeruleus-noradrenaline system. Out-of-bodyexperiences and feelings of disconnection with thephysical body could arise because of a break-down inmultisensory processes, and the bright lights and tun-neling could be the result of a peripheral to foveabreakdown of the visual system through oxygen depri-vation. A priori expectations, where the individualmakes sense of the situation by believing they will expe-rience the archetypal near-death experience package,may also play a crucial role22.”But medicine has not stood still. Resuscitation Medicine,is now a specialty community large enough to sustain itsown journal, eponymously titled Resuscitation. It is oneof the ironies of science that these physicians, completelydedicated to understanding the physical organism as itenters death, and closely monitoring the process, andbringing about the successful resuscitation are presentingevidence that challenges materialism in a most funda-mental manner. To begin with they are working in atime frame unlike anything seen in human history.Resuscitations are occurring after up to six hours and,by their success, taking science to the limits of physio-logical consciousness and into the domain of thenonlocal. e patients treated by these medicalteams are monitored with a precision impossible

S T E P H A N A . S C H W A R T Z | T H E C R E A T I V E P A T T E R N | 3 6

even five years ago. Yet patients at approximately thesame frequency of occurrence as in past studies arestill describing classic ndEs, and are providing testi-mony concerning objectively verifiable events thatoccurred while they lay “dead” on the operating table.Against this level of monitoring and knowledge ofbrain function the opioid arguments against the realityof ndEs appear crude and unsatisfying.ere is another issue as well. As medical staff becomemore aware of ndEs and medicine becomes ever moresophisticated, more ndEs cases show up. In the US over13 million people, about 4.2% of the American popula-tion, has reported having experienced an ndE23. And thenumber is almost certainly larger since many people don’tspeak of their experience to medical personnel. Still, 13million is lot of people. It also follows that out of thosemillions some will be prominent. Republican IllinoisSenator Mark Kirk claims that while recovering from amassive stroke in the right side of his brain at north-western Memorial Hospital’s Intensive Care Unit inChicago, he was visited by three angels – who askedhim, “You want to come with us?” To which he repliedmatter-of-factly, “no, I’ll hold off”24.So for reasons of breakthroughs in scientific researchand changes in social gestalt, we are reaching a tippingpoint. I believe it is time to think about consciousnessin a new way, giving primacy as Planck proposed.Two corollaries flow from his assertion: first, is theexistence of nonlocal Consciousness, an aspect ofconsciousness independent of space-time and notdependent on physiology. Second, as the erapeu-tic Intention/healing research shows it is possiblefor a healer holding a strong intention – whetherfor good or ill – to have an effect on anotherorganisms, even though separated by distance ortime, from single cell organisms to high ordermammals suggesting that all consciousnesses areinterdependent, and interconnected. Wolfgang Pauli, another of the 20th century’sphysics immortals saw it this way: “It is my per-sonal opinion that in the science of the futurereality will neither be ‘psychic’ nor ‘physical’ butsomehow both and somehow neither25.”In the next generation, physicist Oliver Costa deBeauregard observed, “Today’s physics allows forthe existence of so-called ‘paranormal’ phenomena[…] e whole concept of ‘non-locality’ in contem-porary physics requires this possibility26.” From thisperspective a new model of consciousness emerges:THE INTERDEPENDENT INTER-CONNECTED MODEL

1 ~ Only certain aspects of the mind are the resultof physiologic processes;

2 ~ Consciousness is causal, and physical reality is itmanifestation;

3 ~ All consciousnesses, regardless of their physicalmanifestations, are part of a network of lifewhich they both inform and influence and areinformed and influenced by: there is a passageback and forth between the individual andthe collective;

4 ~ Some aspects of consciousness are not limit-ed by the space-time continuum.

I have written extensively elsewhere about thequality of the evidence for this InterdependentInter-connected model27, 28. ere are at least sixdouble-blind randomized and stabilized proto-cols being carried out in laboratories around theworld, by dozens of researchers, whose odds ofoccurring by chance are one in a billion or better– six sigma. ese careful studies, as revealed bymeticulously structured protocols all confirmthis about consciousness: it is both local, sited inthe physiology of the body, and nonlocal existingindependent of the body, and this aspect is notlimited by space or time. Is this work to be trust-ed? I have also discussed the quality and nature ofthe critical review of this research literature else-where in several papers29, 30, 31. Here I will just say,these studies have been exhaustively critiqued, andthe results still stand.All of this research plus the study of the biographies,autobiographies, diaries and papers of the men andwomen who have these nonlocal experiences, particu-larly those that produce technological breakthroughssuggests that there is a pattern to the process. One ofthe things that distinguishes the creative master frompeople who are just smart may be that those known fortheir creativity work out their own way of invoking thispattern. e techniques they use may vary, but there aresix major components to the pattern that seem to becommon to all.

1 ~ I N T E L L E C T U A L E X C E L L E N C E

Whether it is physics or sculpture, creative masters arefirst of all masters in their field, thinking visionaries. Yetthis does not mean necessarily that they are the smartestpeople. e linkage of creative genius and high I.Q., isnowhere near as strong as many seem to believe. Itmay, in fact, be largely irrelevant in a field such aspainting. Even where it would seem to be crucial itsrole seems problematic. Physicist Richard Feynman,nobel Laureate (1965), best-selling author, and one ofthe most influential scientists of the post-World WarII world, says he snuck into his college’s office to geta look at his file, and learned that his I.Q. was only12432. Superior, certainly but, if I.Q. were the only

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 3 7

determinant, there was nothing in his to indicate ahistorically significant genius. is is not just an anec-dotal conclusion. If I.Q. were the defining attribute ofgenius there ought to be some kind of consistent mea-surable relationship between I.Q and the occurrence ofgenius. To see if such a relationship really exists, thefirst thing required is to know is how many people havereally high I.Q.s. Paul d. MacCready, an engineer by training, is consid-ered by many to be a genius; he is best known as the“Father of Human-Powered Flight” for designing andbuilding the Gossamer Condor and Gossamer Albatross.MacCready is also fascinated with the nature of genius,and he took the time to work out a calculation on theprevalence of high I.Q. individuals33. He assumed thatintelligence was normally distributed across the planet (itdoesn’t actually seem to be, but the difference here is notsignificant), and that each nation had the same ratio ofsmart, average, and dumb people as every other nation. He started with the world average I.Q., which is 100,and decided that for his analysis a genius would besomeone whose I.Q. was at least 14534. is works out tobe the top 0.13 per cent of the human race. AsMacReady points out, that’s a subgroup so rare you,the reader, may never personally know someone withan I.Q. that high. Yet as rare they are, in a world pop-ulation of seven billion human beings that stillmeans more than nine million of us – 910,000,000 –are geniuses, if that is defined as having an I.Q. of145 or greater. And, given that the planetary popu-lation increases by 228,000 humans every 24 hours35,that means that 29,640 girls and boys with I.Q.s atthis level are added every day. So if you definegenius by I.Q. there are lots and lots of geniuses,even if you don’t personally know one. Yet thisway of looking at genius can’t be right. It can’teven be correct in terms of creativity generally.How many geniuses can you name? don’trestrict yourself to only those living now, make iteasier, and take the last 5,000 years of history asyour time frame. Well, you might start, there’sEinstein, Leonardo, Blake, Mozart, Picasso –mostly people we know by one name – but after15 or 20 names it gets harder to add to the list. Ifyou are like most people you will end up withless than 100 names. If over nine million individ-uals are alive today – let alone the millions andmillions of men and women with I.Q.s of 145 orbetter who have lived during the past five thou-sand years – and most of us can name less than100, obviously something besides just high I.Q. isnecessary to become a genius. Put another way, ifhigh I.Q. were the only thing needed, then MEnSA,the organization that selects its membership on thebasis of high I.Q. – their threshold is only 132 – ought

to be filled with the leading geniuses of our time. It isnot. Its membership is filled with obviously bright,often interesting and eccentric, frequently likeablepeople, the great bulk of whom work in quite ordi-nary jobs, leading anonymous lives just like theirneighbours who have much lower I.Q.s. Intelli-gence as the single dominant factor fails as anexplanation to genius, and even less impactfulforms of creativity.In 1871, Charles darwin, enormously famousand recognized for the genius of his work,wrote his son a letter in which he tried to puzzleout the mystery. “I have been speculating” hesaid, “what makes a man a discoverer of undis-covered things; and a most perplexing problemit is. Many men who are very clever – muchcleverer than the discoverers – never originateanything36.” darwin’s choice of gender wordsreflects the bias of his time, but his fundamentalpoint is as valid today as it ever was.We should not, however, make the mistake ofconfusing creativity with enlightenment. Manycreative masters are not very stable or functionalin other parts of their lives. Gauguin may havebeen a great painter but he was a man tortured byfears and angers. Picasso, by the accounts of allwho knew him, was often not a very nice man. It isnot required that creativity and desirable charactertraits be linked. What does seem to be important isthat creativity is in some way a function of focus.Focus can be achieved either through neurosis (anobsessive focus) or through a dedicated consciously-assumed focus (as in any of the martial or meditativearts). Perhaps because, as a culture, we do not provideeffective and systematic training to achieve creativevision, when it does manifest itself it is often cloudedby neurotic focus.nikola Tesla, for example, was one of the towering fig-ures of early 20th century science, yet his fear of germsled to his demand that everything on his table be steril-ized, and that at least two dozen napkins be placed nextto him when he sat down to eat37. What produces suchan imbalance? Why do many geniuses cling to debilitat-ing idiosyncrasies? Perhaps, without consciously under-standing the relationship they are afraid that if they giveup their obsessions they will lose their focus, and thustheir creative powers.

2 ~ T H E D E E P K N O W I N G T H A T A S O L U T I O N

T O T H E C H A L L E N G E D O E S E X I S T

Mastery of one’s field is critical for a second reason; itis a precursor to knowing (as opposed to believing)that a solution exists. As Einstein explained it, “I feelcertain I am right while not knowing the reason38.”

S T E P H A N A . S C H W A R T Z | T H E C R E A T I V E P A T T E R N | 3 8

is knowingness could be described as a “leap offaith.” It is an act of trust. Creative masters may befilled with doubts about the other parts of their lives,but about the wellspring of their creativity they all seemto have a sense of trust. Creative breakthroughs are notjust re-combinations of known elements (although theymay be that as well), but genuine ground breakinginsights, and it does not seem possible to attain themwithout this sense of trust and without the courage tomake that leap of faith from the known to the unknownno mater the cost.

3 ~ S T R A T E G I E S O F I N W A R D L O O K I N G

It is essential to develop some technique of inward looking– some way of connecting with that aspect lying beyondthe purview of the intellect. Here again the ability tofocus, to hold intentioned awareness, is a central factor.Historical accounts and laboratory research both suggestthat meditation, gardening, even sports such as darts, canprovide a way of looking beyond the known horizon. Given the commitment to do so, could we, in fact,develop training processes, which would create theconditions for a creative breakthrough? I believe wecan and that the place to start is with the psycho-physical self regulation techniques practiced in medi-tation and some mindfulness training.Over a 1,000 papers were published on Meditation inthe peer-reviewed literature just between 2006 and2009. ere is not one meditation literature, butmultiple branches to this literature in several disci-plines, from physics to pastoral. Much of theresearch focuses on stress reduction, sleep prob-lems, and attention issues. But in the context ofopening to nonlocal consciousness and the cre-ative pattern, I want to concentrate principallyon the emerging evidence on the lasting effectsmeditation has on our neuro-anatomy, particu-larly our brains and, even here I am only goingto focus on the research of the past few years. By 2004 it was already well-established that elec-troencephalogram patterns of meditators weredifferent than non-meditators. But the questionwas: did this mean there was enduring funda-mental change in the brains of meditators? Toanswer this question a team at the Psychiatricneuroimaging Research Program, MassachusettsGeneral Hospital in Boston headed by Sara Lazar,used MRI to scan the brains of long-term medita-tors to see if the physical structure of their brainsreally were different. In 2005 they reported theirfindings in Neuroreport: “Brain regions associatedwith attention, interoception and sensory process-ing were thicker in meditation participants thanmatched controls, including the prefrontal cortex

and right anterior insula. Between-group differencesin prefrontal cortical thickness were most pro-nounced in older participants, suggesting that med-itation might offset age-related cortical thinning.Finally, the thickness of two regions correlatedwith meditation experience. ese data providethe first structural evidence for experience-depen-dent cortical plasticity associated with meditationpractice39.”In 2009, at the Center for Functionally Integra-tive neuroscience, at denmark’s Aarhus Univer-sity, Peter Vestergaard-Pulsen led a team seekingto explore the effects of long term meditation onbrain structure. ey found, as they report intheir paper in Neuroreport: “Using magnetic res-onance imaging, we observed higher gray matterdensity in lower brain stem regions of experi-enced meditators compared with age-matchednonmeditators. Our findings show that long-term practitioners of meditation have structuraldifferences in brainstem regions concerned withcardiorespiratory control. is could account forsome of the cardiorespiratory parasympatheticeffects and traits, as well as the cognitive, emotion-al, and immunoreactive impact reported in severalstudies of different meditation practices40.”Half a world away and a few months later that sameyear a research team at the Laboratory of neuroImaging, department of neurology, UCLA School ofMedicine publishing in Neuroimage reported: “[…]meditation practice has been shown not only to bene-fit higher-order cognitive functions but also to alterbrain activity. nevertheless, little is known about pos-sible links to brain structure. Using high-resolutionMRI data of 44 subjects, we set out to examine theunderlying anatomical correlates of long-term medita-tion with different regional specificity (i.e., global,regional, and local). For this purpose, we applied voxel-based morphometry in association with a recently vali-dated automated parcellation approach. We detected sig-nificantly larger gray matter volumes in meditators in theright orbito-frontal cortex (as well as in the right thala-mus and left inferior temporal gyrus when co-varying forage and/or lowering applied statistical thresholds). Inaddition, meditators showed significantly larger volumesof the right hippocampus. Both orbito-frontal and hip-pocampal regions have been implicated in emotionalregulation and response control. us, larger volumesin these regions might account for meditators’ singularabilities and habits to cultivate positive emotions,retain emotional stability, and engage in mindfulbehaviour. We further suggest that these regionalalterations in brain structures constitute part of theunderlying neurological correlate of long-term medi-tation independent of a specific style and practice41.”

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 3 9

e work of Yi-Yuan Tang of dalian University ofTechnology in China and Michael Posner of theUniversity of Oregon will end my short survey. eirwork confirmed once again that meditation literallychanges one’s brain. In the Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Science in August 2010 at the University ofOregon 45 volunteers were assigned to either an inte-grative body-mind training (IBMT) for meditation or acontrol group that did only a relaxation program42. Inscanning the brains of both groups after training theyfound that the brains of those individuals who engagedin the IBMT form of meditation showed greater changethan those who just used a relaxation technique and that:“[…] 11 h(ours) of IBMT increases fractional anisotropy(FA), an index indicating the integrity and efficiency ofwhite matter in the corona radiata, an important white-matter tract connecting the ACC to other structures.us IBMT could provide a means for improving self-regulation and perhaps reducing or preventing variousmental disorders43.”natural sleep also plays a role. Lloyd Osborne, whowrote Ebb Tide with Robert Louis Stevenson, author ofTreasure Island and e Strange Case of dr. Jekyll andMr. Hyde, quoted Stevenson as saying that he went tosleep asking, “the gremlins of my mind to write a storywhile I slept44.” Physician and researcher dr. JonasSalk said something similar “Intuition is somethingwe don’t understand the biology of yet, but it isalways with excitement that I wake up in the morn-ing wondering what my intuition will toss up tome, like gifts from the sea. I work with it, and relyupon it. It’s my partner45.”Salk is reported by For-tune Magazine editor Roy Rowan as crediting thistechnique in guiding him to make the correct leapthat led to the discovery of the polio vaccine46.Perhaps the most ironic example of dreams as a partof the pattern is the account of René descartes. OnSaint Martin’s eve (november 10th) 1619, in neu-berg, Germany, he had an experience, which ledto what he called “a wonderful discovery47.”Fromit he formulated “a marvelous science,” a world-view whose hallmark was its commitment to theprimacy of the intellect; a view which has domi-nated how technological cultures have thoughtabout the world ever since. What was this won-drous experience? It was that most non-intellec-tual of events: a series of three dreams or visions.e technique used to achieve intentioned focusedawareness does not seem to matter. From intensestress to meditation, anything that creates this sin-gle pointedness facilitates opening to the nonlocalaspect of consciousness. But understanding thedynamics of the nonlocal experience itself holds sub-stantial promise for learning how to create thesestates and use them in a practical manner. Recently

research was published on the effects of meditationon the four roughest San Francisco city schoolspoint the way. Twice a day a gong sounds in the classrooms forwhat is known as “Quiet Time.” San FranciscoChronicle education reporter david Kirp whowitnessed it said “I’ve spent lots of time in urbanschools and have never seen anything like it48.”e gong sounds and the students all sit quiet-ly, eyes closed, and hold the focused attentionto clear their minds and release anger and neg-ative emotions. In 2007 the city’s Visitacion Valley MiddleSchool became the first public school nation-wide to adopt this Quiet Time program. Vis-itacion is situated in a neighbourhood wheregunfire is so frequent it is routine backgroundnoise. nine shootings were reported in this oneneighbourhood from mid-december to mid-January 2014. Almost every child sitting in theschool’s classrooms knows someone who hasbeen shot. Or they themselves have been shot.Murders are so frequent the school feels the needto employ a full-time staff grief counsellor. Kirp describes what has happened over the sevenyears the program has been in operation: “In yearspast, these students were largely out of control, fre-quently fighting in the corridors, scrawling graffition the walls and cursing their teachers. Absenteeismrates were among the city’s highest and so were sus-pensions. Worn-down teachers routinely called insick. now these students are doing light-years better.In the first year of Quiet Time, the number of suspen-sions fell by 45 percent. Within four years, the suspen-sion rate was among the lowest in the city. daily atten-dance rates climbed to 98 percent, well above the city-wide average. Grade point averages improved markedly.About 20 percent of graduates are admitted to LowellHigh School – before Quiet Time, getting any studentsinto this elite high school was a rarity. Remarkably, inthe annual California Healthy Kids Survey, these mid-dle school youngsters recorded the highest happinesslevels in San Francisco49.”Perhaps it is not surprising then that a significant body ofresearch has grown up since the early 1970s, showing thatthere is a strong correlation between explicitly linkingmeditation to successfully completing a task that can onlybe done by opening to nonlocal consciousness50. ereare dozens of papers exploring this correlation, and it isthe single clearest indicator of nonlocal task success51.Why? Because meditation develops the discipline ofholding intentioned focused awareness, which is theskill required to open to nonlocal awareness.

S T E P H A N A . S C H W A R T Z | T H E C R E A T I V E P A T T E R N | 4 0

4 ~ S U R R E N D E R

A surcease from intellectual struggle must occur inorder for the breakthrough to take place. One mustreach the eye of the intellectual hurricane, a place ofpeace and assuredness, in order for the moment ofbreakthrough to occur. By their reports individuals saysurrender leads to the kind of inner-listening associatedwith creativity – just as intellectual command allowsinner-listening. Edwin Herbert Land, the inventor ofthe Polaroid process, at the end of his career re-exam-ined the work of hundreds of scientists and engineers inhis firm, and concluded that most significant discoverieswere made, “by some individual who has freed himselffrom a way of thinking that is held by friends and associ-ates who may be more intelligent, better educated, betterdisciplined, but who have not mastered the art of thefresh, clean look at the old, old knowledge52.”

5 ~ T H E M O M E N T O F I L L U M I N A T I O N

It has been called the Ahha! experience, and could beknown as the moment of genius. It happens very quick-ly. nietzsche said Also Sprach Zarathustra came to himin a moment while he was walking through the woodsbeside Lake Silvaplana53 Tesla’s invention of the electricmotor, at the end of the 19th century came, he said,during a walk across a city park54. e French mathe-matician Jules Henri Poincare told friends that ontwo occasions major breakthroughs seemed to come“from thin air55.” Einstein said he “saw” Relativity ashe idled away time in a canoe after an illness56. Hewould later write: “I believe in intuition and inspi-ration […] Imagination is more important thanknowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereasimagination embraces the entire world, stimulat-ing progress, giving birth to evolution […]57” dar-win, said that after years of collecting data one daywhen he was relaxed and away from his work-place, the key elements of evolution fell into placein an instant58.” Research suggests that there is a10-20 second “window of intuition” which thencloses down as intellectual analysis overridesdirect perception of the intuitive images.In remote viewing, one of the six explicit nonlo-cal consciousness protocols, a viewer is asked toprovide their sense perceptions describing a per-son, place, or object from which they are isolatedby reason of time or space or both. Researchersvery early on discovered that to “fix” these short-lived evanescent moments so that they remainavailable to memory, one of the easiest and bestways to do so is to make a simple drawing59. Look-ing at the target drawings made in laboratoryRemote Viewing experiments, the comparison withthe doodles made by scientists as they attempt to

translate their interior images into a formal expres-sion they can share with colleagues is irresistible. Inboth instances the drawings, even after interrup-tions, can be used to refocus on the insight.

6 ~ I N T E L L E C T U A L E X P L I C A T I O N

A N D V E R I F I C A T I O N

Once the moment of illumination has takenplace, the conscious, analytical, and synthesizingintellect comes back into play. descartes gives aclear example of the process when he says that afterhis dream it took him the rest of his life to makethat vision intelligible to others. nietzsche says he“saw” the story of Zarathustra in a moment, buttook months to write out his vision60. ere is thenecessity to winnow the valid inspirations fromthe erroneous ones. is, too, requires the spe-cial skills of the intellect.One of the most intriguing things about thesedescriptions, other than their uniformity, is theuncanny resemblance they bear to research reportsin parapsychology, the one discipline that studiesrigorously controlled intuitive events. When, forexample, ordinary people are asked to carry out anintuitive task, known as Remote Viewing, whichinvolves the ability to describe persons, places orevents from which one is physically or temporallyseparated, and about which one could not knowthrough normal sensory or intellectual channels, indebriefing sessions which follow such an experiment,participants frequently say about their intuitive experi-ence that “I kind of space out,” or “it’s sort of likefocusing my mind at some middle distance”. eydescribe the moment itself by saying, “it came in aflash,” or “it was like a hologram.” “Images are all there[...] as if it were a hologram hanging in my mind.”Indeed, so strong is this aspect that Arthur Koestlercoined the term holons to deal with this inpouring ofcomprehension61.We know the creative breakthroughs are real. We live inthe world they create. new technologies, new sym-phonies, new paintings come into the world. One of thestrange things about these moments of illumination isthat they often occur in more than one person in nearconcurrency. Alfred Wallace and Charles darwin havesimilar insights in near concurrence. Edison was not theonly person to solve the problem of making a functionallight bulb, only the first to get a patent. is simultaneityis so marked that it is almost as if the collective mind ofhumanity was pregnant with the idea and gave it birth inseveral places to assure that at least one birth would sur-vive. is suggests German polymath Adolf Bastian’s(1826-1905), theory of Elementargedanke – literally “ele-mentary thoughts of humankind” which so influenced

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 4 1

physicists like Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, and Einstein– indeed much the German school of physics whichwas dominant in the early decades of the 20th centuryleading up to WWII – as well anthropologists like FranzBoas, the father of American anthropology, and physi-cians such a Carl Jung. e idea of the collective uncon-scious – Jung’s term for the nonlocal domain – was theway he expressed it. It proposes a worldview in which allmanifestations of consciousness, regardless of the com-plexity of their physical forms, are part of a network oflife. A network in which each component both informsand influences, as it is informed and influenced. It is worth noting that even if the selective criterion is“the bottom line”, there is clear evidence of a direct cor-relation between intuitive functioning and creative deci-sion making in business. douglas dean and John Miha-lasky of newark Institute of Technology carried out aseries of experiments involving 385 Chief ExecutiveOfficers of American corporations62. e task requiredof the CEOs was to precognitively predict 100 randomlyselected numbers. e results were then correlatedwith the financial report of the corporations. In everyexperiment a positive correlation was establishedbetween financial performance and high precognitivefunctioning – a correlation sufficiently strong thatdean was able to examine financial reports and pre-dict how the CEO of that corporation would do inhis number predicting experiment. Prophets, hefound, make profits.If one thinks of social policy from the physicalistmodel each consciousness is isolated and theEarth is a dead resource to extract or dominate.Consciousness has no real role. We live on thatEarth largely isolated from Earth’s meta-systemsunless the weather is bad. In contrast from aperspective of consciousness being of primaryimportance in an interdependent and intercon-nected matrix of life. It becomes clear that wedon’t live on the Earth, we live in the Earth,cantered in a cocoon that extends several milesbelow the Earth’s surface and far above us.Spacecraft experience atmospheric effects begin-ning 75 miles out (120km). And beyond that laysthe protective veils of the magnetosphere. Weare embedded in a vast interlocking system inwhich consciousness plays a powerful role.From the perspective of this matrix, wellness atevery level from individual to planetary sud-denly becomes the most desirable state, and ofprimary importance. Profit must be made withina life-affirming parameter. Science’s socio-metricshave become sufficiently sophisticated and pre-cise that we can say that, based on reliable objec-tive measures, the compassionate life-affirmingchoice is the best one63.

I believe we are now living through a fundamentalchange in human consciousness, not just technology,but a fundamental change in social paradigm. Ithas happened before. As precedent consider whatGerman psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers(1883-1969) called the Axial Period, roughly theeighth to second century BCE, and mostly can-tered in the two centuries from 800 to 600 BCE.In that historically small time period most of theworld’s great pre-Christian religious movementsand philosophical lines developed. Confucius(555-478BC) and Buddha (567-487 BC) werealmost exact contemporaries as was Zoroaster,according to the best approximation, as well asLao Tzu, founder of Taosim, and Mahavira,who is the most probable founder of Jainism.In the Middle East the line of monotheisticprophets, which began with Amos of Tekoamidway through the eighth century, reached itsculmination near the end of the sixth centurywith deutro-Isaiac Judaism. At this same time,in the northern Mediterranean the Greeks wereexperiencing the birth of philosophical specula-tion with the work of ales and his successors.And in Athens democracy was established64.Human consciousness changed.I believe we are facing a change of that magnitude,one whose outcome is still labile, but whose out-come is certain. Our survival depends on under-standing that life is interconnected and interdepen-dent, and that we must work with the great meta-systems of the Earth. e question is not whether wewill change, but how much pain we must inflict uponourselves before we make the choices that are compas-sionate and life-affirming, leading to wellness from theindividual to the planetary. Understanding the creativepattern including the nonlocal aspect of consciousnesscomponent will make this transition easier.

8

——————

1 Hobhouse H. (1985). Seeds of Change: Five Plants that Trans-formed Mankind (London: Sedgwick & Jackson): 24-25.

2 McClintock B. National Women’s History Museum <http://bit.ly/1juHBpb > [Accessed 19 March 2014].

3 Tart C. (1972). “States of Consciousness and State-Specific Sci-ences”, Science, 176: 1203-1210.

4 Kuhn T. (1996). Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago:University of Chicago Press): 122.

5 Idem: 121.6 Abell A.M. (1964). Talks with the Great Composers: Garmisch-

Parten-Kirchen (Eschwege: G.E. Schroeder): 19-21.7 Albert Einstein quoted in Eves H. (1977). Mathematical Cir-

cles Adieu (Boston, Mass: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt).8 Cayce E. Reading #3744-3. October 9, 1923 (Virginia Beach,

Va.: Archives of the Association for Research and Enlightenment).

S T E P H A N A . S C H W A R T Z | T H E C R E A T I V E P A T T E R N | 4 2

9 Schwartz S., dossey L. (2010). Nonlocality, Intention, andObserver Effects in Healing Studies, September/October 6(5): 295-305 doi:10.1016/j.explore.2010.06.011. Also, in (2012). OxfordHandbook of Psychology and Spirituality. ed. Lisa Miller (Oxford:Oxford UP).

10 The Complete Works of St. Teresa of Avila. Trans. and ed. E.Allison Peers; from the critical edition of P. Silverio de Santa Teresa.(London-new York: Burns and Oates, 2002).

11 Interview with Max Planck, e Observer, January 25, 1931.12 Planck M. (1944). Lecture, ‘das Wesen der Materie’ [e

Essence/nature/Character of Matter], (Florence: Archiv zurGeschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck,nr. 1797).

13 Bowden E.M., Jung-Beeman M. (2003). “Aha! Insight experi-ence correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere”, Psy-chon Bull Rev. Sep; 10(3 ):730-7. PMId: 14620371.

14 Jung-Beeman M., Bowden E.M., Haberman J., Frymiare J.L.,Arambel-Liu S., Greenblatt R., Reber P.J., Kounios J. (2004) Free inPMC Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight,PLoS Biol. Apr; 2(4): E97. Epub 2004 Apr 13. PMId: 15094802.

15 Baron Short E., Kose S., Mu Q., Borckardt J., newberg A.,George M.S., Kozel F.A. (2010), “Regional brain activation duringmeditation shows time and practice effects: an exploratory FMRIstudy”, Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. Mar. 7(1): 121-7. doi:10.1093/ecam/nem163. Epub 2007 dec 27. PMId: 18955268[PubMed].

16 Achterberg J., Cooke K., Richards T., Standish L.J., KozakL., Lake J. (2005). “Evidence for correlations between distant inten-tionality and brain function in recipients: a functional magneticresonance imaging analysis”, J Altern Complement Med, dec. 11(6):965-71. PMId:16398587.

17 Panitchayangkoon G., Hayes d., Fransted K.A., CaramJ.R., Harel E., Wen J., Blankenship R.E., Engel G.S. (2010).“Long-lived coherence in photosynthetic complexes at physio-logical temperature”, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, Jul. 20:107(29):12766-70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1005484107. Epub 2010 Jul 6.PMId: 20615985.

18 Lambert, neill, Chen, Yueh-nan, Cheng, Yuan-Chung,Li, Che-Ming, Chen, Guang-Yin, nori, Franco (2013). “Quan-tum biology”, Nature Physics 9: 10-18. doi:10.1038/nphys2474.09 december 2012.

19 Schwartz, J. M., Stapp, H. P., & Beauregard, M.(2005). “Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology:A neurophysical model of mind-brain interaction”, PhilosTrans R Soc Long B Biol Sci, 360(1458): 1309-1327.

20 Morse M., Castillo P., Venecia d., Milstein J., Tylerd.C. (1986). “Childhood near-death Experiences”, Am JDis Child.,140(11): 1110-1114. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1986.02140250036031.

21 Van Lommel P., Van Wees R., Meyers V., Elfferich,“neaer death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: AProspective Study in the netherlands”, e Lancet, dec.358(15): 2039-2044.

22 Mobbs d., Watt C. (2011). “ere is nothing para-normal about near-death experiences: how neuroscience canexplain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being con-vinced you are one of them”, Trends Cogn Sci. Oct. 15(10):449. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.010. Epub 2011 Aug 17.

23 Van Lommel P. (2010). Consciousness Beyond Life (newYork: Harper One).

24 Lallanilla M. (2013). “Senator Claims Angels VisitedHim in Hospital”, Live Science, 3 Jan. < http://bit.ly/1i9xnYm> [Accessed 3 Jan. 2013].

25 Pais, A., & Pauli, W. E. (2000). e genius of science(Oxford: Oxford UP).

26 de Beauregard O. (1998). “e paranormal is not exclud-ed from physics”, J Sci Exploration, (12) :315-320.

27 Schwartz S. (2014). “Six Protocols, neuroscience, andnear death: An Emerging Paradigm Incorporating nonlocalConsciousness Aspects of Consciousness” ,vol. II. Essays onPhysics, Death and the Mind, ed. Ingrid Fredriksson (Jefferson,nC.: McFarland).

28 Schwartz S. (2014). “rough Time and Space: e Evi-dence for Remote Viewing”, e Evidence for Psi, ed. damienBroderick and Ben Groetzel (new York: McFarland).

29 Schwartz S. (2010). “e Antique Roadshow: Howdenier Movements Critique Evolution, Climate Change,and nonlocal Consciousness”, Debating Psychic Experiences,ed. Stanley Krippner and Harris L. Friedman (Santa Bar-bara: Praeger): 179-194.

30 Schwartz S. (2013). “False Equivalencies and theMediocrity of nonlocal Consciousness Research Criti-cism”, Explore: e Journal of Science and Healing, May9(3): 131-135.

31 Schwartz S. (2012). “nonlocality, near-death Expe-riences, and the Challenge of Consciousness”, Explore,nov., 8( 6): 326-330.

32 People Magazine. Jan. 1986.33 Paul MacCready. (1993). “Potential and Achievement

Categorization of Genius”. Skeptic 2(1): 42-45.34 Idem. His actual calculation was “three standard deviations

above average.” In this instance, one standard deviation is 15.35 Population Institute < http://bit.ly/1i9y3gd > [accessed

20 March 2014].36 Charles darwin (1871). Letter to his son Horace as

reported by Erasmus darwin, 1915, 2: 207.37 Reminiscences of Nikola Tesla (Jugaslavia, n.d: Tesla Institute).

38 Albert Einstein quoted in Farady, Maxwell and Kelvin byd.K.C. Macdonald (Garden City, nJ: doubleday, 1964).

39 Lazar S.W., Kerr C.E., Wasserman R.H., Gray J.R., Greved.n., Treadway M.T., McGarvey M., Quinn B.T., dusek J.A.,Benson H., Rauch S.L., Moore C.I., Fischl B. (2005). “Meditationexperience is associated with increased cortical thickness”, Neurore-port, nov. 28, 16(17): 1893-7.

40 Vestergaard-Poulsen P., van Beek M., Skewes J., BjarkamC.R., Stubberup M., Bertelsen J., Roepstorff A. (2009). “Long-termmeditation is associated with increased gray matter density in thebrain stem”, Neuroreport, Jan. 28; 20(2) :170-4.

41 Luders E., Toga A.W., Lepore n., Gaser C. (2009). “eunderlying anatomical correlates of long-term meditation: larger hip-pocampal and frontal volumes of gray matter”, Neuroimage, Apr. 15,45(3): 672-8.

42 Tang Y-Y., Lu Q., Geng, x., Stein E., Yang Y. and Posner M.(2010). “Short-term meditation induces white matter changes in theanterior cingulated”, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, Aug. 31; 107(35): 15649-15652. Pub online 2010 Aug. 16. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011043107.

43 Idem.44 Osborne L. (1924). An Intimate Portrait of RLS (Privately printed).45 Rowan R. (1979). “ose Business Hunches are More than

Blind Faith”, Fortune, April 23: 110-114.46 Ibid.47 Adams C. and Tannery P., Oeuvres de Descartes, (Vie de

Descartes, vol. xII).48 Kirp d. (2014). “Meditation Transforms Roughest San Fran-

cisco Schools”, San Francisco Chronicle, 6:37 pm, Sunday, Jan. 12, <http://bit.ly/1iUUfgi >.

49 Idem.50 Wallace R. K. (1971). e Physiological Effects of Transcendental

Meditation, doctoral diss. UCLA (Grant nIMH 2-TO1 MH 06415-12,19). See also Ramakrishna Rao and H. dukan. “Meditation and

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 4 3

ESP scoring”, in W.G. Roll, R.L. Morris, and J.d. Morris, eds.,Research in Parapsychology 1972. (Scarecrow, Meutchen, nJ: 1973):148-151).

51 Meditation and ESP, Google Scholar < http://bit.ly/1hfEV >[Accessed 21 March 2014].

52 Edwin C. Land. (1963). Address to Polaroid Employees.53 Adams and Tannery, Op. Cit.54 Beneridge W. I. B. (1957). e Art of Scientific Investigation, 3rd

ed. (new York: Vintage).55 delaney G. “Creativity in Music”, Proceedings of the Association for

the Anthropological Study of Consciousness. Annual Meetings. 1984.56 Einstein, A., Collected Papers (Princeton, nJ: Princeton Center

for Advanced Studies).57 What Life Means to Einstein, interview by George Sylvester

Viereck, e Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929 (start: 17; quote:117; column: 1), (Indianapolis, Indiana: Saturday Evening Post Soci-ety), verified on microfilm.

58 Beneridge W. I. B. Op. Cit. 59 Tart C. ed. (1978). Mind at Large (new York: Praeger).60 Abell A.M. Op. Cit.: 19-21.61 Koestler A. (1978). Janus (new York: Random House).62 dean d., Mihalasky J., Ostrander S., and Schroeder L. (1974).

Executive ESP (Englewood Cliffs, nJ: Prentice-Hall). 63 Schwartz S. (2012). “Social Values, Social Wellness: Can We

Know What Works?”, Explore: e Journal of Science and Healing,March (8)2: 89-91 (dOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2011.12.009).

64 Jaspers K. (1953). e Origin and Goal of History, trans. M.Bullock (new Haven, CT: Yale UP).

a b

S T E P H A N A . S C H W A R T Z | T H E C R E A T I V E P A T T E R N | 4 4

e month of March (detail).

Adebayo Akomolafe (PhD) is aclinical psychologist, lecturer,speaker and author. He cur-rently teaches in Covenant-University, Nigeria. Bayo isan international figure andpoet-activist for a radical

paradigm-shift in collectivehuman experience. His is an

emerging voice in the world callingfor a multi-dimensional shift in con-

sciousness by turning to each other in small ways. Bayo and his‘life-force’, Ej, are currently on an enchanted journey of decolo-nization. He is writing his second book And We Shall dancewith the Mountains: Subversive Journeys at the Edges of aPlanetary Future. Ej and Bayo are ecstatic parents of a girl,Alethea-Aanya – their mentor.

S A POST-2015 WORLd dRAWS CLOSER, An UnSPOKEn

awareness is speedily gaining prominence:not only have the Millennium developmentGoals (MdGs) failed to translate into a more

equitable state of things for people across theworld, but there is now some admission that evenif they did we still wouldn’t have achieved a worldour hearts feel is possible. In a sense, what is fea-sible is no longer desirable. We have seeminglycome to the logical ends of our institutionalquests for a better world, and the echoes of sys-temic disillusionment are deafening. However,silhouetted by perpetuated narratives of crueloptimism and the political compulsion to neverlose hope is an amorphous, invisible planetaryrevolution that somehow transcends the utopi-an politics of hope and reaches through currentparadigms of knowing and being – connectingwith the impossible. In this essay, I write abouta different kind of politics that is animating theseconsciousness shifts – not one of hope, but oneof a radical element: ‘surprise’; this politics of sur-prise – a sustained intimacy with not-knowing,with our shared disenchantments, with a radicallydifferent conception of the cosmos, and with arejuvenated sense of humility and ‘positionality’in a universe that is no longer passive and dead, butsensuously alive – is largely informed by reanimatedindigenous wisdoms, paradigm-bursting researchinto quantum realities, and local experiments with

‘neighbouring’ and gift-sharing. More important-ly, this transitional politics is the non-dualisticreclamation of our poetic affinities with darknessas the source for ‘new’ moments – a Prometheanreification of ‘lostness’ that is becoming a power-ful movement for deep change.

T H E W I L D S B E Y O N D

O U R F E N C E S

One day in 2012, I found myself precariouslyperched atop the buzzing engine of a run-downcommercial motorcycle. As we drank in mileswith reckless abandon, I felt with an urgent keen-ness every inch of the journey, every overworkedbolt on the old machine, and all the reasons why Iwas most certainly out of my mind. e motorcy-cle’s rider, my companion and interpreter, had noqualms juicing it for all it was worth – if only tomeet the next appointment I had made with anoth-er Yoruba shaman in a nearby settlement.Hours earlier, I had sat before a middle-aged albinoman with bloodshot eyes and a sinister smile. Hecalled himself ‘Whiteman’. He was a traditional practi-tioner in dark crafts, in the art of healing people of theirmany mental and physical ailments without the instru-ments that make modern healthcare seemingly indis-pensable. I had come to him, wet-nosed and out of mydepth, to inquire about alternative worldviews aboutmental health and mental illness. Unable to stringtogether a meaningful sentence in my own indigenouslanguage, Yoruba, I had hired a local ‘gatekeeper’ to helpinterpret my questions and, in turn, translate my intervie-wees’ responses. ‘Whiteman’ was, however, unlike theother traditional healers I had already interviewed andrelated with. ere was something unnervingly threaten-ing about him. He guffawed at all my questions – as if toemphasize how utterly ignorant I was. At one point dur-ing the interview, after my rudely persistent questionsabout local experiences and meanings of mental distress,he even threatened to make me mad. I wasn’t sure if Ibelieved he could do it, but I wasn’t willing to persistany further. His apartment had all the trappings ofmystery and all the carnal percolations of the sacred.ere were however no crosses, no rosaries or leather-bound texts. In their stead were snail shells, cowhorns, little glass bottles with leaves stuffed inside

THE PROMISE OF PROMETHEAN DARKNESS:H OW A ‘ N E W ’ P O L I T I C S O F A S T O N I S H M E N T I S W E A V I N G

A G L O B A L A L L I A N C E F O R T H E P O S S I B L E

A

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 4 5

A D E B A Y O A K O M O L A F E

them, and cobwebs seemingly connecting them all.ese items somehow co-created an otherworldlyatmosphere, granting the musical intonations of theYoruba-speaking shaman the added quality of beingprophetic – so that when he told me the psychiatricindustry could not address his people’s problems, hesounded as if he were singing the lyrics to a tune Isomewhat recognized but no longer remembered. As we rode on through bushes, through dusty stretchesof broken asphalted roads, shrouded by a setting sun, Icould already make out the contours of a powerful real-ization dawning in my mind. I managed to scrawl quicknotes and new questions in my diary as we piercedthrough the twilight-stained landscapes. e journeyitself seemed to be writing along with me – suggestingstrong themes that would later guide my interpretationsand report. By the time I had interviewed the sixth healer,I was already fully saturated with the meaty entrails of asubversive idea: there is much more at our disposal thanthe systemic impasses of orthodoxy might suggest. ereare wilds beyond our fences.

T H E M I L L E N N I U M

D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S

In the year 2000, at the United nations’ Headquartersin new York, 189 nation-states pledged to achieve aseries of goals by the year 2015. e goals, rangingfrom eradicating hunger, achieving environmentalsustainability, giving every girl and boy primaryeducation, reducing child mortality and improvingmaternal health, and developing a global partner-ship for development, represented a criticalmoment in modern history. designed to galva-nize intergovernmental agencies, civil societyorganizations, and the private sector, the Millen-nium development Goals (MdGs) promised tousher in the long-awaited age of prosperity, tech-nological innovation, peace and health for allthat had seemed to elude the modern project. e chords of triumph echoed in city hallsacross the globe: finally, the world had won itsprotracted battle with all its pestilent ills. Well,at least, we were firmly on the path towards theemerald city, gleaming with seductive irre-sistibility. We had a map, our column of fire toguide us towards Canaan. It became incrediblypowerful, not to mention being politically correct,to speak about ‘championing the Millenniumdevelopment Goals’, because they summarilyrepresented the genius of political imagination,the necessity of bureaucracy, the raison d’etre ofbig money and technological innovation. We weregoing to eradicate poverty by lifting most people inthe developing world from the below-one-dollar-a-day

pits; we were going to help every girl-child get toschool, enjoy a good education, and have a fightingchance at life; we were going to save the environment. e mighty gears of modern agency roared tomechanical life in obedience to their ‘new’ direc-tives. More money was released to close the sta-tistical miles between where we were and wherewe hoped to be by 2015. In my country, nigeria,the MdGs spawned a small pseudo-industry ofghost-nGOs with organizational objectives care-fully stated to demonstrate compliance with thelofty goals of the United nations. e pregnantclouds had congregated above our heads, andeveryone was about with little baskets to catch asmany drops of rain as they could. Who couldblame them? It was free money – and everyonewas equal under the clouds. naturally, thosewith more larger, more sinewy baskets weremore equal than the rest. Silhouetted by nationalquests for debt cancellation, local governmentofficials and professional ‘activists’ were often thefirst to really benefit from global aid and the per-fect storm of sympathy that invaded our borders.Behind tear-inducing, heart-churning photographsof malnourished children were simple get-rich-quick schemes that siphoned money towardswhere it naturally gravitates – more money. In theperipheries of the social orgies the Goals had inad-vertently made happen were villages, peoples andcommunities that didn’t have a clue.But of course there was bound to be critical flaws inhow the Goals were pursued. e MdGs weren’t apapal decree or, less impressive, a divine ordinance.ey didn’t come equipped with infallible strategies.Moreover, there were many instances in which far-flung communities were successfully reached by white-tee-shirt volunteers with vaccines and flashy leafletsabout the relative joys of abstinence or the hauntingdangers of not using condoms. Slowly, the averagesbegan to rise in nigeria as well as in other parts of theworld, vindicating the heavy investments of former years. In about a year from this writing, the MdGs would havecome full circle – expiring at the marble doorstepswhence they first walked out into the world, not havingbeen fulfilled. ere will be grim pre-meetings andcountless committees and reports trying to make senseof the last 15 years. ere will be fiery debates about bet-ter data measurement tools and more sensitive indica-tors. drowned in tsunamis of numbers and words, theAssembly will make calls for more effective leaders tochampion the inevitable Post-2015 goals. But whenthose Goals walk down those marble steps, they willwalk into a world significantly different from the onein year 2000. Back when the MdGs were first articu-lated, there was no YouTube, no Web 2.0, and no

A D E B A Y O A K O M O L A F E | T H E P R O M I S E O F P R O M E T H E A N D A R K N E S S | 4 6

Wikileaks. e gazing eye of Hurricane Katrina hadnot yet swept through the city of new Orleans, orleft destruction, disillusionment and deep dissatisfac-tion in its wake. Mohamed Bouazizi’s act of ragingsacrifice had not yet set the Middle East aflame with aseries of uprisings the likes of which had never beenwitnessed. At the turn of the millennium, we couldnever have anticipated Occupy Wall Street or the glob-al economic downturn that triggered that movement;we could never have forecasted the Gezi Park protests.We could never have anticipated 9-11 or the war on ter-ror that legitimized the creation of Homeland Securityand the ill-fated hunt for weapons of mass destruction.Today, we live in a world boundaried by seething cyni-cism and a throbbing distrust for the ‘establishment’. edistensions of internet applicability, made possible by theburgeoning of user-friendly social media platforms, hasadded an urgency, a potent now-ness to public discourseand action so that privacy… are becoming fading cate-gories. no one is alarmed that the MdGs will, by 2015,fail to reach predetermined targets – well, no one exceptthe creditor class and decision makers in giant agenciesand nGOs. Even these classes of people are losing theirfaith in the salvific power of bureaucracy. For many Ihave come to meet in my travels and talks, the MdGsare just one more reason why the establishment andtop-down policies cannot create lasting change or tapinto the creative energies of people. e simultaneityof instant connectivity, the proximity of the once dis-tant and strange, story-bursting events such as theGezi Park protests, and access to paradigm-shiftingmaterials (made possible by the creative commons)are making visible (in ways that echo the psyche-delic Sixties in America) the parameters of collec-tive experience. We are confronting ourselves innew ways. Almost suddenly, the old answers nolonger address our deepest aspirations; the famil-iar or the feasible is no longer enough.

T H E F E A S I B L E

I S N O L O N G E R E N O U G H

So why can’t we collectively fulfil the Millenni-um development Goals? What is ‘wrong’ withthe Goals? Sachs would probably argue thatthere is nothing wrong with them – and thateven though the original targets were not met,emphasizing our failure to reach those targetsactually belittle the remarkable strides that havebeen made in 15 years. And he is right. Comparedto the 1990s, extreme poverty rates are dramaticallylow. GdP growth is skyrocketing. Yet, therein liesone of the central flaws of the MdGs – its metricsare exclusively determined by ‘developed’ nations.e improvement in national averages has failed to

account for the downward trend for those in themargins. Beyond this however, there seems to beother compelling reasons why the MdGs not onlyfailed to translate into lasting change where theypresumably matter, but why we cannot afford totether our hopes for a more beautiful world to thenew Un goals that are bound to emerge in 2015. For one, the engines that drive global finance andbig corporate agendas, which ensure ordinaryfolk are drained of their agency, are the sameforces the proponents of MdGs rely on to fulfiltheir objectives. Money as interest-bearing debthas always been the central mechanism at theheart of the global dynamics of change. In orderto service these debts, giant corporations willhave to convert the commons into commodity –stripping the people of what is otherwise freelyavailable to them. e MdGs were not designedto critically address the paradigmatic issues atwork in global monoculture. e Goals arereductionistic attempts to address problems thatwere created by the very tools they employ. Global aid, political leadership, infrastructuralexpansion, rampant consumerism, trickle-downeconomics and Western dominance will not sum-mon the transformative moments we collectivelyseek. We invented the modern ethics of philanthropyand poverty eradication to escape the need to changea money system that is fuelled by the very existence ofpoverty and scarcity; we created an industry of ‘wastemanagement’ that tempers our anger and numbs us tothe fact that we abide in a cradle-to-grave, use-and-dump global economy – a behemoth that necessarilygenerates ‘waste’ by silently celebrating planned obsoles-cence. We institutionalized illiteracy reduction programsand no-one-left-behind-schemes through our schools –conveniently forgetting that because of the politics of cor-rectness, the dynamics of conformity and standardizedassessment, our schools effectively create large populationsof people ‘left behind’. We legitimized ‘environmentalprotection’ – all the while shielding our ears from the sub-versive question echoing in the fringes, tugging at our col-lective imagination: why do we inevitably have to live in aworld in which the ‘environment’ needs protection? e problem of poverty did not ‘exist’ until we intro-duced a monetary framework that reified scarcity, val-orised ownership and celebrated property accumula-tion; the problem of waste was invented by the systemthat pretends to address it; ignorance wasn’t certifieduntil schools were invented; and, the health of ourecological systems will always be an issue – so long aswe continue to perpetuate a civilization whose veryfoundation is the idea that ‘nature’ is a resource to beexploited for our fanciful whims.e MdGs are well-intentioned, just as treating malariawith a hot cup of tea is well-intentioned – but not

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 4 7

quite adequate. Focusing on symptoms almost alwaysfalls short of addressing the underlying syndrome –hidden under thick layers of conditioning. Furtherstill, because bureaucracy is expensive to maintain, italmost always settles for convenient metrics, manicuredoutcomes, and predetermined parameters. As such, theMdGs privilege large corporations and intergovernmentalagencies as the prime social actors – relegating people topassive roles. At a talk I gave in Johannesburg once,where there were civil society organizations, globalfinanciers, and well-established nGO operators, I remem-ber espousing a different kind of activism – a people-can-tered one which didn’t depend on big money or institu-tional parameters to thrive. After ending my speech, I tooksome questions and spoke with members of the audience.One gentleman, who apparently had lots of money tospare, vehemently disagreed with me, telling me: “We can-not fund chaos.” In a single sentence, he had summarilycommunicated the prejudices of bureaucracy: if it cannotbe defined in monetary terms, or evaluated with thosemetrics, it is not meaningful or worth looking into.In short, the Un goals – however noble – are funda-mentally the interest of big business, nation-states andtransnational agencies. e real burden for transfor-mative change does not rest in the hands of everydaypeople, but in a giant bureaucratic and politicalmachine that is itself the very reality that needs tochange. e not-so-subtle message communicated isthat people cannot be trusted to make the decisionsthat will influence their own lives. e vicariousactivities of the system are primarily all that is pre-sumably required to secure a world worth livingin. e raging question then is ‘are there alterna-tives to a system that necessarily depends on bigspending, big actors, and top-down imperatives’?In powerful ways, in untelevised corners of socialawareness, people around the world are affirmingthat there are indeed alternative realities lying inwait. e politics of institutionalized hope isbeing unravelled, leaving a threadbare fabric thatis nonetheless a powerful invitation to refashioncollective experience. e combinatory effects ofexistential weariness and the loss of faith in thefeasible is making it possible for a creative classof social visionaries to emerge. It’s almost as if aPromethean darkness has settled on the land, andpeople – once beholden to the promises of themarket and big corporations – are finding theirway not to some light at the end of the tunnelbut to themselves. In my experience, this emer-gent, amorphous network of unschoolers, walk-outs, nature farmers, culture-hackers, non-profes-sional activists and professional activists, gift practi-tioners, poets, storytellers, upcyclers, and ordinaryfolk is a foretaste of the new normal now voicing‘new’ truths to power.

A P R O M E T H E A N D A R K N E S S

Over the past three years, I have been privileged torelate with communities, countercultural groups,spiritual gatherings, artists, scientists, and promi-nent academics and thought leaders who suspectthat what is possible is no longer worthwhile. In away, what these voices are collectively emphasiz-ing is that the presumably sensible thing to do isactually counterproductive. eir claims are nottrivial, but inspired by a ‘new’ vision that cele-brates the interconnectivity between all things,the profound mystery of consciousness, and thepower of ‘ordinary’ people to create a morebeautiful world. What these persons and groupsare affirming – oftentimes with different lan-guages and narratives – is consistent with whatis probably the most disturbing discovery of ourtimes: reality is illusory.Of course, to say that nothing is real (or its parallel:everything is real) is sure to draw the ire of physi-cists who feel very strongly that new Age philoso-phies have hijacked interpretations of quantumrealities to legitimize their woo-woo claims. I do notwrite in defence of any of those claims in particular(neither do I think they need defending) – eventhough I find some of them very interesting. However,what many interpretations of quantum dynamics areevincing is a world that is quite unlike anything weimagined or could imagine. e Cartesian maps thatfostered cognitive territories marked by scientific ratio-nalism, patriarchal dominance and empirical material-ism are proving to be unable to explain how two entan-gled atoms separated by vast distances could communi-cate with each other – almost as if there were no spacebetween them. When Einstein learned of entangled parti-cles, he derogatorily referred to the situation as ‘spookyaction from a distance’. In his world, there were rules thatcould not be contravened. One of them was that informa-tion cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light.So when quantum entanglement broke that immitigablepre-condition for physical reality, Einstein was seeminglybeside himself. But that is only the tip of an iceberg the size of a conti-nent. Prestigious experiments in clairvoyance, dreamtelepathy, psychokinesis, remote viewing and otheranomalous forms of knowing are chipping away at themonument that extolled the singular gift of sentience toman, the linearity of time, the uniqueness of self, andour reputed separation from ‘nature’. Of course, thereason why more people are not exploring these topicsis because they are too disturbing to the dominantethos, established monotheistic religions and knowl-edge systems that thrive on the myths of scarcity, sep-aration and salvation. Imagine what would happen if

A D E B A Y O A K O M O L A F E | T H E P R O M I S E O F P R O M E T H E A N D A R K N E S S | 4 8

more people recognized that the discipline of eco-nomics is fundamentally flawed in assuming theimagine what how empty those office cubicles wouldbe if… Imagine, for one moment, what would happenif people realized that the world is alive. What these paradigm-bursting stories are showing iswhat indigenous shamans like the ones I met have beentrying to tell us for generations: that there is much moreto being ‘human’ than what Western civilization wouldhave us believe. It’s as if Prometheus has once againreturned – bearing in his hand, this time, a torch ofdarkness. Today, new gestalts are compelling people tolisten to the silent stories coming from the fringes; andthe people I continue to meet recognize that we cannotcontinue with business as usual. In a sense, what is possi-ble must now give way to what was once considered irra-tional, to what was once out of the question, to the‘impossible’. Hope itself, being an attraction to thefamiliar, is slowly making room for a surprisingly galva-nizing element that is all but missing in today’s instan-taneous social milieus: surprise itself.

A P O L I T I C S O F S U R P R I S E

Finding ourselves in an age of uncertainty, withoutfoundations with which we are acquainted, withoutthe luxury of expertise, and without the usual rulesand parameters, we are seemingly disadvantaged.How do we find our way in the dark? How do wemake our way home? More specifically, in ourquest to articulate people-based alternatives totop-down initiatives like the MdGs, what would apolitics of astonishment or surprise look like?e shamans I related with gave soft clues whenthey spoke glowingly about the dark and thenecessity of getting lost. ey were successfulpractitioners whose work wasn’t recognized bythe psychiatric industry or acknowledged by thegovernment. Yet their huts, apartments andhomes were always crowded with seekers, whosemany petitions and earthen calabashes reverentlyborne on their heads, or decapitated embodiedhopes chickens soaked in viscous palm kernel oil.during a conversation with one of the shamans,I asked if he could share what he thought West-ern mental health paradigms were missing. With-out so much as a pause, he responded: “You havechased away the spirits into the bush. at is whywe must go there every time we want to help peo-ple. When we do, we listen carefully to what theplants have to say to us. ey tell us when to pickthem and when not to pick them.” en he said,“To find your way home, you must be willing tolose your way and get lost.”

What he said may not have sounded practical ormeaningful to a generation in search of new foun-dations; yet, the deeper implications of what theshaman said – and what seems consistent withmany other indigenous wisdoms – is that darknesscreates the alchemical conditions necessary fordeep transformation, and only by losing one’s waycan we find the rich treasures hidden in the dark.Of course, by darkness I mean silence, uncertain-ty or not-knowing, and apparently negative emo-tions like grief and fear. Silence, for instance, ismore potent than we realize. Elizabeth LloydMayer, in her book Extraordinary Knowing,wrote compellingly about how conscious silencemakes anomalous ways of knowing possible,because as we relax our cognitive defence mech-anisms, the floodgates of our apparently bound-aried minds become receptive to informationfrom a cosmos that is playfully alive. Researchersin extrasensory perception (ESP) have reported sig-nificant results in experimental situations thatmeasured how often participants correctly guessed,say, figures and patterns on upturned cards. Mayerscrutinized entire libraries of reports like these thatshowed that the results obtained could not havebeen due to chance or flawed experimental designs.Something was indeed happening – and silencemade room for it.But one of the most fascinating reports compiled inthe late Mayer’s book is the personal account of herdaughter’s missing harp and how conventional insti-tutions were no good locating the prized item.Mayer, a celebrated psychologist, had almost given upwhen she, prodded by a friend, decided to try uncon-ventional methods. desperate, she called up a dowser,whose practice she found weird and ridiculous. Howwas it possible for anyone to find anything by swingingforked sticks? Perhaps, not surprisingly, the dowser cor-rectly located her daughter’s harp while sitting far awayin a different state in America. e supernormal ability to locate missing objects acrossvast distances – just by concentrating – is consistent withone interpretation of quantum dynamics, which positsthat locality, time and space are biocentric secretions –not having any reality of their own. Here is there, this isthat, and past is future – all wrapped up in an enchantedloom of paradoxes and possibilities. Perhaps the mostpressing inference we can make about a cosmos withoutabsolute cardinal points and about a civilization fixatedwith maps and directions is that we are already wherewe want to go. We are already home. What if a politics of surprise is based on this very premise– that we are already home? We would not dedicate somuch energy trying to arrive at a promised future;instead of maps that simplify the territories, we would

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 4 9

create decadent frescos of presence on the canvases ofour shared experiences. We would lead expeditionsinto the nuances of our experiences, diving deeperinto what once was difficult to notice in the firstinstance. e incredible corporate drives to achieve theMillennium development Goals would give way topeople-cantered, contextually relevant platforms thatexplore our wealth, challenge our truths, and initiatenew conversations about what is possible. It may be impossible or even undesirable to describeeverything a politics of surprise entails – mainly becauseit has no definite form or strategy. At heart, it representsa turning to one another, a challenge to the ongoing pro-gram of urbanization, rationalization and systematicexploitation, and a possibility to emancipate ourselvesfrom the manacles of modern civilization.

a b

A D E B A Y O A K O M O L A F E | T H E P R O M I S E O F P R O M E T H E A N D A R K N E S S | 5 0

e month of February (detail).

Uffe Elbæk, entrepreneur, educa-tor, activist, writer and Mem-ber of the Danish Parliament.In 1991 Mr Elbæk foundedThe KaosPilots – Interna-tional School of New BusinessDesign & Social Innovation,

and was the principal of theschool from 1991 to 2007.

In November 2001 and again in2005 he was elected to the City Council

of Aarhus (Denmark’s second city) for the Danish Social-LiberalParty. He stepped down as city counsellor when he was hired bythe City of Copenhagen as the CEO of the World Outgames 2009,a position he held from 2007 to 2009.In 2010, Mr Elbæk founded the consulting company ChangeThe Game with focusing on leadership training skills, politicalcampaigning and social innovation concepts; served as the spe-cial advisor to the leadership team at the KaosPilots and asan academic adviser for the HKICC Lee Shau Kee School ofCreativity in Hong Kong. In the same year, he accepted torun for the Danish Social-Liberal Party in the upcomingnational election for the Danish Parliament. In 2011 he wasvoted in to The Danish Parliament and was Minister forCulture from 2011 to 2013 and, in 2013 he founded the newentrepreneurial green party The Alternative.Mr Elbæk is on the board of several Danish and interna-tional organizations, and is the recipient of numeroushonours and awards, ranging from ambassador for thelocal premiere league football club AGF to Knight of theDannebrog. Currently, he lives in the heart of Copen-hagen with his partner Jens.

I N T E R V I E W *

SAHLAN MOMO: What is your take on the cur-rent global political stage?

FFE ELBÆK : MY R E S P O n S E I S S H A P E d B Y

the point from which I view the world:from my home in denmark. due to thisperspective I most likely miss out the var-ious cultural and social aspects around

the world. at goes as well for the politicalpicture that is very different and variegated,depending on the size of the country and theway people react on the social challenges theyare facing. In Greece, the social and politicalopposition has taken the shape of a political party– Syriza, whereas in Latin America we see a newwave of cooperative movements and businesses,especially in Argentina.

at being said, in my perspective I currentlysee two main tendencies in global politics fac-ing from opposite directions.On one side, there is an ‘Americanization’ ofthe political system with only two political frac-tions, like the democrats and Republicans. isversion can be simplified even further, becausewhile there are two political fractions there isonly one economic school: the neoliberal wherethere is a very unfortunate symbiosis betweenpolitics, media and big business. It is remarkablehow similar the political picture is in the UnitedStates, Russia and China despite how differenttheir political lives appear on the surface.On the other hand, I do see a tendency pointingto the opposite direction. Luckily a series of hope-ful new political initiatives are sprouting every-where driven by a grassroots and networking men-tality that capitalizes on the vast possibilities ofactivating and empowering an audience throughsocial media. Social media allows political move-ments to reach out to an audience that has not beenpolitically active, or even motivated, before. epolitical dialogue ranges from the everyday local diffi-culties or challenges – unemployment, corruption, andenvironmental issues – to more complex structural con-cerns like ‘liquid democracy’ or questioning of the cur-rent economical paradigm.is counter movement is not limited to Europe – it isglobal. Everywhere from the Tahrir Square in Cairo tothe Takzim Gezi Park in Istanbul, the Compass move-ment in London and the mentioned corporative move-ments in South America.Together with a group of people in denmark, I haverecently launched a new entrepreneurial green party,Alternativet (e Alternative), aiming at achieving ahigher degree of transparency, dynamism and straight-forwardness in our policy development process, invit-ing all interested stakeholders to participate in thecourse of action. e ambition is to become an inter-national political platform containing party, move-ment, think-tank and education. As of now, we havelaunched the party and put the seeds of the move-ment, and we are building on international connec-tions and collaborations.I believe that the simultaneity of the political countermovements growing all over the world is a result of

A LT E R N AT I V E T:A N I N NOVAT I V E P O L I T I C A L P L AT F O RM

U F F E E L B Æ K

U

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 5 1

the societal problems reaching a depth and urgencythat forces us to think and cooperate across sectorsand national borders. new technological platformsallows for this cooperation to happen. We are entering a phase where the current politicalsystem is distancing further apart from the citizensbecause of its negative symbiosis with the media andbig business. On the other hand, we have a whole newset of political initiatives and ideals locally and nation-ally anchored but with a global perspective. neverbefore has the political scene been this interesting andfull of possibilities.SM: What implies your innovative vision, and how tomove on from here?UE: I believe the time has come to build a ‘bridge ofdemocracy’ between the traditional political systems –be it Parliament or City Councils – and the surround-ing society. We have to find a way to facilitate a placeor platform where the traditional policymaking processand the new and often network-based political initia-tives can meet.In Alternativet we have drafted how this ‘bridge ofdemocracy’ could take form. We reach out to all thepeople who don’t usually identify with traditional polit-ical parties. Six percent of the danes are members of apolitical party, which means that apparently 94 percentdon’t find it meaningful enough to join a politicalparty. ese figures are not to be mistaken with the94 percent of the danes not being politically active,they have chosen instead to channel their commit-ment to society in other ways than through the tra-ditional parties. Supporting local projects and ini-tiatives is a good example of a commitment thatsome find more meaningful. is shift from tra-ditional parties to focus on specific politicalcases, like Greenpeace and Amnesty, has been anongoing process in denmark, it has been hap-pening for at least 20-30 years because is simplymore appealing to back a strong political casethan to join a party.I am no stranger to the feeling that it is hard tobuy in on “the full package” when joining apolitical party. Oftentimes – dependent on the sit-uation and case – we will find ourselves agreeingmore with another party than the one that weare a member of. Our judgments depend moreon the context. I believe this to be one of themain reasons because less danes want to join apolitical party. It is hard to accept the fact that wehave to compromise our own integrity becauseour political identity belongs to a party. Of course it is not possible to be a member of dif-ferent parties when voting the Alternativet politicalprogramme. But why not allow members of otherpolitical parties to contribute to the policymaking

process? is is why we welcome members of otherparties to join our policymaking sessions; the onlyrequirement being to agree to Alternativet’s corevalues and main political direction.Besides welcoming non-members, Alternativet isalso experimenting with a brand new digital‘open source’ model for online debate on impor-tant political questions, a way of allowing peoplecontribution even if they cannot be physicallypresent to our political laboratories. never before a political dialogue has availeditself of such a dynamic. It has been indeedrewarding to see how many people want topartake in our political conversations, and reallyinspiring to witness the openness and creative-ness of these discussions. It is a work in progress,though. One of our learned lessons out of thisopen process is that, to be effective, is of theutmost importance to have clear guidelines forwhat is up for discussion and what is not. Andfor Alternativet, the core values and the politi-cal direction are not up for discussion; but thespecific policy in the different political themescertainly is.is is not just a danish experience, when Alter-nativet was launched in november 2013, in Eng-land and Portugal parties with the same motiva-tions got underway. ere are differences in thepolitical programmes, but the common denomina-tor is obvious: the ambition to create a more trans-parent and dynamic political culture. As a result,Alternativet is currently having talks with politicalenvironments and think tanks in Sweden, Italy andthe United Kingdom to create common ground andcooperate in promoting a more progressive politicalagenda in our region of the world.It is extremely exciting and challenging at the sametime: we are up against a well-established political sys-tem that may feel threatened by the existence of Alter-nativet. We need to find a way to navigate in a politicalsystem where zero sum thinking is the norm, a systemwhere change – even the necessary – is always seen as athreat to the political establishment.SM: Which will be Alternativet’s possible sustainableoutcomes?UE: Alternativet’s values are kind of a paradox. On onehand, we want to partake in an equal and respectfulcooperation with the other political parties in thecountry. One of the ways to do so is by sharing theknowledge we obtain in our public political laborato-ries. On the other hand, we do realize that we haveentered a world where privacy is king.Contrary to a lot of organizations and business mod-els which have already realized that sharing knowl-edge is paying off, traditional politics is still defined

U F F E E L B Æ K | A L T E R N A T I V E T | 5 2

by zero sum thinking and giving rise to a ‘everyonefor himself’ mentality.When examining my own working environment inthe danish parliament I see a place of solitude, back-biting, of personal conflicts, hunger for attention andbig egos: definitely not a healthy culture. e questionis whether it is possible to change this state of affairs,or is that what the fight for power does to people? In Alternativet we believe there is a way to change this,we believe that a completely different political culture isnot only possible, is a necessity. If not, we will face ahuge problem as society as a whole: the trust in politi-cians will become weaker and weaker, and fewer peoplewill take the democratic responsibility to enter politics. Ifthis scenario will win, no doubt that we will face a totalcollapse of the political system, as we know it, for thevery foundation of a well functioning society is nolonger in place.SM: What do you think should be prioritized to makeyour policy implemented at individual, social andglobal level?UE: It is too early to provide any final answer to thisquestion. Right now, Alternativet’s primary focus is toensure parliament eligibility at the next election,which requires collecting thousands of signaturesbefore the election. At the same time, we are hostingpolitical meetings and laboratories all across den-mark and, to top it off, we are gathering informa-tion on parties and movements around the worldthat we would like to collaborate with.is means that 2014 will be an exiting and definingyear for Alternativet, in which we have to mobilizeon a local, national and global scale. e bestway to describe this working method is that weare building an airplane that is already airborne.It is not, therefore, surprising that some organi-zational turbulence occurs every now and thenwhile still finishing one wing 30.000 feet aboveground.SM: Which, in your view, are the factors pre-venting or hindering it?UE: e primary challenge is that there is noone in the political establishment with a desirefor Alternativet to succeed. at goes for parties,political experts or even the journalists becauseAlternativet’s mere existence is a critique of thestate of parties and the media today.I am not insinuating that every politician, expertor journalist deliberately tries to make Alterna-tivet fail, which is not the case. But the way thepower is distributed these days makes of necessitythose holding power positions to typically want tokeep them. It is an uphill battle for Alternativet tochange that. at is the reason why we are focused

on changing the way we think about politics, andcreating a new political culture in, as well as out-side of, the Parliament.ere is a growing need for this change in society,and we have reason to believe that this will hap-pen eventually. e problems and challenges weare facing go beyond borders, which is why thesolutions will need to do the same.Simultaneously, the individual citizen is to smart,experienced and too knowledgeable to acceptpolitical top-down decisions. As humans wewish to be involved, consulted and not in theleast to be able to understand the calculations orequations upon which the political decisions arebased. If you do not feel seen or heard, if you donot understand the need for change and do notsee a position for yourself in the reality of tomor-row then you will intuitively work against it.at is why there is such a need for a new politicalculture. A political culture where citizens are reallyseen and heard, where we understand why sus-tainable changes are needed, and that there isroom for all of us in the future heading towards us.A new political culture of this kind would reminda lot more about the way in which nature orga-nizes itself. A system where everything is inter-dependant and where an organism only survives ifit is capable of balancing the information it absorbsand the information it provides. e political sys-tems of the future will be a lot more like dynamical,communicating, sharing living organisms than “top-down” controlled machines, which unfortunately isthe picture of most political parties today.But if we are to develop a new and much more dynamicand transparent political culture, then we need to unlearna lot of things we take for given and, at the same time,we need to learn a lot that will be new to us. For example,we need to unlearn inappropriate patterns of conflictand status while we learn to keep the decision-makingopen as long as possible. We need to unlearn our urgeto live our ego in the media spotlight while learning tothink in the “interest of the commons” – also in cooper-ation with our political opponents. But most impor-tantly: we need to learn to be much better in handlingconflicts and differences in opinions since politics is inreality also about wanting different things for the soci-ety that we are all a part of. Once again, take Alterna-tivet as an example: we want a sustainable society –both socially, economically and environmentally. etransition from the current neoliberal economy to afar more sustainable and sympathetic economy willlogically challenge the current positions of power.is in turn, will cause conflicts and counter reac-tions. How do we handle such fundamentally and

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 5 3

crucial conflicts in an endowed and constructiveway? at is the major political challenge today.Fortunately, we have good examples to learn from. Itis obvious to mention South Africa to this respect asthey managed to complete a transition from a deeplyracist and unjust apartheid system to the currentdemocratic society, a process that very well could haveupshot a civil war. But it did not, because they chose awise and empathic way of handling the conflict.ere is so much we have to unlearn and so much newwe need to learn, which, by the way, highly demandspolitical leadership. Of all of us.

8

——————

* date of interview: February 2014.

a b

U F F E E L B Æ K | A L T E R N A T I V E T | 5 4

e month of May (detail).

Elza S. Maalouf is a Lebanese-American futurist, specializingin large-scale systems designand societal change, co-founder and CEO of the CHE-Mideast, a think tank thatreframes political challenges

through a values-based para-digm. She is the author of the

upcoming book: Emerge! The Rise ofFunctional democracy in The Middle

East. Ms. Maalouf can be reached at: elza.maalouf@gmail.com .

I N T R O D U C T I O N

HE MIddLE EAST HAS ALWAYS BEEn A PLACE OF

wonder and mystery. People around the worldhave been fascinated by Middle Eastern cul-ture, from the Babylonians to the Ottomans,and from the colonialists to the era of dicta-

torships. e culture has vacillated between ages ofstagnation and ages of brilliant innovation. Althoughthe people of the region have contributed greatly tothe progress of the world, they have also sufferedgreatly from an inability to sustain long-termhealthy progress. It seems as though the ArabSpring has come and gone, leaving many disillu-sioned youth at crossroads in its wake. ese Mil-lennials who tweeted, facebooked and youtubedthe revolution from the streets, quickly came tothe same realization as their parents and grand-parents did, that change requires more than justtoppling a dictator.In order to catalyze sustainable change and healthyemergence for a society, a more holistic andopen approach must be facilitated to address thestructural gaps that still ail the region. Often thisrequires challenging the existing cultural andsocial paradigms and the introduction of newmodels that diffuse polarization, unite historicallydivided people, and improve the quality of lifefor generations to come. At the same time, it isimperative that any new paradigm honors theintellectual, religious and cultural heritage whilefacilitating a resilient form of cultural emergence.Jeffrey Goldstein defines the word emergence in thejournal titled Emergence as “the arising of novel and

coherent structures, patterns and properties dur-ing the process of self-organization in complexsystems”1. is paper addresses the make-up ofthese complex systems from a new and innova-tive perspective as they apply to shaping thepolitical future of the Middle East.

B A C K G R O U N D

I am a native of the Middle East, fully immersedin its history, thoroughly familiar with its reli-gious, legal, economic and socio-political prac-tices. I have applied a whole system, emergentapproach to my work with international organiza-tions in the region. I have spoken on the subject ofa new model for Arab democracy at the Unitednations, the World Future Society and a numberof universities. I have also presented several work-shops on the subject of social emergence. I have con-sulted with policy makers, diplomats, and journalistsabout the approach that I developed for this new andresilient model for governance in the Middle East.e framework detailed here is a summary of myupcoming book Emerge! e Rise of Functional Democ-racy in the Middle East. is Journal is the first publica-tion where the summary of this framework appears. e principles detailed in my book are based on aconcept I call Functional Democracy. It aims at refram-ing the issues of competing political and economic ide-ologies and introduces a conscious evolutionary plat-form that is aligned with the values and future aspira-tions of the people in the region. e framework isrooted in the field of large-scale social psychology andprovides a deep understanding of the nature of conflictthrough the lens of socio-cultural value systems. Oncethese principles are defined, the framework then offerssteps on how to design a functional approach to awhole systems model for building a new political phi-losophy. is is a new paradigm on politics. eseconcepts have been field-tested on the ground aroundthe world in places like South Africa, Iceland, and inmy own 5-year experience in Israel and Palestine. isis the template on which my organization, e Centerfor Human Emergence Middle East (CHE Mideast)based its five-year initiative in Israel and Palestine.e case study is detailed after much of the frame-work is explained.

FUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACY:A N EW PA R AD I GM ON G EO PO L I T I C S I N TH E M I DD L E E A S T

E L Z A S . M A A L O U F

T

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 5 5

is article will illustrate how carefully crafted cul-tural visions lead to transformational changes ineducation, healthcare, economics and other impor-tant areas in the development of Middle Eastern cul-tures and institutions. At the heart of this new para-digm is the work of three prominent developmentaltheorists from the field of social psychology:~ dr. Clare W. Graves, author of the Levels of Exis-tence eory, which compared a number of psycho-logical and behavioural constructs such as Max Weber,Abraham Maslow, and Jane Loevinger.~ dr. don Beck, author of the Spiral dynamics eory,which uses a socio-cultural value systems approach, andacts as a scaffolding for multiple other behavioural theo-ries while extending the applications of Graves’s theory. ~ Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif and Carl Hovelandauthors of Social Judgment eory which introducedpioneering models on the subconscious sorting of ideas,the attitude scale, and the Assimilation Contrast Effect. dr. Beck and I co-founded the CHE Mideast andadvanced these studies beyond their academic originsto integrate new insights from real applications intothe area of social sciences. At the heart of designingfunctional governance, and new models for conflictresolution is the recognition that human existence isby nature hierarchical. It requires different solutionsfor cultures belonging to the different levels of exis-tence. ought leaders in political philosophytoday shy away from considering new ideas onsocial hierarchies for the fear of offending politicalsensitivities. Acceptance of these models however,becomes easier once the science behind the frame-work is understood and the applications prove toprovide effective solutions. e pillars on which the framework of rests areas follows.

T H E M E A S U R A B I L I T Y O F

C U L T U R A L V A L U E S

e measure of values has always been a sub-jective endeavour. is is not the intent of ourapproach. In this context, cultural values referto the deep examination of Graves’ eight levelsof human existence known as value systemsand their subsequent field applications by dr.Beck and me. While we acknowledge the factthat all people have the potential to develophigh cognitive capacities, our framework exam-ines the limitations that come from existentialrealities within every society and looks to nurturean emergent habitat that positions the culture formaximum potential. Our developmental programstarget the needs of specific value systems from an

integral, whole systems approach. It uncovers thereasons why different people and different cul-tures have distinct value preferences and ways ofthinking about politics, economics, life priorities,and an array of other metrics. In developing Graves’ concepts further, Beckadded the word memes to value systems andcreated the term MEMEs to provide a betteranalogy of how values spread. e word“meme” is a term originally coined by evolu-tionary biologist Richard dawkins. It rhymeswith gene and just like a gene that carries thecodes that define human characteristics; ameme carries the codes that define societalcharacteristics, like values, language, religion,philosophy, politics, and economics. Value sys-tems are a hierarchically ordered, always opento change set of ethics, values, preference, pri-orities and worldviews that define an individu-als, a group or a culture2. ey have a spectrumof meaning for words, expressions and experi-ences that are crucial at every level of personaland cultural development. Humans evolve inresponse to existential challenges from their envi-ronment and as they evolve into higher levels ofexistence their preferences, or values evolve withthem. As societies emerge to higher levels theydevelop more complexity that transcend and includethe lower levels. After decades of applying our modelit seems that the best an enlightened leader can do ismove the values of a society up the ladder of devel-opment a half step and allow that new level of exis-tence to penetrate the culture over time in slightlymore progressive ways. Based on these eight value sys-tems, we have developed tests and instruments thatmake it possible for researchers to measure culturalpreferences and human needs and design programs tomeet those needs. It is these preferences that Beck and Iuse to tailor development programs that are resilient.e eight levels of human existence identified by ourmodel and the ones I have developed further in my the-oretical framework about Functional Democracy aredepicted in the G R A P H F A C I n G P A G E.ere is a healthy and unhealthy expression at every leveland the higher the unhealthy expression is, the moredamaging it can be to a culture’s continued develop-ment3. Examples of an unhealthy expression of the fifthlevel political system of strategic and enterprising valuesare the US and its current political gridlock. e Euro-pean Union, which is centrered in the Sixth level politi-cal values of egalitarianism and humanitarianism offersa higher standard of care for its citizens but is notwithout its unhealthy side. In Europe, it was the egal-itarian political values that sought to unite the conti-nent through a common currency, but failed to take

E L Z A S . M A A L O U F | F U N C T I O N A L D E M O C R A C Y | 5 6

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 5 7

inventory of the value systems of new members asthe sixth level system often does in its blind pursuitof equality, and the result is the current Europeanstate of financial disorder. Looking at a surface assessment of governance usingthese values one can see that democracy in the UStoday is representative of the fifth level of values, whichis a far more complex form of development than ideason democracy are in China or Russia. In the MiddleEast, one could argue that Turkey’s style of democracy isa healthy manifestation of a Fourth-to-Fifth Level politicalsystem, while Syria’s oppressive feudal system is anunhealthy expression of the ird Level value system.When it comes to the application of politics to values sys-tems, each of these eight levels can be described as beingin one of three conditions: open, arrested, or closed. Anopen system describes a dynamic culture that anticipateschange and adapts well to it like many of the Scandinaviancountries. An arrested system has stagnant institutionsthat may change incrementally but not enough to keepup with internal or external dynamics. A closed system isone that doesn’t accept change and works at blockinginput from the outside. e only change possible with aclosed system is through a crisis or revolution. eArab Spring is the undeniable result of people living ina closed system. Measurable cultural values are noticeable at the per-sonal level as well. In speaking to audiences fromdifferent parts of the world, the word peace forexample, has different meaning to different people.Peace to Palestinians means ending the Israeli occu-pation and forming a nation state. To the Syrianstoday, peace means the ability to secure food forthe next two weeks. To a first world audiencepeace is the reference to the abstract concepts likeharmony, inner peace, or sometimes financialsecurity. If one looks for a definition of peacealong the spectrum of values, to the first level itmeans “I stay alive”; to the second level “we aresafe”, to the third level “ I dominate”, to thefourth level “we have religious or patriotic order,”, to the fifth level “let’s make a deal”, to the sixthlevel “equality and harmony.” To the seventhlevel “I design systems to ensure that peaceworks for all.” As one can see from this simple example, theconcept of measurable cultural values generatesa dynamic synthesis of actionable data regard-ing values that inform the design of governancethat fits. Functional Democracy upholds the val-ues of the seventh level system, and designsdemocracy that fits the needs and uniqueness ofthat specific society. is is what we call amemetically-stratified lens through which wereframe political design and conflict resolution.T A B L E n E x T P A G E.

S E E I N G M I D D L E E A S T E R N

H I S T O R Y T H R O U G H

M E M E T I C L E N S E S

In order to get a new and fresh perspective on thechallenges that face the Middle East, the region’spolitical history must be reinterpreted through amemetic lenses. is is where the linearity of thehistoric narrative is replaced with the complexityof cultural values-systems. When compared tothe way non-indigenous development agenciesapproach change, one begins to understand theimportance of replacing the linearity of historywith the complex dynamics that drive thedevelopment of local cultures. e former seeksto impose a template for rapid non-indigenouschange, while the latter seeks to unblock devel-opmental gaps and allow cultures to emerge attheir own healthy pace with built-in sensitivitiesto the content of the local value systems. Ourwork focuses on determining the existing andemergent values systems of a culture, specificallyidentifying its unique local expressions.What follows are examples of substituting valuesystems complexity for historic linearity:

1 ~ Most historians may view the Ottomans aspioneers of modern governance, but whenviewed through the value-systems prism, theirrule did more to arrest the emergence of theMiddle East than any other. While the Industri-al Revolution was leading human emergenceunder the fifth level value system and empower-ing the strategic and scientific minds of WesternEurope, the Ottomans persisted with the values of“governance by exploitation” of the third level ofvalues, oppressing their subjects under the auspicesof maintaining tribal peace, while keeping them indire poverty.

2 ~ When considering the colonial mandate period,though brief, Westerners introduced a foreign systemfor governance. e concept of nations is a value ofthe fourth level system. It artificially mapped nation-al boundaries and forced historically competingtribes to fight for power and control. roughoutMiddle Eastern history, local power was vested inthe heads of tribes and religious leaders, not indemocracy and it abstract concepts and institutions.A values systems analysis of the colonial mandatesera shows the tribal mindsets weren’t ready for thatlevel of social development, especially when itscontent was full of Western concepts for nationsand democracy.

3 ~ Arab nationalism, although well meaning, wasinfluenced by intellectual elites who travelledabroad but couldn’t bridge their transplanted polit-ical models and connect them to the existential

E L Z A S . M A A L O U F | F U N C T I O N A L D E M O C R A C Y | 5 8

reality on the ground. Although they were nativesof the region they didn’t recognize the misalign-ment of Western political and philosophicalthought with an enumerable collection of proudtribes whose values were dominated by history,tradition, and territorial battles. As a concept ofthe fourth level system Arab nationalism wasshort lived as the majority of culture still need-ed to transition to an essential stage of peace-ful tribal and religious co-existence before itwas naturally ready for nation states. As aresult of failed Arab nationalism, dictator-ships dominated the region. ese were thevalues of an unhealthy third level systemwhose brutal tribal leaders were providedwith hollow institutions and the global recog-nition to rule over other tribes and sectariangroups using the values of brutality andbloodshed that defined their past. If the colo-nialists were to use a value systems approachto designing democracy, the appropriate formof governance for most of the region wouldhave been a benevolent monarchy that picks arespected monarch among the tribes whobecomes their servant leader while building theinstitutions of the fourth level system over timewith the input of his subjects. is is what Func-tional democracy calls the “half-steps strategy.”

ese are just a few examples of how FunctionalDemocracy reframes politics in terms of evolvingsystems of social and political models. It designs forvalues that continue to emerge in response tochanges in the needs of existential reality. Just asdemocracy in the United States emerged differentlythan the social democracies of Western Europe,democracies of the Middle East will be vastly differentthan any we’ve seen so far. ey will be shaped by theunique value memes of Arab culture, which reflectdemocracies created by these specific people for thesespecific people and their present-day realities. By refram-ing the region’s history through value systems andmemetics, we shed the light on the causes of the his-toric dysfunction that has plagued the region and offerclear measurable indicators of what is required for theemergence of Arab-style democracies.

U N C O V E R I N G T H E

I N D I G E N O U S I N T E L L I G E N C E

Indigenous Intelligence is one of the most crucial ele-ments of the Functional Democracy model. Experts inthis newly defined field are the first individuals we seekwhen we begin our field design projects. dr. Beck hasalways emphasized the importance of working withpeople who have a deep understanding of the societythey are working in. It wasn’t till I teamed up with

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 5 9

Functional Democracy & The Eight Levels of Human Existence Copyright © Elza S. Maalouf and Dr. Don E. Beck 2014

VMEME

LEVELS

Meaning of Democracy Political Form Perception of One Person, One Vote Region/Country % World Population

Under Rule today (PUR)

8 - Global Governance - Macro management of all life forms. - Seeking the common good in response to Global problems.

- Holonic Democracy - Whole-earth Networks - Interconnection of geo-consciousness - The global brain on governance

All constituents vote and act in a globally conscious manner

Won’t appear until political systems are centered in the 7th level of values 0% PUR

7 - A process of integrating the majority of all the first tier political systems into a functional form of governance that works for all - People have the right to be who they are as long as they are not hurting anyone or the planet - Balance of government & private sector based on functionality

- Functional Democracy - Forms of governance that work based on value-system profiles and stages of development. - Stratified systems designed with the input of the Indigenous Intelligence

-Recognizes that one-person one-vote works for societies with dominant vMEMEs at the 4th Level or higher. - Works with healthy values leaders within the 2nd and 3rd vMEMEs to establish institutions leading to one-person, one-vote systems in the future.

- Germany (entering) - Northern Europe (entering) - Switzerland (entering) 3% PUR

6 - Everybody shares equally in reaching consensus - The purpose of the system is to care for “we the people” and the common good - Equal access to all resources by all people - The human bond has priority over political manipulation

- Social Democracy - Coalition governments - System is short-lived unless society is highly homogenous with complementary value systems (ex: Scandinavian countries & N. Europe)

- Votes are important, but the loser still has an equal voice -Makes sure there is group consensus on a candidate before voting - Our vote goes to the candidate who most supports the environment

- Western Europe (mixed) - Northern Europe. - Canada (mixed) - US (entering) 8% PUR

5 - Pluralistic politics - Game of incentives within a system of checks and balances - To the winner belong the spoils - Relationship with losing party is to the strategic advantage of the winner - System turns politicians into corporate lobbyists after service

- Multi-party Democracy - Corporate states. - Bill of Rights. - Economic status sets power ratios resulting in wider gaps between the haves and have-nots.

- Individual votes are highly valued and go to the candidate who share voter’s views. - I vote for candidate who provides opportunity for personal success and financial achievement. - The higher my net worth the higher the power of my vote

-US, UK, Canada (mixed) - Japan (mixed) - Western Europe (mixed) - China (entering) 24% PUR

4 - Justice and Fairness for all - Everyone is equal under the law - Good people follow the law, rules and traditions - Disputes resolved through institutions and legal procedures - Duty to pay fair share to support the system

- Authoritarian Democracy - Nation states - One Party Rule - Heavy hand of government - Winner takes all and rules all without input from the losing minority parties.

-Votes matter to the one party that has all the right answers. -Vote in line with family, church, and other civic groups who know the one true way. - Candidate who shares my ethnicity gets my vote.

- Singapore - China (mixed) - So. Korea (mixed) - Russia, India (entering) - Eastern Europe - US, Japan (mixed) 27% PUR

3 - Whatever the Feudal Lord says it is. - “Power to the People” is power to the clan leader and the chosen few. - Feudal Distribution System. - Institutions are vacuous. Designed to enrich self and cronies. - Rich get richer, poor get poorer. - All accept have-have not as reality

- Dictatorship - Feudal Empire - Domination - Corrupt autocracy - Strong-arm tactics - Patriarchy - No clear national platform.

- Votes go to feudal lords and Za’eems. - Descending voters get eliminated, thrown in jail, thrown out of the country or killed - Voting for winning candidate grants access to power

- Middle East, India (mixed) - Africa (mixed) - So. America (mixed) - Parts of S.E. Asia. - China (mixed) - Russia (mixed) 33% PUR

2 - What our people decide to do. - Announced by the chief. - Guided by the elders/mystical forces

- Tribes - Clans - Councils - Extended family - Lineage

- Individual votes don’t matter and are not encouraged by the group/tribe - Chief knows best

-Middle East, India (mixed) -Africa (mixed) - China (mixed) -So. America (mixed) 5% PUR

1 - Survival-based groups. - Genetic memory/instinct.

No concept of governance.

No concept of governance 0% PUR

Key: In %World Population Under Rule column, mixed system indicates more than one value system defines the country or region’s political form. Entering means the values of the next system are emerging but don’t define the country/region’s institutions and electoral process yet. No designation indicates the corresponding system is the dominant form of governance.

him to create the Center for Human EmergenceMiddle East (CHE Mideast) that I discovered theneed to further define the importance of this part ofour model. For someone who was born in Lebanon, Inoticed certain events, behaviours and phenomena inMiddle Eastern culture that were missed by most of myhighly intelligent Western colleagues. is pattern ofthings lost in translation kept repeating in higher fre-quency as our work progressed, making it necessary forme to conduct research into this field. I began to developmy model after much analysis of field data and assess-ment of why developmental problems persist in spite ofall the good intentions behind foreign aid and the noblework of non-Governmental Organizations.Often the term “indigenous” is associated with nativeminorities and cultures of the developing world that havebeen marginalized by progress. In this context, I was look-ing to redefine the meaning of indigenous to include the“unique value-systems expression” of the complex intelli-gences within each culture. ose are the type of expertswho can offer their countries, and the world communitycreative solutions that meet the challenges facing ourworld today. After weeks of research including adetailed look at the multiple intelligences model ofHoward Garner, I found no definitive studies into thefield of local cultural intelligence as its own area ofacademic focus. no researchers have viewed theimportance of this intelligence the way we viewed itat the CHE Mideast. Based on my field experience and the extensiveresearch I conducted, I came to define indigenousintelligence as follows:

Indigenous Intelligence (II) is the multidimensionalcapacity of an individual or a group in a specificsociety to interpret its value-systems’ complexityto non-natives. It is represented in a cross sectionof any given society, from Millennials to women,community leaders and elders of the tribe. Unlikeother intelligences, it provides rich and action-able culturally fit answers, to why certain individ-uals or groups act in certain ways. Why do theyhave certain preferences, priorities, beliefs andworldviews and why solutions need to be tai-lored for their specific value-structure4.

Indigenous Intelligence informs governance byassessing where people are in their develop-mental stages and the challenges they face. IIpaints a more complete picture of the obstaclesfacing stakeholders in a society, not just theelite and the privileged. It always finds oppor-tunities in the challenges facing a certain societyand finds a silver lining through creative think-ing. Economic and political development that isinformed by II places the uniqueness of people’scapacities into a long-term resilient scheme thatmakes the culture move at its own healthy pacetowards a collective vision of the future.

Indigenous Intelligence is manifested in individualsas well as groups who are known as IndigenousIntelligence Experts (IIEs). ey exhibit some of thefollowing characteristics:~ ey are most likely natives of the territory

who speak the language, know the customsand understand the culture and the manysubcultures within it.

~ eir thinking is an open-system with highcognitive abilities. ey can speak with easeto a tribal leader in the same colloquialtongue as well as to a national or Westernpolitician and be fully aware of the value-structure distinctions of what is being said.

~ He/she is shaped by a first-hand experience ofhis/her own transition from being zealots andflamethrowers. He/she has earned his/herdues in becoming a conciliator and pragma-tist who thinks about future generations andtheir wellbeing, rather than revenge, instantgratification, and traditional allegiances.

~ While the West paints with broad strokes thatmiss the finer details, IIEs instinctively discern thecomplex patterns of their society allowing for anatural process of identifying developmental gaps.

~ ey understand the value-systems meaning ofhistory through first hand experience not thesimplicity of western historic narrative.

~ ey understand the complexity and the unique-ness of the indigenous challenges that broughtthe culture to its current status of desolation.

~ ey are strategic and systemic in their thinkingand believe in efforts that can be sustainable andresilient for generations to come.

~ ey look at Western organization’s objective forpeace and prosperity and help them channel theirefforts as not to offend local stakeholders and his-toric grievances while at the same time providingculturally honed plans for distributing resourceswhere they are most needed.

~ ey are servant leaders, who realize that functionalalignment with the needs of their society is at thetop of their agenda.

IIEs open the door to a culture from the inside in soci-eties that would otherwise be hesitant to disclose anyinformation to an outsider. ey can move freelythrough the various value-systems within their cul-ture, knowing how to uncover the challenges facingit. ey can repair the expression of every local valuesystem. In parts of the Middle East, that have seenwar, and have gone through the Arab Spring, manyIIEs gain respect due to their activism and sacrifice.It is very likely they had served time in jail for their

E L Z A S . M A A L O U F | F U N C T I O N A L D E M O C R A C Y | 6 0

views and actions. e rest of the culture witnessedtheir transformation from tribal and feudal lords topragmatic leaders and conciliators. ey live in twoworlds and cater to the traditional needs of the tribewhile expressing with clarity, and vision, the futureneeds of their nation.Under the Functional Democracy model, IIE’s are theprimary source of information for individuals in chargeof creating the blueprint for democratic and transition-al institutions. ese experts who make up a secondlayer of experts are called Integral design Architects(IdAs). ey rely greatly on the input of IIEs to designlarge-scale systems. IdAs are the quintessential SeventhLevel thinkers who place all the data coming from theIIEs into a memetically functional design scheme. eyplay their crucial roles from behind the scenes as theyshape the thinking of politicians, business leaders, headsof nGOs and global aid agencies. IdAs are generally notinterested in the visibility their work allots them but inthe functionality of the systems they design. By doingtheir work from behind the scenes, they insure theirrecommendations take on the highest form of indige-nous design leading to optimum success.

F R A M I N G C O N F L I C T

T H R O U G H T H E P R I S M

O F V A L U E S Y S T E M S

Essential to the design of Functional Democracy is anew understanding of the nature of conflict andthe values of the politicians who shape it. Much ofthe science on conflict today relies on the seminalwork of Muzafer Sherif, Caroline Sherif, and CarlHoveland and the two models they created. eSherifs verified a model called Realistic Conflicteory (RCT) through the Robbers Cave Experi-ment. e theory accounts for group conflict,negative prejudices, stereotypes, discriminationand even violence as being the result of compe-tition between groups for limited resources5. Inlater years, the Sherifs worked with Hovelandand authored the Social Judgment eory (SJT),which explains how attitudes are expressed, judgedand modified. Beck was a student of MuzaferSherif while working on his Phd at the Universityof Oklahoma in the Sixties. He combined themost notable findings from both theories andadded to them many elements of the value sys-tems model giving much impetus to his experi-ence in the field. Beck closely reexamined the underlying assump-tions affecting the importance of intra-groupdynamics on each side of a conflict. Using SJT, hetransformed the assimilation and contrast aspectsof group dynamics by providing a far more sophis-ticated articulation of the different spectrums that

represent the different value systems on each side ofa conflict. is pioneering model became known asthe value-systems Assimilation-Contrast Effectmodel, or the VACE model for short. It became thebasis for identifying the most important partiesand individuals to a conflict in our work at theCHE-Mideast.According to the model, there is a total of sixpositions or standings related to beliefs andactions on each side of the spectrum in anygiven conflict. VACE more accurately predictsthe motivation of people, groups and culturesunder conflict conditions. It illustrates graphi-cally the dynamics of polarization, social con-flict and the balance of perspectives in the pur-suit of systemic equilibrium (peace, armistice,non violence) between opposing viewpoints orvalues. Each position has its own value systempreferences or mix of value systems. ese areexpressed in designations of R-1 through R-6 forpositions on the right side of the issue, or L-1through L-6 for positions on the left side. edesignation of ‘right’ or ‘left’ side does not indi-cate any party affiliation or political leanings,although it can be used that way for convenienceif the political left and right are being discussed.e six positions based on the spectrum of valuesystems approach to a conflict are as follows:

1 ~ Flamethrowers (R-6 & L-6): ese are the groupsthat are represented by the ird Level value sys-tem. ey are aggressive, violent and predatorywith intent to destroy, attack and eliminate theopposition without the possibility of compromise.

2 ~ Zealots (R-5 & L-5): ese are groups centrered part-ly in ird-Level and partly Fourth Level. ey arehighly directed by doctrine, partisan, and fiercelyfervent, tending toward “all or nothing” demands.

3 ~ Ideologues (R-4 & L-4): ese are the True Believersrepresented by the arrested stage of the Fourth Levelsystem. ey are absolutists with firm convictionsand rigid boundaries.

4 ~ Moderates (R-3 & L-3): is is where an openFourth-Level system exhibits softer beliefs. isgroup recognizes the entry phases of the Fifth Levelsystem. ey are more open to seeing options forcompromise and negotiating trade-offs, althoughthey want to come out ahead. Positions can besomewhat intense but have less ego-involved innegotiation.

5 ~ Pragmatists (R-2 & L-2): is position is in theFifth-Level system. ey are very practical andbelieve in results that work. ey advocate the artof the possible, creative and functional solutions,and can be highly skilled at negotiation.

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 6 1

6 ~ Conciliators (R-1 & L-1): is is the position whereFifth Level meets Sixth-Level system. is positionseeks inclusivity, consensus and a place for everyoneto feel good about the outcome. ey often do notrecognize manipulative strategies used by the otherFirst Tier systems to gain sympathy and conces-sions.

e way each value system perceives the others on theleft or right side of an issue determines whether they view

the other perspective as one that ‘assimilates’within their own viewpoint, or is in ‘contrast’ totheir viewpoint. ‘Assimilation’ expects that ‘ifyou aren’t against us, you are with us’. Since thisisn’t really the case, a lot of ‘internal marketing’might be spent attempting to create strongerconverts to the cause. “Contrast” expects that ‘ifyou aren’t with us, you are against us’. As a resultof this dynamic, the debate no longer containssix positions on each side of the values spectrum,its the Ideologues, Zealots and Flamethrowers onone side (the rigid “us”) vs. the Moderates, Prag-matist and Conciliators on the same side And theentire other side. As Conciliators, Pragmatists andModerates on both sides of any issue disappear theremaining positions are those that represent an “usvs. them” ideology, which then becomes the loudestvoices being heard. is is extremely important par-ticularly in terms of mass media.

e silencing of the middle spectrum of a debateresults in an unbalanced representation of theissues and further polarization. Ultimately this isthe foundation for serious conflict. Unfortunate-ly, in a world that feeds of small sound bites and24/7 news, the mainstream media only reportsthe sensationalized polarization of opinions.is creates a broader and more embedded viewof the “us vs. them” cultural schism.

When we use this model in the Middle East, we call itthe Hearts and Minds strategy6. We design steps on howto drive the hearts and minds of people away from thecorrosive effects of the “us vs. them” dynamic throughthe following steps: 1 ~ Create a wedge between the radicals (Flamethrowers,

Zealots, and the closed-system Ideologues), and themore Moderate positions on each side of the valuespectrum simultaneously.

2 ~ Enhance the capacities of the Pragmatists and theConciliators so they are able to solve the deep con-flict and answer to the needs of the people.

3 ~ Anticipate the radical chitchat among the Flamethrow-ers and Zealots and depress the polarizing dynamics.

4 ~ Inoculate the masses and the decision makersagainst “Us vs. em” rhetoric.

is is the model we presented to the United nationsand to the US department of State on a few occa-sions. We always recommend that focus should not

E L Z A S . M A A L O U F | F U N C T I O N A L D E M O C R A C Y | 6 2

be placed on negotiating with the loudest voices,which has repeatedly resulted in failure. Focus alsoshould not be placed on negotiations when themajority of a society on one side of the model is cen-trered in the 1, 2 and 3 positions, while the other side iscentrered in the 4,5, and 6 positions. is was the casein our work in Israel and Palestine. Instead of repeatingthe failed scenarios of the past our focus turned to helpthe Palestinians build capacities and institutions withintheir own culture. We sought to level the asymmetrybetween the Israelis and the Palestinians by helping thePalestinian side move their culture to a center in the 1, 2and 3 positions where negotiations become equitable andthe results more lasting.

I S R A E L A N D P A L E S T I N E ,T H E C A S E S T U D Y

roughout this article reference was made to our fieldapplication of this framework in the Middle East. Ourorganization, the Center for Human Emergence Mid-dle East began a mission in 2005 to help Israelis andPalestinians break the logjam that was preventing per-manent peace from taking hold. e large-scale socialpsychology tools that are outlined in this article wereapplied in Israel and Palestine over a five-year peri-od. Here is a summary of that field experience.I had met dr Beck a few years before we started ourwork together and was thoroughly familiar with thevalue systems model, his work with large scale psy-chology and his field experience in helping lay theground for South Africa’s transition from Apartheid.After the events of 9-11, Mr Beck set his eyes onbringing his work to the Middle East. Followingthe South African model, he was looking forsomeone who understood the cultural values ofthe Middle East as well as the value systemsframework and large-scale social psychology andwith whom he can start a new initiative. at ishow we began our long professional partnership. e efforts needed to create a tipping point inhow Israelis and Palestinians perceived a solutionto the conflict were massive. Although we wantedto do the work, we were careful as not to acceptfunding from government sources or the Un inorder to preserve the integrity of the approach.Many American and Canadian businessmen whoknew Mr Beck offered to sponsor our initiative.e first step was the most arduous as we beganour search for IIEs on both sides of the conflict.is was a meticulously drawn out process thattook over a year to complete. We wanted to makesure that whoever was picked had the qualificationsof an IIE that were described earlier. On the Palestinian side our initiative drew theinterest of members of the ird Generation Fatah

political movement. ey were led by nafiz Al Rifaea pragmatist with strong Fifth Level values. nafizwas also influential with Palestinian Authority Pres-ident Abbas and his powerful Old Guard as well asin shaping the minds of Fatah’s future generations.Most IIEs under his leadership had a fresh perspec-tive on the future of a non-violent and a corrup-tion-free Palestine. neri Bar-On, a successfulengineer, who exemplified the bright Fifth Levelvalues, and had embraced the Sixth Levelhumanitarian values, led the Israeli side. MostIIEs in his group also had a future vision of amore peaceful Israel. All EEIs were trained in thevalue systems methodologies for research beforedoing fieldwork.Once the teams of experts were in place on bothsides, we proceeded to map out the memetics ofboth Israel and Palestine. is long drawn outprocess showed a true depiction of the value sys-tems in both cultures, and how they react to exis-tential threats. More notably what we observedwas that Israel was a first world country with val-ues centrered in the 4th and 5th level value systemsand emerging into the 6th level system. Palestine,on the other hand was centrered in the 2nd and 3rdlevels and emerging into the 4th level. In short,Palestine had many developmental challenges. is became the catalyst that shifted our focus fromnegotiating a better deal on peace accords, to build-ing the capacities of Palestinians. We called this “eBuild Palestine Initiative7.” Our work for the follow-ing few years was to give the Palestinians a vision oftheir own future and think of ways to influence theirrepresentatives to build their own indigenous institu-tions and support a future state. For several years thePalestinian IIEs roamed every town city and village in theWest Bank to spread the memes of “prosper and letprosper,” as part of the new value structure that thePalestinians were aiming for.In 2008 this large-scale design project culminated in asummit on the future of Palestine, where over 700 com-munity leaders and Fatah ird Generation Party officialsdetailed their vision of a prosperous and peaceful Palestin-ian State. is became the blueprint that inspired manyprogressive Palestinians, including Prime MinisterFayyad. Today, although the Arab Spring has taken thespotlight away from Israel and Palestine, the CHEMideast, still advises many IIEs on how to shape theirindigenous institutions that will eventually lead to theirown version of Functional Democracy.

C O N C L U S I O N

e Functional Democracy model requires the fun-damental reworking of many of the assumptionsthe world has about the virtues of democracy. As

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 6 3

Winston Churchill once told the British House ofCommons: “democracy is the worst form of gov-ernment except for all the others.” Our model is onethat is evolutionary by nature. By using the princi-ples that are outlined here, the model becomes a tem-plate created by the people for the people, which in turnelect politicians who are of the people. When it comesto the Middle East, since the region is centrered in theSecond and ird Level of values and is entering theFourth Level system, Functional Democracy mightmean that parts of the region will naturally elect abenevolent leader to take them to the next stage of theirdevelopment. Other parts of the Middle East might beready for an authoritarian democracy that can channelthe energies of the ird Level values. is is evident inwhat is happening in Egypt as the country rejected theMuslim Brotherhood and its 3rd level values, while thecountry’s liberals with 6th level values can’t seem to gainenough political traction. e autocracies the Egyptianarmy represents are the values that Egypt needs beforeit can transition to a truly representative democracy.Whether General Al Sisi will represent the healthyaspect of the system is still to be determined.e Middle East is a region on a hero’s journey thatrequires the building of resilient institutions. eroad ahead might be bloody and dangerous at timesjust like most historic transitions from the ird tothe Fourth level of values were in human history.But, knowing the people of my region I have highhopes that the resilience that made them endurefor so long will shine through again as they inte-grate into an increasingly more complex world.

8

——————

1 Goldstein J. (1999). Emergence as a Construct: 49. 2 Graves C. (2005). e Never Ending Quest: 3.3 dawlabani S. (2013). MEMEnomics: 45.4 Maalouf E. (April 2014). Evolve: 26.5 Sherif M. (1961). Intergroup Conflict: 163.6 Beck d. (2013). e Global Great Divide

<tinyURL.com/n4junuy>.7 CHE Mideast, Build Palestine Initiative

<tinyURL.com/kqc4wqa> .

R E F E R E N C E S

BECK, d. (1966). e Rhetoric of Conflict and Com-promise: A Study in Civil War Causation. (Univer-sity Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan).

——. (2013). “e Global Great divide”, <TinyURL.com/n4junuy > [Retrieved March 30,2013].

BECK, d. And COWAn, C. (1996, 2006). Spiral Dynamics:Mastering Values, Leadership and Change. (Malden,MA: Blackwell Publishing).

BECK, d. And LInSCOTT, G. (2011). e Crucible; Forg-ing South Africa’s Future (denton, Texas: Center forHuman Emergence).

CEnTER FOR HUMAn EMERGEnCE MIddLE EAST (2005).“e Build Palestine Initiative”, <tinyURL.com/kqc4wqa > [Retrieved March 14, 2013].

dAWLABAnI, S. (2013). Memenomics, e Next Gener-ation Economic System (new York: Select Books).

GOLdSTEIn, J. (1999). “Emergence as a Construct:History and Issues”, Emergence: Complexity andOrganization 1(1): 49-72.

GRAVES, C. (2005). e Never Ending Quest, (SantaBarbara, CA: ECLECT Publishing).

MAALOUF, E. (2014). “ Post Arab Spring and theCritical Role of the Indigenous Intelligence”,Evolve Magazine, 2(1): 26-28.

SHERIF, M., HARVEY, O., WHITE, B., HOOd, W.,& SHERIF, C. (1961). Intergroup Conflict andCooperation: e Robbers Cave Experiment (nor-man, OK: e University Book Exchange).

a b

E L Z A S . M A A L O U F | F U N C T I O N A L D E M O C R A C Y | 6 4

e month of April (detail).

Alessandro Colombo is an Ital-ian electrical engineer special-ized in power networks. Hewas Project Manager at theItalian Electric Test Centre(CESI) and Head of R&Delectronics at ABB Power Tech-

nology at Dalmine (Italy).Since 2003 he is Patent Examiner

at the European Patent Office inMunich, Germany. Passionately

involved in technological innovation and patent matters, heobtained in 2010 the European qualification EQE for patentattorneys and the Master in Intellectual Property Law andManagement at the Centre for International Intellectual Prop-erty Studies (CEIPI) in Strasbourg, France. He publishes articlesfor several online magazines and organizes open workinggroups.

HE InnOVATIOn dYnAMICS IS COMMOnLY REGARdEd AS

a linear process leading to both a technologi-cal progress and business growth, with sub-sequent positive fallbacks for the individual

and social development. is sort of orientedprocess can be described as an additive innovationmodel and describes the reality of large techno-logical projects, such as the International er-monuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), thespace missions, the fight against cancer, wherethe overall success depends on the outcome ofmany challenges pointing at a common goal.On the other hand, in highly competitive mar-kets such as consumer electronics, telecommu-nications, food and beverage, automotive andother widely diffused products, the technologi-cal evolution is not linear, but rather starry-punctual, consisting of a constellation of unco-ordinated single pieces of innovation pointing indifferent directions. Such chaotic model ofexpansion is also reflected in the global databasesof patents, where each invention is described asan original and advantageous solution to a certaintechnical problem.However what is problematic and what is benefi-cial is strongly dependent on the point of view ofthe inventor, the investors and the target group ofcustomers for which the invention has been con-ceived. In the present article three dimensions of

relativity of benefits are identified and discussed,and an approach towards a more comprehen-sive and cooperative view of the innovationvalue is suggested.

T H E R E L A T I V I T Y

O F P E R F O R M A N C E

Assuming the definition of a product perfor-mance as a “degree of match with the cus-tomers` need”, the majority of innovative ideasactually offer an improvement in some aspects atthe expense of other ones. For instance, anincrease in power output of an engine or amachine raises corresponding problems on itssafety level. An improvement of the robustness –e.g. of a portable device – has a negative impact onits lightness. Looking at a number of inventions in technicalareas of mechanics, electricity and electronics, it ispossible to identify the following dimensions ofcomplementary characteristic, wherein an advan-tage in one direction implies a corresponding disad-vantage on the other end:

POWER <–> SAFETY

ROBUSTnESS/RELIABILITY <–> LIGHTnESS/SIMPLICITY

QUALITY OF OUTPUT <–> COST/ AFFORdABILITY

SPECIALIZATIOn <–> InTEGRATIOn (MULTI-FUnCTIOnALITY)OPEnnESS <–> MAnAGEABILITY

STAndARdIZATIOn <–> CUSTOMIZATIOn

is table is merely exemplary and not limitative, anddepends on the technical field to be considered. Howev-er, the underlying concept is more general and defines adegree of relativity among technical improvements. einnovative coin has two sides, and a comprehensive viewof a technological spring requires an assessment of theforeseeable drawbacks for the users or for third parties.is balanced approach could be exercised, for example,based on the following key questions: ~ on which line(s) of improvement is a certain innova-

tion moving;~ which needs does it satisfy, which ones it does not,

which new needs does it create;~ which new skills does it stimulate, which ones does

it inhibit; and~ how are users affected by its prolonged or repetitive use.It is interesting to pose such questions lookingahead into the products or services, which are likely

TH E R E L AT I V I T Y O F I N NOVAT I ONA L E S S A N D R O C O L O M B O

T

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 6 5

to invade our houses and offices in the next five-ten years. What would be the impact of new typesof apparatuses like 3d-printers, Google-glasses, elec-tronic clothes, flying cameras, or new services likeonline education, augmented reality, distance touch-ing/smelling, instant language translations, and otherbreakthrough technologies?

T H E B O O M E R A N G E F F E C T

We have today faster, safer, cheaper and more efficientvehicles than twenty years ago, and yet all statisticsshow that the average speed of our urban trips is con-stantly decreasing due to traffic jams, road works andexhausting search for a parking space. Internet chatsand social networks help distant friends and relativesgetting more connected with each other, and yet theylead to a higher loneliness at local scale and the risk ofdecrease of social and personal contacts.e boomerang effect arises from an implicit contra-diction hidden in many forms of innovation: once theyreach a critical high level of diffusion the resulting effectis the opposite of their original scope. Some innova-tions are simply not sustainable at larger scale with-out contradicting their basic grounds, and thereforeshall be used moderately or adopted with some limi-tation. inking for example at the development ofthe electric cars, many concerns have been raisedabout a broad and uncontrolled penetration ofsuch vehicles, as it would most likely increase theenvironmental impacts of the transportation sec-tor instead of alleviating it. At least this is fore-seeable under the current technology of the elec-tric batteries, which is still relatively heavy andpolluting, as well as the current mix of electrici-ty sources, which is still based for the 75% onfossil fuels worldwide. In order to anticipate or detect possible boomerangeffects the key questions to be posed in front of acertain innovative item may be as follows: ~ what are the improvement and the draw-backs along the whole life cycle;~ what complementary services does it requireand what externalities does it create; and~ how will the society be affected by its dif-fused use. In this respect, strong concerns about the sus-tainability of two developing energy technolo-gies have been raised, even at political level inseveral countries. One is the extraction of shalegas, an abundant source of natural gas present inunderground rocks, which however requireschemical injection and material fracking, oftenpolluting the local water reserves. e second isthe Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technique,

invented for reducing carbon emissions in theatmosphere by extracting carbon from the exhaus-tion fumes and storing it in caves or hollowsunderground. Both technologies clearly affect theequilibrium of the surrounding ecosystems andwould most certainly lead to a boomerang effectif adopted beyond a certain limit.

T H E S H I F T O F P O W E R

e third dimension of relativity to be high-lighted is the power game associated to thetechnological development. Who will gainmore power and who will lose it? History ofinnovation shows that the advent of new tech-nologies can move controlling power awayfrom traditional subjects and reassigns it toother ones. Typical cases are the burnout ofKodak upon the diffusion of digital photogra-phy, as well as the decline of Motorola with theaffirmation of the encoded GSM mobiles. Aredistribution of power can be observed not onlyamong competitors but also among actors placedin different level of the value chain within anindustry.In the travel sector, for example, the internet book-ing systems have strongly diminished the role oftravel agents along a broad spectrum of services,from single flight reservation to holiday packages. Asimilar reshape is now happening to bookstores andmusic shops due to the spread of online ordering anddelivery systems. Giant online platforms like Amazonhave acquired an increasing power not only to sell andto gain premium margins, but also to influence thecustomers` choices by means of individualized adver-tisement, discounting policies and other attractiveoffers. Also low-cost flight carriers exercise now a certainpersuading power on travellers in the choice of the desti-nation for a holiday or a city visit, and for ancillary ser-vices like hotel reservation and car rental. A central mar-ket position allows the control of the game.Several other examples can show that innovation is oftendriven by a shift of controlling power – and the relatedbusiness opportunities - from one group to another. It istherefore important to consider the power trends associ-ated with certain technological or business developments. In this respect, some key questions may include:~ who are the advantaged groups and who the disad-vantaged;~ who will gain a higher share of the market, who willlose it; and~ who will better control the technology, i.e. decidefuture developments. Examples in the field of factory automation androbotics show that a large number of inventions do

A L E S S A N D R O C O L O M B O | T H E R E L A T I V I T Y O F I N N O V A T I O N | 6 6

not necessarily lead to an higher profitability - espe-cially in contexts of medium size enterprises with lessstandardized manufacturing chains - but to a morecentralized control of the industrial processes, leadingto a reduction of power of the traditional workforce.

C O O P E R A T I V E I N N O V A T I O N

e examples mentioned above remind us that themechanisms underlying the technological innovationstend to mirror the same competitive logics that takeplace in the marketplace. Each actor in the innovationarena has the objective to maximize his own returns onthe Research & development (R&d) investments withno particular incentive towards a general evolutionaryinterest. At best, the public eye is interpreted by regula-tory bodies and authorities. However such a contrasting model is being slowly butincreasingly questioned thanks to a growing awarenessabout some associated inconsistencies (e.g. greenhouseeffect) and a clearer perception of the intimate connec-tions between private and public subjects in modernsocieties.To date, many private enterprises, such as the micro-credit banks, the fair-trade markets, the purchase com-munities, are based on a solidary economy. ey arenot to be confused with no-profit organizations orsocially-oriented foundations, whose working modelis comparable to volunteering. ese entrepreneurialforms are still profit-oriented but have broader set ofobjectives, able to take into account the value of thehuman resources, the environmental benefits, and abalanced distribution of rewards along the entirevalue-chain. Such innovative business models weremostly unknown only twenty years ago, and arebeing successfully developed and integrated in thecurrent economy.Other sustainable and cooperative forms of inno-vation are the R&d projects supported by crowd-funding. In comparison with the funding fromcentralized research institutions or corporateR&d departments, crowd-sponsored projects canbetter represent diffused needs and desires whichare not necessarily highly profitable for theinvestors, but more promising for the users. It isthe public to select the most attractive proposalsby conceding or not the required capitals. At themoment the crowd-funding platforms are mostlyoccupying the smaller and lower end of the inno-vation arena, limited to items for everyday use,apps for smart-phones, artistic and editorial pro-jects. However according to several observers thepotential of crowd-sponsored and/or open innova-tion is really huge and is likely to move upwards toan industrial scale in the next years, extending to the

transportation sector (e-bikes, 500-dollar vehicles),medical diagnostics and other key industries.A final example of cooperation-oriented innova-tion is visible in the segment of renewable energies– one the fastest growing business segment in therecent five years – and the smart grids, whichcombine together the possibility of electricitygeneration at different scales (i.e. single house-hold, building, zone, city level) with the real-time communication technologies, also calledthe “internet of energy”.By consulting the patent publications in this sec-tor [see the Box below] it is noted a growingnumber of inventions directed to a democratizedcontrol of the energy distribution as well as ener-gy management systems for communities ofusers. e concept of community is differentfrom a simple aggregation of consumers not onlybecause of the co-ownership of some asset (e.g. aninstallation of solar panels or mini wind turbines)but also because it implies a certain degree ofvalue-sharing among the participants and a mutualagreement on technical or organisational aspects. Inthe mentioned case, for instance, these innovativeenergy controllers require to specify different rank-ings of priority for different electrical tasks, since theenergy availability from the local source is sometimeinsufficient to satisfy the whole demand, therebystimulating a more connected and cooperativeapproach throughout the community members.

C O N C L U S I O N

is brief overview of the innovation approaches andeffects does not lead to any firm conclusive statement,but rather to a set of open thematic points to be devel-oped with spirit of curiosity. e importance of inno-vation, its speed and its impact on a global equilibriumare today as high as never been before, and requires acorresponding rise in the overall awareness about itseffects, its benefits and its drawbacks. Many technologi-cal improvements have shown a boomerang effect at abroader scale or are simply driven by a power matchbetween competitors. On the other side, different models and practices ofinnovation activities are now available and have beensuccessfully implemented. In such cooperative approachthe economic or strategic return is not prioritized but isconsidered together with a broader interest for the pub-lic and the community.

8

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 6 7

R E F E R E N C E S

SCHILLInG M. A. (2005). Strategic Management ofTechnological Innovation, (new York: Mc-GrawHill Irwin).

CHRISTEnSEn C. M. (2011). The Innovator’s Dilem-ma, (new York: Harper Business).

nICOL T. (2012). “Innovation in Social Enterprise”,in Innopreneur, Ton Langeler ed. (Channel VMedia).

dAFT R. (2008). The new era of Management,(Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western).

CHAn W. K. – MAUBORGnE R. (2005). Blue oceanstrategy, (Boston, MA: Harvard Business).

a b

A L E S S A N D R O C O L O M B O | T H E R E L A T I V I T Y O F I N N O V A T I O N | 6 8

CON SU L T A T I ON O F TH E EU RO P E AN P A T ENT DAT A B A S E ON L I N E W I TH “ E S P A C EN E T ”

e patent literature is a huge and steadily increasing source of technical information; it covers all fields of technologyand is a useful indicator both for trend analysis and for specific technical consultation. e European patent database, inparticular, collects all patent applications published by the major five patent offices worldwide (Epo, US, Japan, China,and Korea) as well as by most of other national patent offices, for a total of circa 80 million documents. is informationis freely available to the public, and can be consulted via several access portals by entering publication numbers, names ofinventors and/or more articulated filtering criteria, such as codes of the technical field, keywords or text queries.One of the most practical consultation platform, accessible without registration, is “Espacenet” provided by theEuropean Patent Office in its main web page (www.epo.org) or directly reachable via the link http://bit.ly/1hC1JSo.In the Espacenet access page the following three options are available (top-left):~ Smart Search: accepts simple queries with a maximum of 20 terms;~ Advanced Search: accepts complete queries by means of mixed search criteria;~ Classification Search: permits to find the code of a technical domain.ExAMPLE:Searching for documents in the field of <electrical distribution> related to a <community of users>.STEP 1: Finding the code of the technical domain: ~ Open “Classification Search” (top-left). ~ e most appropriate area is “H” (Electricity), click on it and read the options.~ e most appropriate subarea is H02 “Generation, conversion and distribution of electric power”, click on it andread the options.~ e most appropriate class is H02J “Circuit for [...] distributing electric power”.STEP 2: Finding documents in the selected class related to a community of users.~ Open the menu “Advanced Search” (top-left) to access the entry mask.~ In the upper box “Title or Abstract” enter the desired term, i.e. “community”~ In the lower box “CPC” (patent classification) enter the desired field code “H02J”.~ Click on the bottom-right button “Search” and browse the results.At the time of writing, the search result is a set of 26 documents, which can be viewed by a simple click. not all the docu-ments are highly relevant, since the terms “community” may indicate a slightly different concept. However particularlyinteresting appear to be:~ US2013262197 “Community energy management system”~ WO2013128422 “Method for managing electric energy [..] to users belonging to a community of users”With a similar query, documents related to democratization of control can be retrieved, such as~ US2012035778 “Automated system for democratizing power”.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is anindependent researcher andwriter based out of Montreal,Canada. He is Project Man-ager of e People’s BookProject, Chair of the Geopol-itics Division of the Hampton

Institute, Research Director ofOccupy.com’s Global Power

Project and the World of ResistanceReport, hosts a weekly podcast at Boil-

ingFrogsPost.com, and is a co-founder and Vice President ofVoice of Access: e People’s Foundation.

HE VOICE OF ACCESS: THE PEOPLE’S FOUNDATION (TPF) IS

A new initiative to establish a counter-hegemonicfoundation – built upon an understanding of thehegemonic foundations that have been so pivotal in

the construction and maintenance of the present social order –to effectively challenge and help to make obsolete the existingsocial order. rough the formation of new educational,research and media initiatives and organizations, the con-struction and dissemination of knowledge, connecting peo-ple and ideas from activists, intellectuals and groupsaround the world, e People’s Foundation hopes to aid inthe multi-generational struggle of constructing a new –and fair – world order, to help lay the foundation for afuture worth striving towards.

*‘Voice of Access: e People’s Foundation’ is aninitiative of myself and three other friends andassociates, forming it as a non-governmentalorganization to act as a facilitator – and, whenpossible – a patron of organizations, activists,knowledge and social movements that seek tochallenge and change the world order underwhich humanity now lives and struggles. Fromour backgrounds in research, writing, publish-ing, media, computer science and technology,and our experience with non-governmental orga-nization and think tanks, we are seeking to channelour efforts into the operations of an organization dedi-cated to facilitating and supporting the efforts of othersaround the world. While we hold opposing views andphilosophies to those that pervade the hegemonicfoundations, our understanding of them and theirsuccesses in shaping the present global order helpsus focus on methods with which we can challengeand seek to change that order.

In discussing the ways in which TPF would seekto operate and work toward achieving its objec-tives, it would first be useful to briefly outlinesome of the ways in which the major dominantfoundations have operated in working towardtheir own objectives. As a case in point, I willfocus on the Rockefeller Foundation (RF),founded in 1913 by John d. Rockefeller “to pro-mote the well-being of mankind,” as its originalmission statement postulated.

T H E R O C K E F E L L E R F O U N D A T I O N :S O C I A L E N G I N E E R I N G F O R

S O C I A L C O N T R O L

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Unit-ed States – and much of the industrializing world– was in the midst of profound transformationand turmoil. Successive economic crises createdgrowing uncertainty among an increasingly dis-trustful middle class, as the rich ‘Robber Baron’industrialists (Rockefeller chief among them) grewever more rich and powerful. Social unrest by thepoor, workers, immigrants and others was threateningthe prevailing social order. ose who sat atop thesocial hierarchy – notably, the ‘Robber Barons’ them-selves – grew increasingly nervous at the prospect ofthe threat of revolution from below, as well as thegrowing restlessness of the middle classes. Actions andinitiatives needed to be taken to safeguard powerfulfinancial, economic, political and social interests. It was a time not only of economic and social crises, ofgrowing unrest, revolutionary fervour and industrialand financial consolidation into huge concentrations ofeconomic power, but, simultaneously, was also a periodof increasingly expansionist and imperialistic foreignpolicies. ese were most notably on the part of theUnited States, which was extending its hegemonythroughout the Caribbean and Central America, andreaching across the Pacific, with the most noteworthyexample being in the Philippines, and with growinginterests in China and Japan. Changes in technology and communication werefacilitating the spread of more information to morepeople than ever before, and the concept of ‘thepublic’ – and specifically, how to manipulate the

VOICE OF ACCESS :THE PEOPLE’S FOUNDATION

T

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 6 9

A N D R E W G A V I N M A R S H A L L

public – moved to the forefront of elite intellectualdiscussion. It was an era that gave birth to the mod-ern university, the advertising and public relationsindustries, the consumer society, and the modernphilanthropic foundations. e foundation functioned – and continues to func-tion – as an institution dedicated to the process ofsocial engineering with the objective of social control.In short, the foundation’s purpose was to identify majorissues and areas of contention in the existing socialorder, and to subsequently find methods of promoting‘reform’ and changes so as to manage the process ofadaptation, undermine radical efforts at transformationand promote more moderate forces, integrating themwithin the existing social hierarchy and order. e goal,ultimately, was to maintain the social hierarchy itself. Foundations would achieve these objectives by acting asmajor patrons of universities and the social sciences, toseek to find ‘scientific’ solutions to social problems, whichwere seen as technical – not structural; channelling intel-lectual efforts into finding ways to reform and adapt thesocial order instead of opposing or challenging it; spon-soring research organizations and think tanks, whichbring together prominent individuals from academia,politics, finance, industry and the media in an effort topromote consensus between society’s dominant insti-tutions and those who run them; and providing fund-ing to social movements and initiatives so as to gainsignificant financial leverage over the direction ofsocial movements, increasing support for reform-oriented and legalistic approaches to resolving socialissues, and thus undermining and ostracizing moreradical alternatives. Foundations sought to manufacture ideology andconsensus between elites, to institutionalize theseideologies within the existing and evolving domi-nant social structures, and to ‘engineer the con-sent’ of the governed. Over the course of the 20thcentury, major foundations – with the RF beingperhaps the most prominent – exerted animmense, if not largely unknown, influence onthe development and evolution of the UnitedStates. By virtue of the United States being anoutwardly expansive and imperialistic society,that influence extended to much of the world. Early on in their development, the US Congressinvestigated the major foundations with a wari-ness of the intentions and functions they estab-lished under their extremely powerful and wealthy‘Robber Baron’ patrons. In 1914, the Walsh Com-mission was formed, noting that the establishmentof the RF – among others – “was the beginning ofan effort to perpetuate the present position ofpredatory wealth through the corruption of sourcesof public information” and that if these foundations

were left unchecked, they would “be used as instru-ments to change the form of government of the USat a future date, and there is even a hint that thereis a fear of monarchy,” noting that many of thefoundations represented the interests of powerfulindustrial and financial dynasties1. In the finalreport of the Walsh Commission in 1916, it wasconcluded that foundations represented so “gravea menace” to society that “it would be desirableto recommend their abolition2.” Obviously, thisdid not take place. As anthropologist david nugent documented,the development of the modern social sciencesby Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations (andlater, with other foundations joining) was direct-ly linked to the expanding global interests of theUnited States in becoming an imperial powerand in managing domestic unrest at home.Foundation boards consisted not only of thedominant industrial and financial interests, butalso of prominent intellectuals and foreign policyfigures, all of whom together were well aware ofthe effects that industrialization and imperialismwere having on people at home and abroad, andsought to find new ‘scientific’ ways of managingthese changes without undermining their own socialpositions. is required a very careful, incrementaland adaptive approach to social engineering. As a topRockefeller philanthropy official, Wicliffe Rose, wrotein 1923, “All important fields of activity […] from thebreeding of bees to the administration of an empire,call for an understanding of the spirit and technique ofmodern science,” which “determined the mental atti-tude of a people, affects the entire system of education,and carried with it the shaping of civilization3.”e RF sought to establish “institutional centres of socialresearch” in key nations around the world, facilitatingexchange and collaboration between these various institu-tions that would ultimately “serve as a model for the devel-opment of the social sciences generally4.” e initial focuswas in the United States and Europe, aiming – in the Twen-ties – to establish roughly 12-15 major centres of social sci-ence research, one of the most important of which was theLondon School of Economics. rough fellowship pro-grams sponsored by foundations, students from aroundthe world would be taken to schools in the United Stateswhere the foundation influence over the development ofthe social sciences had already become significant5.Edmund day, who ran the RF’s Social Sciences divi-sion, wrote in 1930 that the social sciences were toengage in “human engineering” and that, “the valida-tion of the findings of social science must be througheffective social control6.” Over the following years, theFoundation increasingly looked to establish within thesocial sciences a greater emphasis on ‘International

A N D R E W G A V I N M A R S H A L L | V O I C E O F A C C E S S | 7 0

Relations’ as well as – in the wake of the stock marketcrash and the start of the Great depression – a greateremphasis on “the planning and control of economicstructures and economic process7.”Max Mason, the president of the RF, wrote in 1933 thatthe policies of the Foundation “were directed to thegeneral problem of human behaviour, with the aim ofcontrol through understanding,” noting specifically thatthe “social sciences, for example, will concern them-selves with the rationalization of social control,” whereasthe natural and medical sciences would be concernedwith “personal understanding and personal control8.”Control, it seemed, was always the ultimate objective. Concurrent with the development of the social sciencesand major universities in the United States and Europe,Rockefeller and Carnegie philanthropies, among others,sought to construct an ‘educational’ system for blackAmericans in the South, which was deemed so successfulthat it was exported to several British colonies as a meansof exerting colonial domination over subject populations.Beginning with a series of conferences between WallStreet bankers and northern industrialists in the late 19thcentury, an educational system for southern blackAmericans was sought in such a way as to ensure thatthe hierarchy which slavery had established betweenraces would remain relatively unchanged. As one con-ference participant put it at the time, “the white peo-ple are to be the leaders, to take the initiative, to havedirect control in all matters pertaining to civilizationand the highest interest of our beloved land.” Con-ference participants agreed, on the other hand, that“the negro” was “best fitted to perform the heavylabour in the Southern states,” as, it was suggested,“he will willingly fill the more menial positions,and do the heavy work, at less wages9.”ese conferences concluded with the establish-ment of what was known as the ‘Tuskegee edu-cational philosophy,’ agreed upon in 1901, whereattendees agreed on the need to “train a negroleadership cadre” as “a strong professional class,”requiring a strengthening of certain ‘negro col-leges’, while the majority of education for blackAmericans was to remain “vocational and agri-cultural in focus […] to be directed towardincreasing the labour value of his race10.” Intime, the major foundations became involved inthis endeavour, and the Phelps-Stokes Fund inparticular took up this objective with a great dealof fervour, establishing schools dedicated totraining black men in vocational and agriculturaltrades and black women in “home economics11.”In 1917, the Phelps-Stokes Fund published a two-volume survey on Southern negro education, inwhich they maintained that academic and literaryeducation was “dysfunctional for the black man”

because it would create unrealistic expectations forblack Americans in a segregated society. It claimedfurthermore that would not provide the skillsdeemed necessary to become a “productive”worker, and, ultimately, it would underminewhite dominance of society itself12.British colonialists took note of the success of theTuskegee educational philosophy, and mission-ary educators from British colonies in Africabegan cooperating with the American founda-tions and schools in replicating the Tuskegeeeducational system in several British colonies,including in Kenya and even South Africa,where it helped in the construction of theapartheid system. e education of black SouthAfricans, in the words of a prominent Phelps-Stokes Fund official, was to keep the blacks as“junior partners in the firm13.”not unrelated, in the early 20th century, the majorAmerican foundations – and the vast fortunes of‘Robber Barons’ – contributed to the acceptance,institutionalization, and exportation of the eugen-ics movement (sometimes referred to as ‘scientificracism’). Eugenics was an extremely dangerous anddestructive pseudo-science (or, rather, in truth, areligious orthodoxy in search of legitimacy) whichwas focused on the objective of refining the socialengineering of the species, itself, to take ‘evolution’into their own hands. is philosophy suggested thatconcepts such as poverty, crime, race, disabilities,mental suffering and lack of intelligence were productsnot of social conditions – or the social order and itsdevastating effects – but rather, they were inherent,genetic ‘defects’ experienced by the ‘unfit’. As a corol-lary, those who had risen to the top of the social hierar-chy, the rich, white men of property and privilege, wereconsidered to be the most intelligent, the racially superi-or, the “fit.” us, it was not avarice, crime, manipula-tion, expropriation, enslavement, theft and domination thatmade them their riches; it was their ‘genetic superiority’.is – conveniently – was an ideology which justified theenormous wealth and power held by a small minority,presenting it with scientific language that aimed to groundthe social order as being one constructed through “naturalselection” and evolution14. As such, it was considered idealfor the “fit” to breed with each other (and thus, in theory,create a type of super-species), while the “unfit” were tobe encouraged to stop breeding altogether.When the eugenics movement reached the UnitedStates from Britain in the late 19th and early 20th cen-turies, it garnered the attention of elites in America.And very quickly, the vast fortunes of the Harrimans,Carnegies and Rockefellers – among many others –were mobilized to support the movement. As thefoundations were established, eugenics became a

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 7 1

major area of interest for their operations. e eugen-ics movement was arguably more successful in theUnited States than any other nation in the early 20thcentury, and in fact, it was from the United States thatit was exported around much of the industrialized,western world. Eugenics affected the development andevolution of major institutions and ideologies of the era,such as the educational system, mental health, hygiene,medicine, psychology and psychiatry, migration, thecriminal justice system, biology and the natural sciences.Between 1907 and 1927, twenty-three US states enactedeugenic sterilization laws for the “genetically unfit,” ulti-mately leading to the forced sterilization of tens of thou-sands of people15.In fact, with the help of the RF, eugenics was exported toWeimar Germany, pouring hundreds of thousands ofdollars into institutions dedicated to studying “race biol-ogy” and psychiatry. e German eugenics movementproved to be very successful, and when the nazis cameto power in 1933, eugenicists found a political move-ment espousing and embracing their ideas of racial infe-riority and superiority. e RF continued its fundingfor nazi ‘race science’ and psychiatry until the out-break of World War II in 1939, by which time theimpact had been profound. In fact, one of the mostnotorious nazi war criminals, the “Angel of death” –dr Josef Mengele, the infamous Auschwitz concen-tration camp doctor – had previously done researchwhich was funded by the RF, whose money sup-ported experimentation done at various concentra-tion camps16.Of course, following World War II, the eugenicsmovement had been largely discredited after theworld witnessed the repercussions of such institu-tionalized and ideological hatred and racism, asrevealed by the extent of atrocities in the Holo-caust – as well as those committed by the Japan-ese in the Pacific. ereafter, the major propo-nents and patrons of the eugenics movementsought to rebrand themselves in various forms.In fact, a 1943 edition of Eugenical News – themost widely-read publication of the eugenicsmovement – published an article by one of the‘fathers’ of the eugenics movement, Charlesdavenport, who advocated a vision of “a newmankind of biological castes with master races incontrol and slave races serving them17.” A 1946edition of Eugenical News stated that followingthe War, “population, genetics, [and] psycholo-gy, are the three sciences to which the eugenicistmust look for the factual material on which tobuild an acceptable philosophy of eugenics and todevelop and defend practical eugenics proposals18.”One of the more prominent efforts at rebrandingeugenics emerged as the ‘population control’ move-ment. Largely an initiative of the Rockefellers, John

d. Rockefeller III established the Population Coun-cil (PC) in 1954, designed to “provide solid science toguide governments and individuals in addressingpopulation questions19.” Six of the ten foundingmembers of the PC were well-known eugenicists20.Matthew Connelly has written the most definitiveaccount of the origins and evolution of the popu-lation control movement, based largely upon theinternal records of the various international andprivate organizations involved in promotingpopulation control, including the RF and PC.e primary fear of the elites behind the popula-tion control movement was the great mass ofcivilization that fell outside the western world:the largely non-white, poor populations of theworld, seeking to toss off the chains of colonial-ism and chart their own way in the world. e population control movement – with thePC as its “nexus” – relied on extensive fundingfrom the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, andbecame quickly institutionalized in Unitednations organizations, as well as in the ideologyof ‘development’ for the ‘ird World’. e resultwas measures designed to encourage populationcontrol becoming embedded within ‘aid’ agenciesand development agencies. during the Eisenhowerpresidency, the issue of population had become “anational security issue” in the mind of the foreignpolicy establishment21. e PC, Ford and RF, and Unagencies began working with USAId, the World Bankand other organizations in placing population controlas a central element of US and Western foreign policyconcerns and actions, especially in countries like India,with large and largely poor populations22.As the population control movement was exportedaround the world, it resulted in a great deal of tragedyand repressive actions by governments, such as in Indiaand China, where forced abortions and forced steriliza-tions had become rampant at various times. e move-ment had, however, garnered significant oppositionfrom many countries and regions around the world, andits institutional and ideological structure experiencedmajor setbacks going into the 1990s. However, it hasnever wandered far from the minds of the super-richoligarchs and patrons of major foundations. In 2009, a secret meeting was organized among some ofthe world’s richest billionaires, organized by davidRockefeller, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Invitedguests included billionaires such as Ted Turner, GeorgeSoros, Michael Bloomberg, and even Oprah Winfrey.e meeting was designed to discuss the future of phil-anthropy, “what motivated their giving, the areas offocus, lessons learned and thoughts on how theymight increase giving going forward23.” Each guestwas given 15 minutes to discuss and promote their

A N D R E W G A V I N M A R S H A L L | V O I C E O F A C C E S S | 7 2

personal favourite ‘cause,’ but after a great deal of dis-cussion, they sought to establish an “umbrella cause”which could “harness their interests.” Apparently withBill Gates leading the call, the billionaires agreed that“overpopulation was a priority […] in which popula-tion growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrousenvironmental, social and industrial threat24.”Out of this meeting, a new effort was begun – largelydriven by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet – to encouragebillionaires and the super-rich around the world to joinin giving their enormous ill-gotten wealth to ‘philan-thropy’, in what is referred to as ‘e Giving Pledge’, totry to get the rich to pledge 50% of their net worth tocharity during their lifetimes or after death25.At the end of World War II, the United States emerged asthe dominant global power, and its institutions becameoriented toward finding ways to use, maintain andextend that power. Foundations played a key role in thedevelopment of think tanks and the educational system,with a focus on creating consensus among elites on theneed for empire and in training future managers of theimperial system. e RF played a key role in transforming the UnitedStates into a global empire. One of the most influentialthink tanks in the United States is the Council onForeign Relations (CFR), founded in 1921. Early on,the CFR relied upon RF funding for a great deal of itsoperations. Between 1927 and 1945, the RF providedthe Council on Foreign Relations with more thanUSd 443,000 in funding for “study group” research,which would subsequently be implemented in offi-cial policy of the US government26. e Councilhas extensive ties to the foreign policy establish-ment of the United States, most notably with theUS State department27. In fact, during the earlyyears of World War II, the CFR established a“strictly confidential” project in cooperation withthe US State department to plan for US entryinto the war as well as to outline a post-war blue-print for a US-dominated world. e project wasentirely funded by the RF28.e results of the project outlined the areas ofthe world which the United States would needto control in order to maintain and expand itsglobal power, referred to as the ‘Grand Areas’,which included, “Latin America, Europe, thecolonies of the British Empire, and all of South-east Asia29.” e world was divided into four mainblocs: the US-dominated Western hemisphere, theBritish Empire and its colonies, a German-domi-nated continental Europe, and a Japanese-dominat-ed East and Southeast Asia. As the war went on,slowly the ‘Grand Area’ plans changed to the pointwhere US planners decided that America ultimatelyhad to dominate all of these regions, noting that, “as

a minimum, American ‘national interests’ involvedfree access to markets and raw materials in theBritish Empire, the Far East, and the entire West-ern hemisphere30.”e RF took it upon itself to develop educationalsystems at elite universities, which would be dedi-cated to the study of ‘International Relations’and ‘Area Studies’ programs31. Along with theCarnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation,the RF helped to establish Soviet Studies andArea Studies programs at multiple universitiesaround the country, focusing on providing aneducation that could inform the application ofpolicy. e Ford Foundation – with consider-able financial resources – moved to the forefrontof this endeavour. In 1967, a survey by the USState department noted that out of 191 univer-sity centres of foreign affairs research in theUnited States, 107 depended primarily uponfunding from the Ford Foundation32. Between1950 and 1973, the Ford Foundation contributedroughly USd 278 million to the development of‘area studies’ programs at major American univer-sities33. While ‘International Relations’ wasdesigned to focus on the study of a “realistic”approach and understanding of power (and how toapply it), ‘area studies’ programs focused on thestudy of the non-Western world.e large foundations also provided financing andnetworking connections to aid in the establishmentof other large international think tanks, such as theBilderberg Group – which was founded in 1954 as aforum for Western European and north Americanelites to meet privately on an annual basis – as well asthe Trilateral Commission in 1973, to bring the Japan-ese elite into the fold of the Western European andnorth American hegemonic class34.So while the major foundations were shaping the edu-cation of elites, socializing them in think tanks wherethey sought to establish consensus with domestic andinternational elites in other powerful nations and tomanufacture and institutionalize dominant, imperialideologies, they also worked to try to manage the‘unwashed masses’ of the world. Just as these founda-tions had constructed an education to keep black Amer-icans and Africans as “junior partners in the firm” inthe early 20th century, in the latter half of the 20th cen-tury they sought to export the Western-style educa-tional system – and notably the foundation-influencedsocial sciences – to other regions and nations aroundthe world in order to help develop domestic eliteswithin those societies that would ultimately serve theinterests of Western hegemony and empire.Foundation officials were extremely concerned aboutchanges taking place across the developing world,

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 7 3

where revolutionary and radical movements wereattempting to rid their societies of European colonialdomination. Foundation officials worked with mem-bers of the business and financial elite, alongside theforeign policy establishment, to attempt to manage theprocess and objectives of change in the ‘third world’.While acknowledging that the era of formal colonialismwas at an end, these individuals were not eager to seepeople and nations chart their own individual paths toindependence and freedom. Instead, formal colonialstructures needed to be replaced with informal imperialstructures. A consensus was formed between the foreignpolicy-makers, business class and foundation-academicofficials that changes in places like Africa “must be evolu-tionary rather than revolutionary.” As a top CarnegieCorporation official noted: “American industry could ill-afford the loss of cheap sources of raw materials whichcould only be secured in the nations of Africa, Asia, andLatin America35.”With this in mind, the Rockefeller, Carnegie and FordFoundations undertook ambitious programs in Africa,Asia and Latin America which sought to create promi-nent universities and programs of social scienceresearch “in areas considered of geo-strategic and/oreconomic importance to the United States.” esewould include the training of public administrators,teachers, the development of curriculums, andexchange programs that would have young acade-mics in these nations come to the United States toreceive training and education at prominent USschools like Harvard or Yale36. e objective was tochannel the intellectual talents of these nationsaway from support for radical ideologies and revo-lutionary movements, and push them insteadinto the social sciences and the construction ofdomestic, technocratic elites that would see socialproblems as ‘technical’ issues requiring reformsand slow, evolutionary change37. As noted in thebook Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism:

e power of the foundation is not that of dictat-ing what will be studied. Its power consists indefining professional and intellectual parameters, indetermining who will receive support to study whatsubjects in what settings. And the foundation’spower resides in suggesting certain types of activitiesit favors and is willing to support. As [political theo-rist and economist Harold] Laski noted, “the foun-dations do not control, simply because, in the directand simple sense of the word, there is no need forthem to do so. ey have only to indicate theimmediate direction of their minds for the wholeuniversity world to discover that it always meant togravitate to that angle of the intellectual compass38.”

As political scientist Joan Roelofs wrote, founda-tions exert their influence in multiple ways:

[By] creating ideology and the common wisdom; pro-viding positions and status for intellectuals; controllingaccess to resources for universities, social services, andarts organizations; compensating for market failures;steering protest movements into safe channels; andsupporting those institutions by which policies areinitiated and implemented […] [F]oundations likeCarnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosiveinfluence on a democratic society; they represent rel-atively unregulated and unaccountable concentra-tions of power and wealth which buy talent, pro-mote causes, and, in effect, establish an agenda ofwhat merits society’s attention39.

Further, foundations play a role in providingextensive funding for social movements andnon-governmental organizations (nGOs). eirfunding for such social movement organiza-tions typically follows years of organic and slowdevelopment of social movements from theground up. Foundations typically move in toprovide funding when a social movement is seenas a potential threat to the prevailing socialorder. eir funding subsequently focuses onsupporting the more reform-oriented, legalisticand ‘evolutionary’ (as opposed to revolutionary)organizations, with an objective of helping themto become the dominant organizations in themovement and steer social movements in direc-tions safe for those who own and operate the foun-dations themselves (representing the political, indus-trial and financial elites). With this in mind, it is noteworthy that the Ford,Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations all providedextensive funding to many civil rights organizations inthe 1960s and 1970s, “as a response to the threat posed bythe generation of a mass-based social movement.” esefoundations channelled their funding into support of“moderate civil rights organizations40.” Foundation fund-ing for civil rights groups did not become common untilthe early Sixties, some five years after the Birminghambus boycott, and the peak of foundation support was inthe early Seventy, roughly five years following the assassi-nation of Martin Luther King, Jr41. As more militantmovements emerged in the later Sixties, such as the BlackPower movement and the Black Panther Party, amongmany others, the foundations increased their support formore moderate organizations like the nAACP and thenational Urban League42.is strategy of co-optation also explains the heavy fund-ing and support by major foundations for the environ-mental and conservation movements, which originally –and still in their more radical arms – represent very direct,fundamental threats to the existing social order. us,today the environmental movement is dominated bylarge institutions like the World Wildlife Fund, Conser-vation International, Resources for the Future, World

A N D R E W G A V I N M A R S H A L L | V O I C E O F A C C E S S | 7 4

Resources Institute, the International Union for Con-servation of nature and natural Resources (IUCn),and the nature Conservancy, among others. Most ofthese institutions at some point depended upon finan-cial support from major foundations, and today repre-sentatives from the corporate and financial world largelydominate their boards. Most of their funding comesfrom corporations, with whom they engage in “strategicrelationships.”Such has also been the relationship between major foun-dations and the so-called ‘anti-globalization’ movement.As globalization became the dominant force of the worldfrom the 1990s onward, new movements began to springup all around the world, opposing various policies, pro-grams, institutions and ideologies embedded within theprocess of globalization. Major targets for anti-globaliza-tion activists and organizations had been the WorldTrade Organization, the G7/G8 meetings, the WorldBank and IMF, among others. Major protests at theannual gathering of these institutions – notably at the1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle –began to strike fear into the minds of the global elite. Ase Economist noted in 2000, despite the differing viewsand backgrounds of activists and protesters in Seattle,what they “have in common is a loathing of the estab-lished economic order, and of the institutions – theIMF, the World Bank and the WTO – which theyregard as either running it or serving it.” is ‘newkind’ of protest, noted the magazine, “is more than anuisance: it is getting in the way43.”A reaction to this development was seen in theformation of the World Social Forum, an annualmeeting of nGOs and various civil society organi-zations acting as an alternative to more radical,protest-oriented and revolutionary movementsand advocacy, and instead promoting the discus-sion of “reforms” to globalization44. Many gov-ernments and political parties, and, notably, theFord Foundation have provided funding for theWorld Social Forum. As Lisa Jordan of theFord Foundation explained: “Government,business and civil society cannot solve problemsseparately. ere must be dialogue between andamongst these three groupings. e WSF is anattempt to support a vast and complex array ofpublic space for an integrating world45.” Again,the objective is to ‘integrate’ the opposition tothe existing social order within the social order,to give the ‘rebels’ a seat at the table, and thus,undermine the rebellion itself. While reforms and evolutionary change can pro-duce good and real results, they do not keep pacewith the ever-expanding militarism, war, envi-ronmental degradation, economic and financialdestruction, corporate colonization, manipulationand devastation of biodiversity, impoverishment

and exploitation of the world’s masses, and theever-growing concentration of wealth and powerin the hands of very few institutions and individ-uals at the global level. e human species – andthe planet itself – do not have the time to awaitthe slow changes begrudgingly afforded by theinstitutions of empire, exploitation and domina-tion. Reform has its place, but radical – trans-formative – change is of the utmost necessity inorder to not only challenge the existing order,but to create alternatives to it – and to helpmake the existing order obsolete, so thathumanity may chart a path that does not leadto eventual extinction, as our current trajectoryindicates. is is where ‘Voice of Access: e People’sFoundation’ – and organizations like it – canplay a much-needed role.

A ‘ V O I C E ’ F O R T H E

P E O P L E , A ‘ F O U N D A T I O N ’F O R C H A N G E

e establishment of ‘Voice of Access: e Peo-ple’s Foundation’ (TPF) represents an attempt tocreate a counter-hegemonic foundation, to followfamiliar patterns of facilitation, patronage, exchangeand interaction, the formation of new organizations,the construction of knowledge, support for socialmovements, connecting intellectuals, activists andcommunities. e objective and methods of theseefforts will counter those of the dominant hegemonicfoundations, however, in a few pivotal ways. First, TPF does not have a substantial financial baseupon which to leverage projects and steer the focus ofother organizations. In fact – at present – the financialstanding of the Foundation is non-existent. Currently,it is still in the starting stages of constructing a legal enti-ty, and those of us who are working to create the foun-dation are attempting to look into various methods offinancing, including approaching the traditional grantprocedures, as well as exploring alternatives for specificproject financing via crowdfunding measures throughsocial media, and also encouraging donations from sup-porters around the world. Financial considerations – atpresent – aside, TPF does not expect to ever match thefinancial resources of the large foundations created andoperated by the world’s financial oligarchs. As such, ourfocus is to be more on facilitation as opposed to fund-ing, though we do hope to increase the amounts ofmoney we can put into projects over time. What is the role of a facilitator foundation?To describe the role envisioned for the foundation, itwould be best to give some examples of projects thatare being planned over the coming years. One key

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 7 5

project with which there is a great interest and neces-sity is in building connections around the worldbetween activists and organizations seeking to pro-mote transformative changes in the social order,whether domestically or internationally. An example ofthis type of engagement is a project to work with theMpambo Afrikan Multiversity based out of Uganda. e founding president of Mpambo Afrikan Multiver-sity is Paulo Wangoola, an indigenous scholar and intel-lectual in East Africa. As Wangoola wrote, “e Multi-versity is a post-colonial concept of higher learning ofthe oppressed, by the oppressed and for the oppressed, inpursuit of their community cognitive autonomy andsecurity,” further noting that, “when Europeans colo-nized the world, they also colonized other people’sknowledge,” which continues under the concept of themodern university (which, I might add, was exported toUganda and East Africa through efforts by the Rocke-feller and Ford Foundations). In contrast, the ‘universi-ty’ has extended from the West into Africa “as a colo-nial/neocolonial design” which has advanced Westernhierarchical knowledge structures at the expense of “thetotal eclipse of Afrikan indigenous thought, scientificknowledge, philosophy, spirituality, wisdom and epis-temology; that is, the knowledge base developed overmillennia, by the Afrikan Black nation, as a self-determined people46.”e concept of the ‘Multiversity’ – on the otherhand – “is based on the proposition that the peopleof the world and their knowledges, cultures, lan-guage and epistemologies are horizontally ordered,such that each of the knowledges is valid in itself.”is understanding of people and knowledge “isderived from Afrikan spirituality, worldview, sci-entific thought and ontology; by which all beingand phenomena, spiritual and material, naturaland supernatural, manifests itself complemental-ly in sets of twos, female and male... balance,harmony and reciprocity.” us, wrote Wan-goola, “each one of the world’s knowledgesdeserves some ample and adequate space, andresources to be advanced to its farthest frontiers,as well as to be enriched by, as it itself enriches,other knowledges, through cross-fertilization.”e Multiversity is focused on “creating somedemocratic intellectual space and elbow room foroppressed peoples to make and demonstrate acase for a MULTIplicity of epistemologies, thoughtand knowledge to blossom, as a necessity to vital-ize each of the world’s knowledges, as well as thetotality of human knowledge as a whole47.”Mpambo Afrikan Multiversity, more specifically,“is a community-based institution of mothertongue higher learning, centrered around personswho are considered by their peers and community

to be compelling experts: wise men and wise women,philosophers, sages, scientists, scholars, innovatorsand the highly talented. ey may be primarilyindigenously trained or primarily Western-trained,but both are embedded in their community, haveemerged out of their people’s struggles to be free[…] organic intellectuals, scholars and scientists.”e word Mpambo – in the Lusoga dialect spo-ken by the Basoga people at the Source of thenile in Uganda – means ‘the best seed, the mostpotent seed selected at the time of harvest forsafe custody, for propagation in subsequentgood seasons’. Mpambo Afrikan Multiversityaims “to help raise and nurture a critical mass ofa world class of itself of intellectuals and scholarsto three principal goals: to create capacity for apeople’s socially necessary knowledge to be creat-ed close to that people and amidst themselves; tohelp render people to be both creators and con-sumers of knowledge; and to build effectivecapacity for Afrikan peoples to learn from them-selves, and on that basis to learn intellectually,philosophically, scientifically and technically fromand with the other world’s spiritual, philosophical,scientific and academic traditions and practices48.”I was fortunate enough to have spent a little time inUganda with Mpambo Afrikan Multiversity roughlyseven years ago, when I was given the responsibilityby Paulo Wangoola of recruiting some young West-erners to return to Uganda in order to study andwork with Mpambo, and to build up connectionsbetween the young, emergent leadership of Mpambo,so that these connections may last for generations tocome. is is where there is great potential for TPF toengage in facilitation and the construction of newknowledge networks, to provide a forum and means ofexchange. Our initial project is to go to Uganda andspend roughly two months learning from the organiza-tion, documenting and discussing the activities, objec-tives, and establishing a means for advancing futurecooperation and interaction between Mpambo and TPF. Unlike hegemonic foundations, which approach socialmovement organizations and centers of knowledge withan objective to steer such organizations in a specificdirection, to act as patron and paterfamilias, the Peo-ple’s Foundation approaches Mpambo Afrikan Multi-versity with an objective to learn, to receive guidance,to listen, and to mutually discuss and agree uponmethods and purposes of future cooperation and sup-port. is represents a horizontal approach to facilita-tion and support, as opposed to the vertical (and hier-archical) approach undertaken by hegemonic founda-tions. We will of course be approaching Mpambowith ideas of potential cooperation – including thepossibility of facilitating exchanges between African

A N D R E W G A V I N M A R S H A L L | V O I C E O F A C C E S S | 7 6

and Western intellectuals and other Indigenouspeoples and communities from around the world.Ultimately, this is the type of role as facilitator thatthe TPF envisions for itself among many differentorganizations and communities. Hegemonic foundations have achieved immense suc-cess in providing forums for the establishment of con-sensus between elites, both nationally and globally, so asto effect a more precise, permanent and stable system ofdomination and control. e counter-hegemonic People’sFoundation aims – in the long-term – to help facilitateinteraction, communication, cooperation and coordina-tion between groups of activists, intellectuals and othercounter-hegemonic groups around the world. e world is in the midst of powerful transformationsand changes. Power is globalizing like never before, withmore wealth than ever previously existed being concen-trated in fewer hands than ever before, with structuresand ideologies of dominance and governance being insti-tutionalized not only at national, but also regional andglobal levels. A corollary of this process is that of the‘globalization of resistance and revolt.’ From Tunisia toEgypt, Israel to Turkey, Greece to Spain, Indonesia toChina, South Africa to Brazil, Chile and the Canadianprovince of Quebec, to the Indigenous movementsacross north and South America, Africa and Asia, topeasant and labour resistance and militancy, theworld is in the early stages of forming a truly globalresistance to the processes, institutions and ideolo-gies of domination (which have, in no small part,been constructed and institutionalized through theefforts of hegemonic foundations). While these protests, movements and methods ofresistance around the world appear disparate andoften disconnected, there is enormous potentialfor mutual understanding, cooperation, coordi-nation and support. TPF hopes to play a role inattempting to connect and facilitate interactions,exchanges, conferences, and creating supportingorganizations to help turn the concept of ‘soli-darity’ into a solid practice. For example, imag-ine the possibilities of holding an internationalconference of activists, intellectuals and organiza-tions involved in resistance movements to meet,discuss their respective struggles and objectives,and to find meaningful possibilities of collabora-tion and coordination, to establish new organi-zations – think tanks, media centres, educationalorganizations, etc. – which would represent thecombined interests and activities of these seem-ingly-disparate groups. e other major aspect of the TPF – the Voice ofAccess – reflects a priority in making informationreadily available to the broadest possible audience,through collaboration and publication of texts in

multiple languages, offering reduced rates to schools,community groups, low-income organizations andresearchers and finding ways of distributing theinformation – particularly through digital formats– as well as in print. e ‘Voice of Access’ monikerand meaning reflects a focus on expanding andfacilitating access to information, communicationand interaction. is will necessitate an increas-ing focus on access to and utilization of technol-ogy itself. While we take for granted our infor-mation and communications technology in theWest, much of the world continues to lackaccess to these materials. Voice of Access wouldseek to find ways of helping to improve andfacilitate increased access to such forms of tech-nology, let alone the information and commu-nication they help facilitate. Student activism and militancy has been on therise across much of the world, including notableexamples in recent years from Greece to the Unit-ed Kingdom, Chile and Quebec. In each case, stu-dents have been mobilized in opposition to theever-expanding process of the neoliberal restructur-ing of the educational system: increased privatiza-tion, corporatization, leading to increased tuitionand debt for prospective students, which has thedual effect of making education harder to attain, andfor those who do pursue education, the effect is toshackle them through debt servitude to the socialorder itself; focusing their energies – upon graduation– to getting jobs so that they can pay off their debt,instead of channelling their intellectual capacities andenergies into finding alternatives to the existing system. One long-term objective of TPF would be to help facili-tate the development of connections and coordinationbetween student movements and struggles around theworld. A good starting place would be to invite not sim-ply leadership but also participants and supporters of var-ious student movements to participate in a conferencewhere they could discuss their respective experiences, suc-cesses and failures, prospects and potential. rough suchinteraction and the development of interpersonal rela-tionships, new ground could be broken on building sup-port between student movements around the world, neworganizations could be established to promote the sharingand development of knowledge between students andyouth movements, with cooperative thinks tanks, mediacentres and similar organizations with a focus onadvancing understanding, public awareness, and coordi-nation about and between youth/student movements. TPF would have an equal interest in promoting, sup-porting and encouraging similar processes for activistsand movements around the world. Our objective isnot to be at the centre of these processes, nor tobecome a ‘hegemonic’ institution in its own right,

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 7 7

but rather, to attempt these initiatives and projects –and to learn from their various successes and failures– in the hope that others may build upon this andattempt similar, parallel and mutually-supportive pro-jects. In short, it would be far more effective and bene-ficial to all if there were a multiplicity of similar organi-zations to the Voice of Access pursuing similar and par-allel objectives, as opposed to simply one. ese are ulti-mately long-term objectives, and the reality of currentnon-existent funds means that our initial steps will haveto be small and slow. us, our primary aims in this areawill be toward establishing channels of communicationand informal relationships with activists, intellectuals andsocial movements locally, nationally, regionally and glob-ally, slowly and steadily. TPF will look to the world with a focus on attempting tounderstand and share knowledge regarding the truenature and structure of our global socio-political andeconomic order: the institutions and ideologies of powerand domination, as well as the methods and movementsof resistance. We will look to this situation with a focuson examining what appears to be missing, whatappears to be needed, and to try to provide what wecan to address these concerns. As such, the education-al and media endeavours of the TPF are essential. In this regard, there are two organizations that TPFhas an interest in helping to establish. One – tenta-tively named the General Research Association forthe Study of Power (or GRASP) – would be focusedon bringing together young scholars and intellectu-als into a cooperative organization functioning likea think tank, which would be dedicated to thestudy of institutions and ideologies of power anddomination: the State, corporations, banks,investment facilities, international organiza-tions/bodies, hegemonic think tanks and founda-tions, universities/schools, the media, military,public relations/advertising industry, etc. GRASPwould aim to undertake extensive and rigorousresearch and study of these and other institu-tions and the ideologies that pervade them, his-torically, presently, and with a focus on trendsand transformations in their future develop-ment. We are, ultimately, a society dominatednot by a single institution but by many, eachwith their own hierarchies, structures, histories,evolution and ideologies. Yet the institutions,which dominate society as whole, do so on alargely cooperative basis. For example, the educational system supports thedevelopment of intellectuals who are channelledinto think tanks and foundations, where theyengage in the construction of knowledge, develop-ment of strategies, social engineering, and the forma-tion of foreign policy; from there they are channelled

into the state apparatus to enact policies. Corpora-tions and financial institutions, in turn, dominatethe governance structures of universities, think tanksand foundations, and participate in the develop-ment of strategies, policies and ideology. us,while theoretically these are separate institutions,functionally they are interconnected and interde-pendent. e purpose of GRASP and its researchwould be to study the historical evolution of thesevarious institutions, and their interconnectionsand interdependencies with other institutions,including by mapping out their shared leadershipwith other institutions. e objective is to estab-lish a think tank that may ultimately provide asource of knowledge-generation promoting amore comprehensive and coordinated under-standing of our present global order.TPF would simultaneously seek to support thedissemination of knowledge produced by GRASP,through building connections with alternativemedia sources, as well as pushing the knowledgeinto the mainstream, or, if necessary, helping toestablish new media organizations or groups dedi-cated to the dissemination of this knowledge.GRASP would be an incredibly useful resource forscholars, researchers, journalists and interested indi-viduals and groups around the world. Its focuswould primarily be on studying and understandingthe principal Western institutions of domination,and thus provide a valuable source of knowledge forothers to consult. A parallel organization to this would be a similar thinktank/research organization, which would be dedicatedto the study and discussion of social movements andmethods of resistance around the world, historicallyand presently. e aim, once again, would be to con-nect young scholars and intellectuals in a cooperativeorganization, which would initially establish a regionalfocus-approach to the study of social movements. Forexample, it would be the job of one (or a few) of thescholars to focus exclusively on analysing the presentsocial movements, rebellions, revolutions, riots andmethods of resistance across sub-Saharan Africa; otherswould be focused on north Africa and the Middle East,Continental Europe, East and Southeast Asia, northand South America, etc. e young scholars, examiningthe current state of a ‘world of unrest’, could preparemonthly reports. Such an organization could becomean immensely useful resource for researchers, intellectu-als, journalists and interested individuals, seeking toprovide a single source whose primary focus is onstudying the various social/resistance movementsaround the world. is is a needed resource in the world today. ereare several media and research groups that focus

A N D R E W G A V I N M A R S H A L L | V O I C E O F A C C E S S | 7 8

exclusively on studying social/resistance movements,but the focus is often inconsistent, and the sheerscope of global unrest and resistance is monumental.However, an organization with a focus on studyingnot simply what protests are ‘popular’ and in the pressmore frequently than others, but rather, on examiningthe multiplicity of resistance movements around theworld, is a needed resource to both expand understand-ing of the current state of global unrest, as well as sup-porting those social and resistance movements. How canthe people of the world – especially those activelyengaged in resistance – support each other if they don’teven know about each other’s respective struggles? isorganization would be dedicated to the construction anddissemination of knowledge regarding the methods andmovements of resistance taking place around the world,presently and historically. Here, the Voice of Accesscould play a part in helping to provide a voice for thosewho frequently go unheard in the Western world.Such an organization would greatly help our understand-ing of resistance and revolution itself. With such a largefocus and source of knowledge, we would be able to seelarger patterns and processes, gain a better understand-ing of the conditions and ‘sparks’ that lead to differingsocial movements; to better understand the successesand failures of resistance movements; and through theraising of public awareness – to encourage active andfuture support for resistance movements. For both GRASP and the as-yet unnamed researchorganization focused on studying global resistance,the objective for the People’s Foundation would beto bring different scholars, activists and relatedorganizations together, in a cooperative and hori-zontal (i.e. non-hierarchical) structure, with a focuson undertaking extensive and rigorous research(held to academic standards), to produce researchreports, articles for dissemination, books, hostmeetings/conferences, media consultations, edu-cational seminars and gatherings, providing asource of important and needed knowledge to beshared as widely as possible, to undertake thedual task of advancing human understanding ofthe social order which dominates our world, andof the people around the world who are resistingthat order’s various manifestations. For ‘Voice of Access: e People’s Foundation’,the methods would be geared towards reachingout to young scholars and interested individualsand organizations, to begin a process of commu-nication and consultation on the formation ofthese two organizations, to connect these individ-uals and organizations and hopefully – if possible– to provide the initial funding needed to establishthe organizations.

P R O B L E M S A N D P R O S P E C T S

ere are, of course, many present barriers to allthe current objectives – short and long-term – ofVoice of Access: e People’s Foundation. emost obvious is the financial impediment. WhileTPF ultimately seeks to function as a counter-hegemonic presence with an aim towards build-ing alternatives to the existing global social order(making present power structures obsolete), theFoundation must still operate within the exist-ing social order. at means that, internally andlegally, it must establish itself as an nGO, withits own internal hierarchy and legal structure,and, more problematic, it must seek to accumu-late funds to support projects, as well as to buildup a financial base capable of supporting theFoundation’s staff itself, so that we may dedicateour time and resources to the activities of theFoundation. ese are obstacles which we haveyet to overcome in any meaningful sense, but,through the articulation of some of our short andlong-term goals and objectives, we hope toencourage support – both material/financial andotherwise – to helping Voice of Access: e Peo-ple’s Foundation establish itself and begin itsimportant work in the world. e major hegemonic foundations have been essen-tial and effective institutions in the process of shapingeducation, constructing knowledge, disseminatinginformation, creating institutions, establishing consen-sus between elites – nationally and globally – and insti-tutionalizing ideology for the benefit of the hegemonicfinancial and corporate interests of the world. ey haveoperated through long-term social engineering projectsto try to establish social control: to connect elites, to co-opt and deflect resistance, to promote reform and slowadaptation, so as to ultimately secure the stability of theexisting social order, and the hierarchies of inequality andoppression which dominate it. e counter-hegemonic TPF hopes to become an effec-tive organization for the purpose of finding new meansand processes of education, the construction and dis-semination of new forms of much-needed knowledge,to connect people and communities – activists, intellec-tuals, individuals and groups – not elites, to supportthe growth and interconnections (and radicalization)of social movements – not to co-opt, but to cooperate– with the ultimate objectives of challenging the pre-vailing social order, and sowing the seeds for futuregenerations to construct a new order, making theexisting one obsolete. ese are large objectives, butas with any goal, it all begins with small and slowsteps in the right direction. With an understanding of the role that has beenplayed by hegemonic foundations in the preserva-

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 7 9

tion and propagation of the existing social order, itseems that there is a needed place for counter-hege-monic foundations seeking to challenge and makeobsolete that same social order, until such a pointwhere the Foundation itself may be made obsolete.Revolution is a process, not an event, and it requiresone to operate within an existing social system whilesimultaneously challenging that social system. is is amulti-generational process, and we must begin thinkingand acting with a focus on the short- and long-term. Voice of Access: TPF hopes to take such a short andlong-term focus on encouraging and supporting socialtransformation for the benefit of humanity and theworld as a whole, not simply the powerful few who ruleover it. is requires building connections and facilitat-ing support with groups and people around the world,to advance access to technology, communication andinteraction, to be a ‘voice’ for those who go unheard, afoundation for people, a foundation for change.

8

——————

1 Robert F. Arnove, ed. (1980). Philanthropy and CulturalImperialism: e Foundations at Home and Abroad (Bloomington:Indiana UP): 33-35.

2 Idem: 46-47.3 david nugent. (2010). “Knowledge and Empire: e

Social Sciences and United States Imperial Expansion,” Identi-ties, 17(1): 10-11.

4 Robert F. Arnove, ed. Op. Cit.: 235.5 Idem: 235-236.6 Idem: 236-237.7 Idem: 237-238.8 Lily E. Kay. (1997). “Rethinking Institutions: Philan-

thropy as a Historigraphic Problem of Knowledge andPower,” Minerva, 35: 290.

9 Robert F. Arnove, ed. Op. Cit.: 180-181.10 Idem: 181.11 Idem: 182.12 Idem: 182-184.13 Idem: 194.14 Edwin Black. (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics

and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (newYork: under’s Mouth Press): 19

15 Idem: 122-123.16 Idem: 364-370.17 Idem: 416.18 Idem: 418.19 e Population Council. (2008). History, About e Pop-

ulation Council, September 10 < http://bit.ly/1hg4nwS >.20 Martin Morse Wooster. (2008). “e War Against Fertili-

ty”, e Wall Street Journal, April 1<http://on.wsj.com/1krkxWt>.

21 Matthew Connelly. (2008). Fatal Misconception: eStruggle to Control World Population (London: e BelknapPress): 186-187.

22 Idem: 207-217.

23 Kristi Heim. (2009). “What really happened at the bil-lionaires”, private confab, Seattle Times, May 20 <http://bit.ly/1n1euwR >.

24 John Harlow. (2009). “Billionaire club in bid to curb over-population”, e Times, May 24 < http://thetim.es/1n1eBsv >.

25 Carol J. Loomis. (2010). “e $600 billion challenge”,Fortune, June 16 < http://bit.ly/1iFYjnM >.

26 Inderjeet Parmar. (2002). “‘To Relate Knowledge andAction’: e Impact of the Rockefeller Foundation on For-eign Policy inking during America’s Rise to Globalism1939-1945,” Minerva, 40: 241.

27 Idem: 242.28 CFR, War and Peace. CFR History

<http://on.cfr.org/1mfVIy1>.29 Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy: e

Mask of Pluralism (2003). (new York: State University ofnew York Press): 74.

30 Ismael Hossein-Zadeh. (2006). e Political Econo-my of U.S. Militarism (new York: Macmillan): 43-45.

31 Inderjeet Parmar. (2002). Cit.: 247.32 Inderjeet Parmar. (2002). “American foundations

and the development of international knowledge net-works,” Global Networks 2(1): 17.

33 Biray Kolluoglu-Kirli. (2003). “From Orientalism toArea Studies,” CR: e New Centennial Review 3(3, Fall): 105.

34 Stephen Gill. (1990). American Hegemony and the Tri-lateral Commission (new York: Cambridge UP): 129.

35 Robert F. Arnove, ed. Op. Cit.: 206.36 Idem: 207-208.

37 Idem: 209-210.38 Idem: 319.

39 Joan Roelofs. (2007). “Foundations and Collaboration,”Critical Sociology 33: 480.

40 J. Craig Jenkins and Craig M. Eckert. (1986). “Channel-ing Black Insurgency: Elite Patronage and Professional SocialMovement Organizations in the development of the BlackMovement,” American Sociological Review 51(6 dec.): 814.

41 Idem: 819-820.42 Martin n. Marger. (1984). “Social Movement Organizations

and Response to Environmental Change: e nAACP, 1960- 1973”,Social Problems 32(1, ematic Issue on Minorities and SocialMovements, Oct.): 25.

43 Research Unit for Political Economy. (2007). “Foundationsand Mass Movements: e Case of the World Social Forum,” Criti-cal Sociology 33: 509

44 Idem: 510-511.45 Idem: 517-518.46 Paulo Wangoola. (2012). “Mpambo Afrikan Multiversity:

dialogue and Building Bridges Across Worldviews, Cultures andLanguages,” in Joy Hendry and Laura Fitznor, eds., Anthropologists,Indigenous Scholars and the Research Endeavour: Seeking BridgesTowards Mutual Respect (new York-London: Routledge): 28.

47 Idem: 28-29.48 Idem: 29.

a b

A N D R E W G A V I N M A R S H A L L | V O I C E O F A C C E S S | 8 0

Rick is passionate about imple-menting large-scale change inour society for social and eco-nomic justice, including theinteraction between econom-ics, politics, for local and

developing world economies.He is the co-founder of Water

for Humans, a social ventureenterprise that strives to provide sus-

tainable, appropriate technological solutions tothe world’s water and sanitation crisis while insuring local publiccontrol of water resources. Prior to obtaining his MBA in June 2007 in Sustainable Busi-ness Practices from the Bainbridge Graduate Institute (BGI) inSeattle, Rick was a physicist and materials scientist for eigh-teen years at Boeing, working on classified projects. Recently,he spent four years in Vancouver, BC at Ballard Power Sys-tems, as a Senior Materials Engineer developing hydrogenfuel cell technologies. His direct experience includes productresearch and development, supplier development, one-pieceflow operations, project planning and management. He isparticularly gifted with innovative design of appropriatetechnological solutions. Rick also successfully operated hisown business that he started while in high school andsubsequently sold to focus on his undergraduate degree inSolid State Physics and Mechanical Engineering. Sincegraduation from BGI, he is committed to applying hisengineering and business skills to environmental, eco-nomic and social justice causes.

APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGy HAS LOnG BEEn

the favoured approach of Internationaldevelopment groups working with thepoorest communities, but appropriate

technology is not a panacea. Many such pro-jects have failed. Introducing technologicalsolutions to social problems is more likely tosucceed if the technology serves social needs,addresses constraints, and enlivens the culturesof local communities. How, then, can appropri-ate technology be successfully introduced to acommunity that might otherwise be resistant tosomething new and unfamiliar but potentiallybeneficial? In this paper, we discuss a develop-ment project introducing energy-efficient cook-stoves (La Mazateca) in rural Mexico and explorethe causes of challenges we encountered – and suc-cessfully resolved – through a partnership with

another nGO. We conclude that such strategicpartnerships can create synergistic relationshipsthat make possible that which would be impos-sible for either to achieve independently.

B A C K G R O U N D

e Sierra Mazateca region of north-eastern Oax-aca, Mexico1 (2400 km2) is home to the indige-nous Mazatec people2 living in 1,000 mountaincommunities nestled in a remote rainforest. eyfirst moved into the region in the 16th century toescape the Aztecs and the Spanish conquistadores.Once settled, they farmed, clearing the steep for-est to plant corn and beans. However, as theirpopulation increased and colonial rule introducedtaxes and forced labour in the region, more foresthad to be cleared to sustain the growing communi-ties. After Mexico’s independence from Spain,another wave of these immigrants moved there whenthey could not secure land rights under the newMexican government. Given the steep terrain, poor soil, and geographicalisolation, the inhabitants of the region relied on sub-sistence farming and cash-crop coffee production fortheir economic survival. Prior to the 1970s, the qualityand quantity of coffee produced in the region was con-sidered excellent. In the late 1970s, the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank shifted theirfocus to non-traditional coffee growing regions inSoutheast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Central Americawas not included in this program. Consequently, theregion was left behind with a low-quality product forwhich there was little demand. Given this history of both neglect and unfavourable poli-cies made by distant rulers- governments, it is no surprisethat in the early 21st century, residents distrusted outsiders. In 2012, Water for Humans (WFH) met e Hunger Pro-ject (THP) and learned about their ongoing work in theMazateca. e region is one of the more impoverishedplaces in the world. Mexico’s rising tide of economicdevelopment has passed it by. Modern infrastructure isvirtually non-existent: many inhabitants have no accessto electricity and year-round water. none have inter-net, telephones, cell phones, or computers. Few speakSpanish and few are literate. nearly 80% of the com-munity income comes from government aid. Coffee

MICRO-PROJECTS IN A MACRO WORLD:HOW TO ENSURE NON-PROFIT INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS SUCCEED WHERE OTHERS FAIL

A

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 8 1

R I C K M C K E N N Y

is still the primary cash crop, despite greatly reducedquality. e educational system offers limited instruc-tion beyond the basics, and little accurate informa-tion reaches the community about the rest of theworld. In short, the Mazatec we encountered were apeople left behind.It was in this history of betrayal by outsiders that we setout to address the problem of deforestation. e con-tinued reliance on the forested terrain for corn, beanand livestock farming had contributed to deforestationin the region, and the use of firewood for cooking wastaking an even greater toll on the tropical forests – andon human health. Women and girls cooked over tradi-tional open, three-stone fires fuelled by wood and suf-fered chronic respiratory health problems. Because theMazateca dry season can last up to 4 months, and coffeeproduction is an important source of income, maintain-ing an intact forest canopy is critical for retaininggroundwater and for effective coffee production. duringthe dry season community members hike up to 2 hours,each way, over treacherous mountain terrain to collecttheir daily water.Our approach was straightforward: if we could success-fully introduce an innovative cook-stove that requiredless fuel wood, we could decrease deforestation andincrease the forest’s groundwater during the annualfour-month drought. High efficiency clean cook-stoves could also reduce the amount of time womenspent cutting and gathering wood and reduce respi-ratory disorders among the families – if we couldencourage them to adopt the new technology.Even with the long history of distrust of outsiders,we hoped to co-create, demonstrate, and subse-quently persuade the communities to adopt bet-ter technology and continue to use the stoveslong after they were built. Our task was a chal-lenge. Our own resources were limited, and ourexpertise in the region was scant. However, inless than 6 months, 89 La Mazateca stoves werein use in 4 micro-project communities. Womenwere satisfied and reported spending half asmuch time gathering wood and that their healthhad improved significantly. e La Mazatecacook-stove can boil 5 litres of water in 13-18 min-utes on less than 600gm of firewood, as com-pared boiling the same amount of water in 45-60minutes using 1.5-2 kg of firewood. We alsoaddressed drinking water safety and groundwatercontamination challenges by introducing urine-diverting composting latrines, rainwater harvest-ing, and bio-sand water filters. What made the project successful went far beyondappropriate cook-stove technology. Success wasrooted in the value of the partnership we had estab-lished with another nGO. is nGO has a solid

record of accomplishment of empowering peopleworldwide. In this paper, we discuss how we forgedthe partnership that enabled us to achieve whatneither organization could have achieved on itsown, and in so doing, successfully work withthese Mazatec communities.

T H E P A R T N E R S H I P

Water for Humans is a Seattle-based not-for-profit organization incorporated in 2008 withthe mission of providing low-cost clean waterand sanitation solutions to underserved popu-lations in order to ensure that water remains alocal, public resource. We have been workingin Mexico since 2009. Our current partners arethe Institute for nature and Society Oaxaca(InSO), e Hunger Project – Mexico (THP),and four communities of the San Jose Tenangoregion3 (144 km2) of the Mazateca. Our pro-gramme areas are determined by issues identi-fied by the communities with whom we work. Our organization excels at designing appropriatetechnologies and developing and conductingworkshops on their use. But in this case, we lackedboth ties to other stakeholders and the culturalbackground necessary to work in this region. Whenwe began collaborating with THP to co-create acommunity project, we knew that working in theMazateca would be extremely challenging. e THP was established in 1977 as a global non-profitorganization and has been working globally since thento alleviate poverty and hunger through local empow-erment. THP’s partners include Oxfam, e WorldBank, and the United nations. In addition, ten partnercountries conduct extensive fundraising efforts to sup-port THP’s global programs. THP’s Global Council con-sists of public personalities committed to ending pover-ty, such as nobel Laureate (1998) Amartya Sen, formerSecretary General of the Un Javier Perez de Cuellar, andPrincess noor of Jordan.When we first met, THP had been working in the countryfor nearly three decades. In 2010, they began work in theregion surrounding the municipality of San Jose Tenango,in the Mazateca, with the support of the Priority AreasCare Program under the Ministry of Social development.THP then helped facilitate participatory developmentexercises with 20 communities (of more than 150) inorder to assess the local social and cultural context. eexercises revealed divisions within each community, along history of gender discrimination that marginalizedwomen, and an exodus of young people fleeing theirrural communities for education and jobs.THP’s follow-up Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)revealed that the communities were most concerned

R I C K M C K E N N Y | M I C R O - P R O J E C T S I N A M A C R O W O R L D | 8 2

about access to water, nutrition, shelter, and infra-structure. THP’s continued presence had gone far toestablish rapport with the people and provide insightsabout how their culture and belief systems couldeither impede or facilitate development. TPH alsounderstood the need to provide communities with tan-gible projects that could help pull them out poverty.However, THP lacked the technical capacity to ade-quately address this need. A technological solution waswhat WFH could provide.

O U R P R O J E C T

We decided to launch a pilot project in four of thecommunities where THP had focused its efforts. GivenTHP’s experience and knowledge of local power rela-tions, they organized a series of meetings with commu-nity leaders – including women. We understood thatwomen would be required to plan and implement theproject for three reasons:1 ~ Women were the primary collectors and users of

firewood;2 ~ Women had been marginalized by the long-standing

system of patriarchy;3 ~ decades of failed development projects demon-

strated that the absence of women4 in a project islikely to cause failure, because they tend to con-trol the domestic economy.

After leading focus groups, community meetings,and ethnographic assessments, better cook-stoveswere chosen as the appropriate starting point. Pre-vious efforts to provide appropriate technologycook-stoves had failed. ose stoves were poorlyconstructed, cooked inefficiently, became infestedwith nesting insects, and could not be repairedwith local expertise. In addition, to avoid theflaws of past efforts, women wanted to save fuel,funnel smoke out of their homes, and preventchildren from being burned.WFH, THP and community members decided tostart with the construction of two demonstra-tion stoves to allow women to assess their effec-tiveness. WFH designed a stove to meet commu-nity criteria. WFH consulted with the womenbefore, during, and after building the demon-stration stoves. One example of this is the pro-posal to build stoves so that the cooking surfacewould be at waist height for the average Mazatecwoman – much like the average US or Europeanstove. However, the women said that they want-ed the surfaces much higher – even if they couldnot see inside their taller pots. We created amock-up so that they could stand in front of itand determine the correct height. Much to oursurprise, they wanted their cooking surfaces at the

higher level. e women approved the design, alongwith other modifications to meet their needs. Fromthis experience, we learned to assume as little aspossible and to demonstrate as much as possible.Subsequently, 89 families from the four communi-ties came together to acquire the financial resourcesto build the stoves. To enable the communitiesto continue any financial relationships afterinternational project leaders stepped back, theywere provided practical training to develop con-fidence and exposure to the outside financialworld. e communities took on ownership ofthe project by organizing to meet with officersfrom Mexico’s HSBC bank. One of the steps wasa Skype meeting, but this Skype meeting wasunlike any Skype meeting in which readers ofthis article might participate. Prior to their pre-sentation, the representatives, both male andfemale, spent hours preparing the argumentsthat would allow them to articulate their needs,strategies, and commitments. To attend theSkype meeting, participants had to leave theirfamilies and fields for a full day of travel to get toa location with a fast, reliable internet connec-tion. is required a pre-dawn hike out to thenearest dirt road, taking the local colectivo taxi,and then a bus ride.After funding was approved, we began assemblingsuppliers and materials and a schedule for the con-struction workshops. e communities nominated 14“Promoters” (stove builders) that included bothwomen and men. e Promoters were trained andsubsequently paid to construct the new stoves. All thematerials were locally sourced. Two training work-shops, 4-5 days each, were scheduled, and a distributionand storage network was established to transport thematerials to the individual households where each stovewas to be built.Guided by the experience and expertise of THP, weevaluated the project in its early, middle and late stagesusing specific criteria or markers. We knew that “suc-cess” could be defined in many ways. By expanding onthe “Toyota 5 Whys” principle5, we established the fol-lowing markers and determined that when they hadoccurred, we could continue to next steps: ~ Effective process for the community and for us;~ Effective visioning and prioritizing workshops;~ did commitments of the community members’

waiver, when and why;~ Effective funding procurement process;~ Effective collaboration of nGO’s and community;~ Ability to inventory and track all of the material;~ Process to deal with lost, stolen or misplaced

materials;~ Effective logistical plan for distribution;

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 8 3

~ Successful training exercises;~ Mutual accountability of team members;~ Sufficient training for trainees, families and end

users;~ Acceptance of technology by end users. ese markers were reviewed at several stages in theprocess. e resulting information enabled us to takecorrective action and keep the project moving ahead.

L E S S O N S L E A R N E D

To suggest that this project was smooth and had mini-mal upsets would over simplify our experience. Weencountered a number of unanticipated impedimentsthat would have resulted in failure had it not been forthe cultural fluency of THP planners, the technologicalcapabilities of the WFH team, and the enthusiasm andperseverance of the community members.For example, we knew that success was contingent onbuilding a reliable and robust supply chain. ere weremany obstacles. delivery of supplies could be ham-pered by any number of factors: communities wereremote; roads were inadequate for large trucks to nav-igate; and secure storage and distribution facilitieshad to be found for the supplies. We had to design adistribution process that would reach the communi-ties and individual households, while protecting thematerials from rain and inventory control problemssince materials could be ruined or pilfered all alongthe way. By implementing an accurate inventorysystem and keeping both our team members andcommunity members accountable for all the sup-plies, we were able to ensure that everythingarrived properly. Any implementation team needs to also evaluatethe interests and capacities of community instal-lation partners. If supplies are sourced locally,one must constantly evaluate the pricing struc-ture and reliability of the individual suppliers,as well as how much confidence the communityhas in them. Given the tenuous nature of manybusiness enterprises in the developing world, itis necessary to have multiple sources available atall times to accommodate unexpected disrup-tions. In addition, all suppliers must understandthat they are a critical part of a larger program,and if they are not fully committed to the pro-ject, they can be replaced.e timing of the initial introduction of the newtechnology is also key for successful implementa-tion. By involving community members in allphases of planning, the members are able to learnand understand how the new system operates andwhy it is useful. In many cases, persuading peopleto adopt new technologies will require challenging

the existing cultural norms, historical practices, andpreconceived notions and ideas. For appropriatetechnology implementation, the entire team needsto also work closely with all members who maybe indirectly involved in, and/or resistant to, theproject. during the Mazateca micro-project, werevisited each household to ensure they wereusing the technologies appropriately. We lis-tened closely to the feedback of family membersregarding their expectations. In the process, thebest outcome occurred when several communitymembers were trained in the proper use of thetechnology and then shared their skills withother community members.e team must also define what success meansto them. Pilot projects are critical to assessingthe systems and readiness of the community toproceed. Success is not necessarily measured bythe acceptance of a specific technology; a suc-cessful outcome may be the bridging of thesocio-political boundaries in order to work col-laboratively. Pilot projects allow both nGOs andcommunity members to better understand thestrengths and weaknesses of the project and toplan for future projects. Pilots also enable the teamto better understand the constraints and opportuni-ties in the community. After implementation of apilot project, the team must allow sufficient time tolet the community gauge its effectiveness and identifymodifications to be made.

I S O L A T E D E C O N O M I E S

Because isolated communities typically lack effectivemeans of accessing markets, their ability to exportgoods and services that would provide cash income isseverely limited. In a cash-based economic system,imports and exports must be balanced to be sustainable.Specifically, the money, goods, or services that leave alocal economic system must be matched by the money,goods or services entering the community. In addition,isolated communities often lack the infrastructure todevelop and expand export opportunities. In the Maza-teca, a significant portion of cash income comes fromgovernment support. is money is then spent ongoods and services from outside the community, suchas food and transportation. However, the communitydoes not export sufficient goods and services to bring‘new cash’ into the community. In order to grow eco-nomically, small communities must increase theirability to export value-added goods such as coffee,harvested herbal medicine, and services. In addition to the cash-based economy, there is astrong shadow economy (non-cash-based economy,including illicit trade), where goods and services

R I C K M C K E N N Y | M I C R O - P R O J E C T S I N A M A C R O W O R L D | 8 4

are directly traded among community members.development workers can gain a better understand-ing of how a shadow economy might affect projectsuccess by being aware of its existence and forgingsocial ties with the local community and profession-als with deep knowledge of the area.Leverage points exist for improving livelihoods in ruralcommunities. ese leverage points include increasingthe community’s ability to export high-value goods orservices such as herbal medicine, eco-tourism, and sus-tainable natural resources. Another is providing skilledjobs for individuals. For example, the La Mazateca stoveswere built on-site with local materials and local labour,instead of being produced in a large economic centre andimporting the finished product to the community. Ourstove design used local materials, such as volcanic perlitethat is abundant in Mexico. By employing local labour,using local materials and transport, and constructing thestoves on site, we injected cash that could then circulatein the community and reduce economic leakages.However, as the local economy improves, economicinequalities may ensue. Organizations must take intoaccount that creation of new employment and cashflow may disrupt the community status quo. Forexample, the newly employed Promoters may havepersonal cash for the first time in their lives with nosafe place to store it. In addition, the team must besensitive when employing women in male-domi-nated societies. Women must be able to controland safely store their income.Another common issue is the use of volunteerlabour, such as adults or teenagers on holiday whopay an organization for the cultural and educationalopportunities of working in a foreign community.While volunteers may be helpful in promoting anorganization in its home region and lowering pro-ject costs, their use can have negative effects. eirgenerous service may decrease local employmentopportunities and reduce self-reliance within thecommunity. Because one of our goals is to pro-vide sustainable economic opportunities, we donot use volunteers for any tasks that can be doneby community members. Community membersmay already possess or want to learn skills suchas photography or conducting video interviews;assisting the nGO in documenting their processor training other community members. us it isimperative to engage community members ratherthan foreign volunteers.

D I S C U S S I O N

WFH’s successful work with La Mazateca stoves hasset the stage for significant change in the Mazateca.Teaming with THP allowed WFH to achieve its overall

goals: 1) protection of the watershed; and 2) greaterself-sufficiency within the Mazatec communitytowards ending the cycle of poverty that has pre-vailed for generations. Both THP and WFH projects are built on thepremise that collaborating organizations must co-create the community engagement process. Weencourage strengthening community capacitybuilding, and support them with technologicalexpertise and facilitate exploration and under-standing of potential technological solutions.Many communities, long accustomed to rudi-mentary technologies that no longer serve currentcultural and environmental demands, may notrealize the scope of possible solutions. ose whohave always lived with barriers and misinforma-tion perceive them as normal, unchanging partsof life, rather than problems to be solved. Manylack an informed understanding of how the cur-rent urban and professional sectors function; theirexperience with poorly executed past projects hasleft them distrustful and cynical; and most lackawareness of emerging technologies. erefore,throughout the visioning process, we introducednew technologies to help them understand thatsome familiar technologies no longer served themwell. next, by working in a participatory framework,we co-created better alternatives.Many cultures define ‘success’ as obtaining physicalgoods that others who are higher in the economicpyramid have acquired, i.e. they want a flush toilet, nota composting latrine. is can be one of the biggestbarriers to introducing culturally appropriate technolo-gies. Consequently, when we introduce new technolo-gies, we take great care to listen to community feedbackand carefully demonstrate some of the advantages tochanging the customary way of life. One effective tool tohelp achieve this end is a video presentation demonstrat-ing the proposed technology. Community members actu-ally see how it works, as well as listen to testimonials fromother users so they can envision their own use of it. Inaddition, bringing new users to meet with the existingusers and actually trying the technology is ideal. It thenbecomes far easier to encourage them to embrace a newproduct or lifestyle. Once other women watched Agripina– the owner of one of the pilot stoves – cook on her newLa Mazateca stove, they understood its value for betterhealth, ease of cooking, and reduced use of firewood.during the entire piloting process we learned that wemust listen, observe and learn, and not insist that ourideas be accepted. Given a history of forced changefrom outsiders, solutions may not be accepted even if itis known that potential opportunities for change couldgreatly enhance the community’s standard of living. Itis crucial to let the community see and accept the

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 8 5

solutions for themselves if true acceptance is to berealized. Otherwise, apparent tenuous support maywell be actual resistance if the people are not support-ive of the project, but are being agreeable in order todiffuse tensions and placate the outsiders.We faced this kind of challenge with the introductionof composting latrines, which we promoted in tan-dem with the La Mazateca stoves. We in the ‘devel-oped nations’ think of composting latrines as havingthe following attributes:1 ~ e structure is a clean and safe environment;2 ~ disease vectors are reduced or eliminated;3 ~ Humanure compost is produced for agricultural use.However, many of the populations we worked with didnot understand or appreciate the need for a clean andsafe building, nor the reason for the reduction of dis-ease vectors. despite these obstacles, we hope the communities willeventually understand the value of the compostinglatrine when they see the effect of the humanure com-post on their improved agriculture. Unfortunately,because it takes 12 to 18 months to produce high-qual-ity safe humanure compost, such an introductionrequires constant encouragement to entice familymembers to use the system and to be patient as theyawait the visible outcome in their crop yields.

L I S T E N A N D C O L L A B O R A T E

Robert Chambers6 (1983) long ago advised thatwhen exploring technological solutions, it is criti-cal that organizations listen and collaborate withcommunity members to develop solutions thatare culturally appropriate and meet their expecta-tions. Yet his call for inclusion remains unheed-ed by many development planners, who havereceived funding budgets to implement projectsthat have already been designed and identifiedas ‘appropriate’ by outsiders. Listening in suchcases becomes little more than a polite gestureto accommodate the local community’s inter-est in being heard. In addition, many margin-alized cultural groups interpret outside organi-zations as experts. ey do not want to offendthe ‘experts’ by contradicting or rejecting theirideas and plans because they are afraid that ifthey do so, the organization will then not pro-vide them with any benefits at all.e process of listening and truly understandingthe desires, needs, and fears of the communityand its individuals requires persistent presence in thecommunity to build required trust. It is criticalthat all conversations be held at convenient timesand in places where participants can speak openlyabout their ideas and expectations. When holding

these conversations, organizations must be acutelyaware of the cultural dynamics that play a criticalrole in what information is disclosed and what iswithheld. For example, because many societies andcultures have a history of male domination, fewfemales will ever speak openly and candidly inpublic when males are present. In such cases, it isimportant to hold conversations with males andfemales separately so women will bring theirthoughts and ideas forward. In other cases, ethnic,religious or class differences may contribute totensions that leave one group hesitant to speakopenly in the presence of another. Finally, a dis-tinct dynamic may occur when the whole com-munity is together in one place listening anddiscussing the project. One must constantlyadapt to a trust-building process, and have atoolbox full of creative solutions, as well as theability to modify the technology to meet all cul-tural needs. What is appropriate for one commu-nity may be inappropriate for another. e onlyway to know if this is true is to listen, observe,and continue to listen.In addition, flexibility in project planning andimplementation is critical to success. If the com-munity wants to go in a different direction, onemust be willing to let go of one’s own ideas. Orga-nizations must be willing to expend extra effort touncover the truth and get the community to accu-rately express themselves. It may be necessary to helpcommunity members understand that some of theirexpectations may be out of the scope of current possi-bilities due to larger legal and political factors, or com-munity capacity constraints. decisions are reached bydiscussion and by remaining flexible while at the sametime advising the community of what is possible. Astrust builds, communities will be more likely to partici-pate in smaller projects that will strengthen their willing-ness and ability to implement larger and more complexprojects in the future.ere are many challenges to working in remote loca-tions. However, the success of any technological imple-mentation hinges on many other factors besides accessibility.ese factors include establishing a local and effectivesupply chain, training community members to diagnoseand repair simple technological problems, and making itpossible for them to obtain any required replacementparts. Successful pilots and micro-projects must also bebacked up with skilled technicians who know how torepair the technology, and more importantly, receiveeconomic support for their work. In rural areas, resi-dents are likely to have multiple economic activities. Inaddition to an occupation, they may farm land, carefor family members, or engage in service or healingactivities, etc. us, if a technician is harvesting coffee

R I C K M C K E N N Y | M I C R O - P R O J E C T S I N A M A C R O W O R L D | 8 6

and a community member needs their services torepair a stove, there must be sufficient financial incen-tive for the technician to do so. is economic incentivemust be built into a primary business model for thetechnology program to be successful.Finally, when introducing new concepts and technolo-gies, one needs to be prepared for distrust and outrightrejection. distrust can be addressed by working with thecommunity over a long period of time; learning the locallanguage; knowing the history of the group and its cul-tural values, traditions and power relationships; acceptingresponsibility for mistakes when appropriate; and notmisleading or lying to the community. When a team isunable to devote the time and attention to establishingthe cultural expertise that is necessary for establishing trust,working with trusted local organizations is invaluable.WFH did so when collaborating with THP in order tointroduce an appropriate technology that could benefitthe community as well as further the global interest inpreserving tropical forests.Sometimes no amount of cultural sensitivity can con-vince a community to adopt a new technology. Whenthat happens, coercing or compelling a community toaccept the technology is bound to meet with whatJames Scott terms, “e Weapons of the Weak”7. ecommunity will refuse to use the technologies; theywill mislead and deceive project planners; and theywill sabotage projects. Colonial reign revealed thatsometimes the poor and powerless do not want out-siders telling them how to live. In our case, becausethe Mazatec welcomed us into their communities tolisten to their concerns, we could bring them somenew technologies. And they helped us arrive at a bet-ter understanding of what appropriate technologytruly means.We have found that prior to implementing ourprojects, everyone needs to understand the work-ing styles and expectations of the various teammembers. Working in remote communities isextremely stressful for those from the outside.Social and environmental living conditions canbe challenging and intensified by cultural andlinguistic differences. ere must be an agreedupon process by which team members can openlydiscuss stressful issues that each team memberfaces. For those who are unfamiliar with the localculture, it is important that they understand inadvance some of the basic cultural norms thatthey will encounter and how they are expected toreact. As boring and mundane as it may sound, itis critical that a document be created and agreedupon by all parties. Our written agreement wasnot so much a legal document but a way to struc-ture a safe conversation when things were notgoing smoothly. It also allowed both parties toreflect on what was agreed upon, eliminating thepotential for disagreements.

Assessments and evaluations are extremely importantto guide current and future actions, ultimatelyassuring that our projects are effective. e develop-ment team must be willing and able to change pri-orities, schedules and technologies to meet the cul-tural needs and expectations of community mem-bers, as well as adapt to other unforeseen events.e team must always listen to community mem-bers for constructive feedback. Rather than mis-understanding community resistance or misinter-preting differing views, team members must rec-ognize such obstacles as an opportunity toimprove the project, not abandon it, or worse,force it on a community that does not want itand will not use it.Moreover, technology providers are typically enam-oured with technology. In many isolated commu-nities, however, the most appropriate technologymay be a low-tech solution. e communitymust decide what is best. e provider must bevery frank about the merits, drawbacks and practi-cality of various solutions. Our experience withurine-diverting composting latrines and bio-sandwater filters is an example of this. Both of thesesimple technologies produce excellent results withno moving parts. ere are many technologicallyintensive solutions to human sanitation and waterfiltration and purification but, in remote locations, itis extremely difficult to keep complex systems opera-tional. us, simplicity equals effectiveness. In designing and implementing culturally appropri-ate social enterprises, one must transition from being atechnology provider to being a business advisor.Organizations must be able to step back from directlymanaging projects and become mentors and advisors tothe social enterprise while concurrently working withthe members to refine and develop new technologies.e social enterprise (business) members need to havethe flexibility to define the distribution and implemen-tation of the technology program. e enterprise shouldstrive for independence from the advisors, while theadvisors need to ensure its overall success.In order to alleviate poverty, there must be mechanisms inplace for the social enterprises to have local control overthe profits. Adequate financial services must be availableto support business development, and the enterprisesmust know how to use them. is includes access tosecure deposits, affordable financing, and, in many cases,the creation of micro-finance opportunities for workersand customers.

C O N C L U S I O N

A key factor in nGO partnerships is to ensure that allparties have common values and a willingness to effec-tively communicate openly and honestly. Organiza-tions must know when they are outside their areas of

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 8 7

expertise and must be willing to be humble. HadWFH gone into the Mazateca with the preconceiveddesign for a stove, we would have failed. Moreover,had THP not been open to working with us and edu-cating us about the cultural nuances that may haveescaped our attention, they would have failed. However,because the development teams at both THP and WFHwere acutely aware of our respective limitations andexpertise, we were able to forge a synergistic partnershipthat produced far more than either of us could haveachieved on our own.Our experience demonstrates that nGOs can successfullycomplete pilot and micro-projects in the internationalarena, if they strategically partner with local complemen-tary nGOs. As a technology partner and innovator, weare acutely aware that our success is based solely on thesuccess of our local social worker partner. Many techno-logical innovators perceive solutions to problems asstrictly technological. However, when working withmarginalized and isolated communities, most of thechallenges that development planners encounter stemfrom social, cultural and political factors. While tech-nology solutions can be engineered to solve almost anychallenge, the solution is only as good as the culturalacceptance of the technology. If development projectsare to succeed, those who plan and put them intoaction must make efforts to understand the local his-tory and culture. Because it takes years to do so,however, partnering with local organizations thathave already established relationships, built trust,and learned to negotiate complex cultural net-works can facilitate more successful outcomes.Our goal to build capacity within marginalizedcommunities is intended to better position themto continue their journey out of poverty after westep back. To do this, the community has to beinvolved with every step of the process to gainthe experience and training to lead themselvesinto the future.Water for Humans is looking forward to continuingits work with e Hunger Project-Mexico to bringtechnological solutions to other marginalized com-munities in Mexico. We are already planning todevelop and co-create a social enterprise for the LaMazateca clean cook-stove builders. Our successand completion of this micro-project in the Maza-teca prepared several remote marginalized commu-nities to increase their capacity to collaborate andbring themselves one-step closer to ending the cycleof poverty. Currently, WFH is developing similaropportunities for the underserved throughout LatinAmerica in collaboration with THP and other localexperts in social work.

8

——————

1 Sierra Mazateca, < http://bit.ly/R1qpwQ >.2 Mazatec People, < http://bit.ly/1hcJW45 >.3 San José Tenango, < http://bit.ly/PPWxJu >.4 Women and International development (WId).5 Toyota 5 Whys < http://bit.ly/1frkhJY >.6 Chambers, R. (1983). Putting the Last First (new

York: Routledge).7 Scott, J. C. (1987). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday

Forms of Peasant Resistance (new Haven: Yale UP).

a b

R I C K M C K E N N Y | M I C R O - P R O J E C T S I N A M A C R O W O R L D | 8 8

e month of June (detail).

As a philosophy graduate of theUniversity of Groningen, Jur-nan Goos started working asan intern at the SpandaFoundation in October 2013.During the internship thefocus of his was, for the most

part, dedicated to the writingof Lila’s theoretical framework.

Jurnan has a passion for EuropeanUnion politics; is an early member of

the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe; favours anopen-commons inspired approach to society and is further activeas a youth ambassador for advocacy organisation ONE in thefight against extreme poverty.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

HE nUMBER And InFLUEnCE OF InTERnATIOnAL

Civil Society Organisations (ICSOs) has grownrapidly over the years and the depth, extentand advancement of human knowledge inthe many fields of science can now be pur-

posely applied to address the many difficulties andhurdles currently faced in the development aid sec-tor. In point of fact, there are plenty of valid rea-sons to expect that pooling and sharing knowledgein order to co-create innovative approaches andpolicies for the development community couldintensely empower the whole area of action.Recognising the potential of the already existingrepository of knowledge in ICSOs and in the glob-al development community, the Spanda Founda-tion sought to create the means to explore, shareand learn from this treasury, while stimulating tomake better and a wider use of the knowledgeand skills therein guarded. Lila is the result. Ameans to a worthy end in itself: a continuous vir-tual world, structured as an experiential mode oflearning and capacity building through coopera-tion and playing to the benefit of policy design,development and implementation. Lila innovatesby connecting a wide range of stakeholders and letsits spillover effects serve co-creation: each round ofLila knows a winning team with a chance to imple-ment their successful proposal as a reward.Success of Lila ultimately depends on its ability todeliver these winning teams and that these live up

to expectations by bringing about sustainablechange in developing communities. neverthe-less, what Lila strives for depends, for now, asmuch on what it can do, as on its ability toattract players from civil society organisationsand other individuals keen to pool and sharetheir knowledge for the common good. To thisaim, Lila’s identity is a multi-layered constructin the form of a virtual city, the Polis; an under-lying theoretical mode based on a combinationof new technologies, innovating by virtue ofbringing together the best aspects of differenttechnological concepts; the structure that allowsfor the co-creation of policies; and through expe-riential, capacity building play-character.

C O M M U N I T I E S :N E T W O R K O F A C T O R S

development aid has been around for a long timebefore ‘sustainability’ became a trending topic. Sus-tainability is a concept often encountered in termsof energy production or waste, yet much less fre-quently – and much less well understood – in termsof change within communities. To remain continu-ously aware of what sustainability means both in pro-ject design as well as evaluation, the Actor networkeory (AnT) was a guiding model during the developingstages of Lila.More akin to an approach than a methodology in scien-tific connotations, the AnT radically differs from main-stream sociology. In AnT, an actor – or actant – isdefined as anything capable of modifying outcomes througha mediating effect in a series of actions. From this perspec-tive, objects hold a causal role in human society as actorsthat influence, shape and redirect human behaviour.is is the most crucial realisation AnT has to offer inthat it implies the abolishment of an essential differencebetween macro versus micro, as well as that of natureand society and the way in which concepts traditionallyassigned to either of these qualitative insignia interactwith each other.From this perspective, success or failure in achievingsustainable change within communities depends onthe relationship between actants in a network thatgrope around and involve numerous sectors of othernetworks not generally regarded as part of the issue.

LILA:A V I RT UA L EDUG AM E FO R TH E D E V E LO PM EN T COMMUN I T Y

J U R N A N G O O S

T

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 8 9

All of these networks need to be renewed, extendedand maintained lest they decay and disappear. Chang-ing status quo on behalf of development, environmen-tal, human and social rights or economic goals requiresknowing whom is involved, where and why, but thevital step consists in aligning the goals of sustainabledevelopment with the autonomy of the local popula-tion, both individual and communal. Successfully help-ing to reshape such network relations demands for awillingness to participate by the local communities. Suc-cess and failure of changing an actor network is reducedto a dependency on the difference in community mem-bers’ ability to freely choose to become either actant inthe network or not. If there is free will to join the net-work and actants feel properly represented by focalactors, the likelihood of involvement in, outreach to andinvestment in the future of society are much greater, andindividual responsibility is acknowledged.is reformulates the traditional sustainable develop-ment concept by connecting the perspective of projectdesigners – Lila’s players – and project beneficiaries –the affected developing community –; sustainability is,henceforth, defined as inducing change that is per-ceived as beneficial by local communities and, as aresult, sustained by local communities. Lila has becomea roadmap to this ideal.

I N T E G R A T I O N : E D U C A T I O N A L

G A M E S & E - L E A R N I N G

e early project phases made clear that educationalgames and e-learning needed to be situated ele-ments, encompassed in a narrative that would ren-der the smaller parts meaningful. is is to saythat, in terms of design for a platform expected torun crowdsource-based in-game topics, a certainamount of experiential gameplay and interactionis what needs to keep players entertained.In fact, ‘entertained’ encompasses only a part ofwhat a game must aim for: player immersion.Player immersion is a psychological target-state indigitised games, as a successful game must graband hold the player’s attention over a longer peri-od of time, but must also motivate him or her tofrequently return. is rather obvious principlecoupled with the well proven motivational deficitby e-learning users, construe that e-learning isalways ruled out other than where it is comple-mentary to the overall game goals and structure.Moreover, the lack of psychological peer bondswithin the e-learning environment is likely to resultin a lower success rate of group-formation and col-laboration, especially when used next to – ratherthan being integrated in – an ongoing virtual world.Also educational games have their own drawbacksas they are designed to stimulate an attention span

sufficient to accomplish a number of predefinedtasks that can immediately be assessed. e palpableproblem here is that such a predefined itinerarywould not be possible in Lila. An important addi-tion to this is that, more often than not, games failas structures that need to stimulate a systematicrecall of knowledge and make the user exercise hisor her higher order cognitive abilities. despite these immediate deficiencies, a numberof interesting game preferences are: a professedpreference for instant gratification and rewards;a need for information provided as a utility thatis instantly retrievable or usable; a preferencefor audiovisual material over text; and a ran-dom, informal and non-linear approach toinformation, all preferences that have beendecisive factors in some of the project’s mostcrucial decisions.

T H E P O L I S :A C I T I Z E N ’ S P E E K

Unstoppable waves of technological innovationsseem to have only gained more momentum overrecent years. new ideas have been applied to tradi-tional learning methods, and play is taking centrestage through ever larger and more ambitious edu-cational games. Lila purposely refers to this throughits Sanskrit meaning, loosely translated into Englishas ‘play or game’, as well as a playground of higherinteracting energies. In the city, the Polis, public andprivate lives have been given their own dimensions.Each player starts by entering some required personalinformation before creating an avatar that – after hav-ing been customized to personal liking – must join oneof eight different Character groups, each resembling aroughly drawn border of professional interest and experi-ence, examples are ‘Culture, Sport & Education’, ‘Gov-ernment Affairs’, ‘Health’, ‘donors’, ‘Media’, etc. groups. Once the avatar has been created, the player is requestedto proceed by choosing a location to build a house, fromwhere all his or her future gameplay will be resumed. nextto houses, the Polis has Public buildings to serve as meet-ing places and giving the city an important psychologicalfamiliarity; a parallel between the narrative of real publiclife and virtual public life to stimulate interaction. efirst stop along the itinerary of knowledge that all playersare requested to journey is the Library, dedicated to col-lect and create new knowledge. Prior to game take-off,Spanda and its Learning Partners will stock the Librarywith knowledge and valuable insights about whatevercrowdsourced topic will take centre stage in the nextnine-months lasting round of a policy developmentitinerary. Every three months, an additional topic isthen introduced, both for cross-pollination of ideas as

J U R N A N G O O S | L I L A : A V I R T U A L E D U G A M E F O R T H E D E V E L O P M E N T C O M M U N I T Y | 9 0

well as to keep alive the interest of players whomdo not have a keen interest in the current runningtopic. Players can make this a rich, highly accessi-ble repository on development aid by adding toits content by individual or group efforts: co-cre-ation and collective intelligence is empowered onmany levels. is feature of connecting individuals as well asgroups is present throughout Lila. Even the Charac-ter groups reflect this, primarily through the Head-quarters assigned to each of them. e Headquarterscreate the additional advantage of bringing togetherpeople that share a common professional perspective,

which directly stimulate interaction and sharing knowledge.To this aim, the Forum House, being the centre of thePolis, draws in news and updates from all around the city,such as popular debates raised in any of the Charactergroup’s Headquarters or well-read articles from the Library,etc. e Forum House is a central information hub tomake the buzz of public life readily accessible.

G O V E R N A N C E &T H E P A T H T O P O L I C Y

Like any city, the Polis is rule governed. For the pur-pose of experiential gameplay – i.e. entertainment –it is governed in two ways: on the one hand, citizens

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 9 1

BICYCLE PATH BICYCLE SHARING STATION CITY CENTRE FH = FORUM HOUSE HD = HELP DESK

XHQ = (X)HEADQUARTER: A - CULTURE, SPORT, EDUCATION B - GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS C - HEALTH D - LAW, SECURITY, JUSTICE E - MEDIA

F - PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION G - PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SCIENTIFIC STAFF H - DONORS

MEETING PLACE PP = POWER PLANT L = LIBRARY LL = LIVING LAB MB = MUNICIPALITY BUILDING TRAM TRACK

FIG 1 ~ THE MAP OF POLIS

have the opportunity to invest in their city andthereby influence its internal governance; on theother hand, is designed to develop policy. eprocess to build up the capacities to develop a policyis therefore more restricted and more demanding,time-consuming and intellectually challenging than itis entertaining.e players can make investments, based on their indi-vidual accumulation of the Polis’ Community Currency,in projects listed in the Municipality Building located inthe centre of the city. Also here the decision proceduresmirrors the ideal of pooling resources and communitypreferences, as all of the projects that can be chosen from– whether this be to upgrade the city sustainable publictransport system or the renewable energy production –require common investments from a significant numberof citizens to reach a threshold for implementation. By offering these modes of gameplay and introducingways to affect what the Polis is like, what is really aimedfor is a pathway to create a psychological sense of com-munity. A similar aim is found in the city’s second cur-rency, the Private Currency. Gathered as an increasingdaily reward based upon sequential number of dailylogins, it allows the individual players to shape theirvirtual life by buying decorative items for their house,or additional entertainment. e most important building of the whole Polis isthe Living Lab located at its very centre. As a majorrequirement for educational games is a design thatbenefits a structural recall of knowledge and thatmotivates the player in using higher order cogni-tive abilities, and because proposing and develop-ing policy is often a highly complex matter ofmany conflicting interests, Lila gradually increas-es the burden on its players’ by a thriving-designed play-itinerary. Before a player can usethe Living Lab’s functionality, an avatar musthave reached a minimum ranking. e rankingsystem is based on the players accomplishingobjectives or tasks that become more difficultas the game proceeds; by Knowledge Pointrewards, players can reach thresholds that pro-mote their avatar to the next ranking-level.ere is a gap between the first three rankinglevels and those up from four. From the fourthranking onwards the policy development is mod-elled on the project-practice oriented method-ological Logical Framework Approach (LFA)broadly used in the development sector. In itsfirst stage, a policy proposal can be made byforming a group of a minimum of three playersthat work on completing the first part of the LFA.In the succeeding three stages, the demands ongroup size are increased to five, seven and tenmembers respectively, the latter with a minimumgroup diversity of five.

e last stage consists of submitting the policyproposal – including LFA and budget – for evalua-tion to the community at large and, eventually, toa team of experts. e timespan to work on a pro-posal is a maximum of nine months, but addi-tional monitoring and balances for communityreflection and debate are introduced by time-lags. For instance, when a group of players wantsto proceed from one level to the next in the Liv-ing Lab, a period of community reflection isactivated that lasts for one, two and three weeksfor respectively stages two, three and four in theLiving Lab. rough in-game evaluation of policies by play-ers, a peer-to-peer community effort drives theresults of co-creation towards realisation. ereflection intervals for the community give riseto a profound emergent property unusual fordevelopment aid: an ability for the communityat large to learn from another’s experience andknowledge. is can make all the difference inthe world: never before has the development sec-tor had the means to gradually develop policyusing invaluable input from all the networks thatrelate to a particular problem, before adopting andimplementing it.

C O N C L U S I O N

eoretical reflections on research conducted prior tothe start of this project have now set in motion aprocess towards the gradual development of a virtualcity that has been inspired by gaming practice, butwants something other than entertainment. Lila is aninnovation to pool, share and explore knowledge: bycombining the best of virtual worlds, educational games,and e-learning a virtual city has been designed to offers aunique set of problems, challenges and opportunities,both on a personal level through learning & networking,as well as on the public stage by working for a bettertomorrow. It offers a public space as well as an institutionalopening, leisure and entertainment, knowledge and train-ing. It has been designed to inducing systemic change inthe real world by dedicated effort and open commonssharing of knowledge; it is a solution-driven methodologi-cal model that can be successfully implemented in themany domains of human endeavour, whether that bebusiness, science, politics, culture or any case in need ofsustainable policy development that pays heed to theautonomy of local populations and their interest.After its digital take-off, Lila’s success will be judgedon the provided solution and results. e resultsdepend on the willingness of the ICSOs to invest timeand energy in Lila, but if even half of its potentialcomes to be fulfilled, this will not be the last timeLila finds its way to your senses. 8

J U R N A N G O O S | L I L A : A V I R T U A L E D U G A M E F O R T H E D E V E L O P M E N T C O M M U N I T Y | 9 2

—————

* Lila ( लीला ) is a major concept in Hindu cosmology depicting thecreative joyful playing activity of the absolute, in which the worldis itself a stage of the play.

1 Voeten, J. de Groot, J. de Haan, J. & Roome, n. (2013).“Understanding Responsible Innovation in Small Producers’ Clus-ters in Vietnam through Actor network eory (AnT)”.

R E F E R E N C E S

dICKEY, M. (2006). “Game design narrative for Learning:Appropriating Adventure Game design narrative devicesand Techniques for the design of Interactive LearningEnvironments”, Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 3(54): 245-263.

—— (2007). “A conjectural Analysis of How Massively Multi-ple Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) Foster Intrin-sic Motivation”, Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 3(55): 253-273.

ERIKSOn, E. (1963). Toys and reasons: Stages in the ritualizationof experience (new York: W. W. norton).

FRAnCESCHI, K. LEE, R. ZAnAKIS, S. & HIndS, d. (2009).“Engaging Group E-learning in Virtual Worlds”, Journalof Management Information Systems, 1(26): 73-100.

GUnTER, GA., KEnnY, R.F., VICK, E.H. (2008). “TakingEducational Games Seriously: Using the RETAIn Modelto design Endogenous Fantasy into Standalone Educa-tional Games”, Special Thematic Issue on Game-BasedLearning in Educational Technology Research and Devel-opment, 56(5-6): 511-537.

LATOUR, B. (2005). “Reassembling the Social”, (Oxford:Oxford UP): 21-24.

VOETEn, J. dE GROOT, J. dE HAAn, J. & ROOME, n.(2013). ‘Understanding Responsible Innovation inSmall Producers’ Clusters in Vietnam through Actornetwork Theory (AnT)’, Centre for Development Infor-matics Institute for Development Policy and Manage-ment [accessed nov. 2013 < http://bit.ly/1cu7PHd >].

YOUnG, F. SLOTA, S. CUTTER, A. ET AL. (2012). “OurPrincess is in Another Castle: A Review of Trendsin Serious Gaming for Education”, Review ofEducational Research, 1(82): 61-89.

ZEMLIAnSKY, P., WILCOx, d. (2010). “design andImplementation of Educational Games”. (newYork: Information Science Reference): 47-64; 65-77; 126-140; 252-26; 378-392.

a b

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 9 3

J U R N A N G O O S | L I L A : A V I R T U A L E D U G A M E F O R T H E D E V E L O P M E N T C O M M U N I T Y | 9 6

Squarefaces

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N NO V A T I ON [ HUMAN D E V E LO PM EN T | 9 7

A B S T R A C T S :: S U M M A R I E S

ADEBAYO C . AKOMOLAFE

MICHEL

BAUWENS

A LE SS ANDROCOLOMBO

UFFEELBÆK

HELENEFINIDORI

JURNANGOOS

ELZAMAALOUF

ANDREWGAVINMARSHALL

RICKMCKENNY

JEANRUS SE LL

S TEPHANA . SCHWARTZ

ANDREAS W

ITT EL

J U R N A N G O O S | L I L A : A V I R T U A L E D U G A M E F O R T H E D E V E L O P M E N T C O M M U N I T Y | 9 8

A D E B A Y O A K O M O L A F ET H E P R O M I S E O F P R O M E T H E A N D A R K N E S S :H O W A ‘ N E W ’ P O L I T I C S O F S U R P R I S E I SW E A V I N G A G L O B A L A L L I A N C E F O R T H E

I M P O S S I B L E

As a Post-2015 world draws closer, an unspoken awarenessis speedily gaining prominence: not only have the Millen-nium Development Goals failed to translate into moreequitable state of things for people across the world, butthere is now some admission that even if they did we stillwouldn’t have achieved a world our hearts feel is possible.In a sense, what is feasible is no longer desirable: we haveseemingly come to the logical ends of our institutionalquests for a better world, and the echoes of systemic disil-lusionment are deafening. However, silhouetted by perpet-uated narratives of ‘cruel optimism’ and the political com-pulsion to never lose hope is an amorphous, invisible plan-etary revolution that somehow transcends the utopian pol-itics of hope and reaches through current paradigms ofknowing and being – connecting with the impossible. Inthis essay, I write about a different kind of politics that isanimating these consciousness shifts – not one of hope,but one of a radical element: ‘surprise’; this politics of sur-prise – a sustained intimacy with not-knowing, with ourshared disenchantments, with a radically different con-ception of the cosmos, and with a rejuvenated sense ofhumility and ‘positionality’ in a universe that is no longerand passive and dead, but sensuously alive – is largelyinformed by reanimated indigenous wisdoms, paradigm-bursting research into quantum realities, and local experi-ments with ‘neighbouring’ and gift-sharing. More impor-tantly, this transitional politics is the non-dualistic recla-mation of our poetic affinities with darkness as the sourcefor ‘new’ moments – a Promethean reification of ‘lostness’that is becoming a powerful movement for deep change.K E Y W O R D S ~ MDGs, politics, indigenous wisdom,quantum, change. | [43-50].

M I C H E L B A U W E N ST H E O P E N - C O M M O N S B A S E D K N O W L E D G E

S O C I E T Y A S A N E W C O N F I G U R A T I O N B E T W E E NS T A T E , C I V I L S O C I E T Y A N D T H E M A R K E T

e current neoliberal economic model is based on theillusion of pseudo-abundance, founded on the beliefthat resources are infinite and allow for permanent eco-nomic growth. is model serves the accumulation ofwealth by a privatisation of the flow of knowledge, sci-ence and culture through excessive copyright and patentregimes, resulting in impeded innovative progress eventhough innovation has largely shifted from the privatemarket and corporate R&D departments to become ageneral characteristic of networked civil society. is article argues that the common good is served betterby an open-commons model fostering innovation toincrease efficiency. An open commons model openly ques-tions the legitimacy of the financialisation of innovationsby a minority of the population, as most innovations arelargely built on prior social constructs. In the Author’sproposed vision of cognitive capitalism, the economy andsociety share an open-commons body of knowledgeenabled by a Partner State held responsible for creating the

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N N O V A T I O N [ H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T | 9 7

framework conditions for such a system to flourish. Byproviding the infrastructure required for social autonomyand a production model combining civic immaterialresources and cooperative social solidarity enterprises, anew relationship between the commons and private com-panies can be formed. is will ensure a fairer distributionof value and greatly enhance the usability, implementabilityand accessibility to globally pooled knowledge.KEYWORDS ~ economics, knowledge, copyright, innovation,commons, cognitive capitalism, cooperativism. | [1-3].

A L E S S A N D R O C O L O M B OT H E R E L A T I V I T Y O F I N N O V A T I O N

e innovation dynamics is usually regarded as a virtu-ous linear process leading to both technological andbusiness growth, with subsequent positive fallbacks forthe individual and social development. A closer look to the arena, however, shows that the mech-anisms underlying the technological innovations tend tomirror the competitive logics of the marketplace ratherthan the cooperative schemes of an organized community.For instance, by observing the patent publications it isfirst noted that the technical evolution is not linear butstarry-punctual, consisting of a constellation of uncoordi-nated single pieces of inventions pointing in many differentdirections. Moreover, in most of those projects theapproach is mono-perspective, normally reflecting the view-point of the investors or the target group of potential cus-tomers, so that the proposed solutions offer improve-ments in some aspects at the expense of other ones.While such a fragmented approach might still be overalleffective within widespread technologies – i.e. consumerelectronics, automotive, daily-life necessities – it fallsrather short in domains requiring a systemic view of theproblematic at stake.From key examples in the fields of renewable energiesand smart-grids, the present article highlights the possi-bilities of innovation practices driven by a general evolu-tionary intent, with an eye not only on business opportuni-ties for specific stakeholders but also on purposed advan-tages for the communities in terms of climate change miti-gation, diffused technical awareness and redistribution ofpower-of-choice at broader scale.KEYWORDS ~ innovation dynamics, patents, organizedcommunity. | [65-68].

U F F E E L B Æ KA L T E R N A T I V E T : A N I N N O V A T I V E P O L I T I C A L

P L A T F O R M - A N I N T E R V I E W

In this interview Uffe Elbæk points to two main trends inglobal politics: the ‘Americanization’, characterized bytwo party rule, a Neoliberal outlook and an unfortunatemix of politics, media and big businesses; and his newlyfounded Danish political party, Alternativet, focusing onsocial media, the empowerment of people and collabora-tive networking efforts, that can help in shaping innova-tive political initiatives.With Alternativet, Mr Elbæk aims to bridge the democraticdeficits by connecting traditional political systems with

::AB

STRA

CTS

::SU

MMAR

IES

::AB

STRA

CTS

::SU

MMAR

IES

::

networked based political initiatives, making the sharingand pooling of knowledge a new way to take up democraticresponsibility in order to change the political landscapetowards a more sustainable social, economic and environ-mental outlook. Alternativet’s goals definitely require areset of both the contemporary political-thinking as wellas the power relations it supports and upholds.e primary challenges that the new political party hasto face are the conflictual counter-reactions from otherparties and how to meet these challenges in a construc-tive way. Letting go of an ego-centred political perspec-tive and replacing it with the ‘interest of the commons’demands cooperation between political opponents asmuch as it does with allies.KEYWORDS ~ politics, Danish parties, Aalternativet, net-worked based political initiatives, knowledge pool, com-mons. | [51-54].

H E L E N E F I N I D O R IA N E C O L O G Y F O R T R A N S F O R M A T I V E A C T I O N

A W A I T I N G T O B E D I S C O V E R E D

As our current system based on a growth-extraction spiralis leading us into the wall, we are seeing a multitude ofinnovative local solutions to local problems with peopletaking things inventively into their hands to constructalternatives in all kinds of domains. At the same time, newmodels are appearing at various levels and scales thataddress the challenges we are facing in more systemic ways.A whole ecology for transformative action is waiting to bediscovered and nurtured, with legions of change agentsengaged in bringing about change or ready to do so...is article explores systemic change from a praxis andagency perspective, and the context and conditions forits unfolding. It examines the logics that underlie action,the dynamics, relationships, and processes involved, therole of social organization, leadership development,intercultural and inter-subjective communication, aswell as possible leverage points.is strategic inquiry draws on a variety of disciplines tosuggest ways to amplify and accelerate the existing forcesfor change, and to advance on multiple fronts at once sothat diverse efforts can coalesce and impacts can multiply.K E Y W O R D S ~ systemic change, social organizations,transformative actions, leadership development, intercul-tural and inter-subjective communication. | [5-14].

J U R N A N G O O SL I L A : A V I R T U A L E D U G A M E F O R T H E

D E V E L O P M E N T C O M M U N I T Y

is article discusses Spanda’s Lila virtual platform thatcombines collective intelligence, open source, e-learning,edugames and virtual worlds. e purpose of this innova-tive serious virtual platform is to initiate, draft, co-createand implement transdisciplinary glocal development poli-cies around a selected topic addressing the needs in thedeveloping regions by coupling, pooling and sharingknowledge from civil societies across the world with localexpertise in a playful, experiential, open access, virtualworld. To this aim, reflections on open source, edugames,

I N N O V A T I O N [ H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T | A B S T R A C T S :: S U M M A R I E S | 9 8

e-learning and virtual worlds have merged in a theoreticalframework offering a suitable virtual environment whereinfreedom of itinerary, structural recall of knowledge andintrinsically motivating activities create the proper condi-tions for the winner group of players to collectively co-cre-ate a strategic cultural multi-stakeholder community-baseddevelopment policy and implement it in the real world.KEYWORDS ~ collective intelligence, open source, e-learn-ing, edugames, virtual world, development policy. | [89-93].

E L Z A M A A L O U FF U N C T I O N A L D E M O C R A C Y : A N E W P A R A D I G M

O N G E O P O L I T I C S I N T H E M I D D L E E A S T

e author maintains that Western political models haveshown that the-one-person one-vote system may not workas a governing scheme for the majority of the world’s pop-ulation and proposes to replace it with a value-systemsapproach to governance aiming at making the tenets ofdemocracy more functional. While the former model is aone size-fit – as the one the West imposed on the MiddleEast region and that proved to be inadequate in the face ofthe complexity of the area – the latter uses a holisticapproach to cultural emergence to design the scaffoldingfor what is next for that unique culture. e proposed framework approach, which has been morethan five decades in the making, is grounded into theMotion elements of Sherif’s social judgment theory,Graves’ Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence theory andBeck’s Spiral Dynamics Integral, and additional researchand field applications by the author herself.Unlike most current models that only see the tip of theiceberg and design from a flat map perspective, the inno-vative value-system approach looks into the deeper layersof a specific culture – its memetic contours, life condi-tions, mindsets and beliefs –, searching for the uniqueindigenous expression of intelligence that informs itsoverall design to ultimately sustain the surfacing mani-festation of actions and behaviours of the kind ofdemocracy most functional to that particular culture.is model was field tested in the 1990s in South Africato help the country transition from Apartheid; it wasapplied in Israel/Palestine by the author and her col-leagues at the Center for Human Emergence-MiddleEast, and implemented by other global practitioners inIceland, the Netherlands, Brazil and Chile.KEYWORDS ~ evolutionary politics, governance, democracy,value-system approach, spiral dynamics, indigenous intel-ligence, culture. | [55-64].

A N D R E W G A V I N M A R S H A L LV O I C E S O F A C C E S S :

T H E P E O P L E ’ S F O U N D A T I O N

is paper examines the development of a new type of‘foundation, not concerned with promoting slow reformswith the ultimate aim of maintaining the existing socialstructures, but rather, to promote radical new alternatives forsocial organization. By promoting research, educational,media, exchange and activist programmes, the ‘Voice ofAccess: e People’s Foundation’ will seek to connect

activist communities around the world, develop new orga-nizations sponsoring groundbreaking research for use byactivists, intellectuals and easily accessible to everyone; todevelop new media platforms, new methods of education,and ultimately, to promote a new type of philanthropybased less on financial resources and more on facilitatingconnections between activists, intellectuals and especiallyyouth around the world seeking to promote radical andrevolutionary change. e People’s Foundation aims toserve as a test subject for a new type of foundation,designed not to create dependency, but autonomy; not topromote social control, but social transformation, andnot serving the interests of the wealthy few, but theimpoverished many.KEYWORDS ~ social organization and transformation,activism, philanthropy, change. | [69-80].

R I C K M C K E N N E YM I C R O - P R O J E C T S I N A M A C R O W O R L D :

H O W T O E N S U R E N O N - P R O F I T I N T E R N A T I O N A LD E V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T S S U C C E E D W H E R E

O T H E R S F A I L

Small-scale non-profits engaged in international workoften set out with lofty aims, only to discover their pro-jects fail or are rejected by local communities. Innovativeapproaches to successful development projects includepartnering with local NGOs specializing in capacity build-ing, while heeding a number of lessons learned from pastdevelopment work to ensure that micro-level projectssucceed. First, efforts to implement appropriate tech-nologies in indigenous communities often fail becauseproject planners do not consider cultural, historical andmaterial constraints. ese constraints include unequalpower relations within communities that hinder resourceaccess and distribution; prior community experiencewith colonial or development projects that had adverseimpacts; and geographical isolation and environmentalextremes that limit project success. Second, economicleakages often result in the financial benefits from devel-opment projects leaving local communities. ird,although micro-projects have the potential to be amongthe most beneficial to communities, strategic partneringwith NGOs may provide key resources as well as socialand political capital necessary for success. In this paper,we discuss these and other innovations related to the suc-cess of rural development micro-projects. We then con-sider how to strategically partner with NGOs, despitepotential conflicts of interest that may arise. In expand-ing on innovative NGO approaches to development, weaddress capacity trust-building techniques, innovativemethodologies, and deployment styles and techniques.We conclude that micro-projects which include strategicNGO partnerships; social-impact assessments; promotelow-technology inputs; and provide local control of tech-nology and profits have the best chance of local accep-tance and long-term sustainability.KEYWORDS ~ innovation, micro-projects, internationaldevelopment, NGOs, economic leakage, appropriate tech-nology, rural development, sustainable development,social impact assessment, NGO partnerships. | [81-88].

S P A N D A J O U R N A L V , 1 /2 0 1 4 | I N N O V A T I O N [ H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T | 9 9

J E A N M . R U S S E L LT H E S O C I A L E R A : T H E R I S E O F

T H R I V A B I L I T Y I N O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L D E S I G N

e thesis of the paper is that rivability arises from a highdegree of agency and autonomy, and that distributed deci-sion-making enables an internally and externally responsiveorganization to qualify for purpose-driven innovation.The author ties Ostrom’s social philosophy with Barry John-son’s polarity management concept, arguing that Ostroms’sinstitutionalism encourages an evolutionary dynamic root-ed in an evolving tension between creativity and order;suggesting the Holacracy model of distributed organiza-tional governance as one possible method for practicingthis social philosophy.ese postulates are further applied to examine the dis-tributed organizational governance of several case studies ofliving organizations that apply innovative business modelsand clear social protocols to enable social innovation.While most of the cases show models of small-scale dis-tributed governance, the Holacracy model has been usedwith larger-scaled organization as an antidote to the lostof efficiency due to the bureaucracy of managing largenumbers of people.Moreover, the Holacracy governance model and otherrivability-driven models decrease waste in the organiza-tional system, capture the value and benefits of networkproduction, and demonstrate anti-fragility in resourceconstrained environments. In addition, as the individualsatisfaction and the sense of choice and of clear expecta-tions, as well of purpose, mastery, and autonomy, is whatmakes these structures so effective, they engender anoverall higher level of satisfaction within the organizationthan in those not applying these new models. As a matterof fact, it is thanks and through these new models thatthe overlaps of social change focused organizations andsocial era organizations is coming into being.KEYWORDS ~ thrivability, organizational design, purposedriven innovation, polarity management, holocracy, sat-isfaction, social change. | [25-31].

S T E P H A N A . S C H W A R T ZT H E C R E A T I V E P A T T E R N , N O N L O C A L

C O N S C I O U S N E S S , A N D S O C I A L C H A N G E

e key to innovation and, thus, to successful develop-ment lies in that foundation moment when a creativebreakthrough occurs and the vision for the quest mani-fests. is paper explores that experience from a variety ofperspectives, from religious, genius, business, and the psy-chic, presenting examples from each category. It citeswell-conducted experimental research across the continu-um of science – work that proposes a new interdependentmodel of consciousness that takes into consideration anonlocal and objectively verifiable aspect of conscious-ness, one not limited by space and time. e paper sur-veys some of the most important relevant research fromquantum biology, physics, psychology, medicine, anthro-pology, and parapsychology as well as the autobiogra-phies, correspondence, and journals of men and womenwhom history unequivocally sees as great innovatorswhether genius, saint, business pioneer, government

::AB

STRA

CTS

::SU

MMAR

IES

::AB

STRA

CTS

::SU

MMAR

IES

::

leader or psychic. It presents a sequence of steps leadingto the breakthrough. Finally, it proposes that meditationresearch, some examples of which are cited, be seen inthe context of psychophysical self-regulation, and that itoffers one powerful avenue for producing these excep-tional experiences.KEYWORDS ~ nonlocal consciousness, quantum biology,biographies, meditation, psychophysical self-regulation.| [33-44].

A N D R E A S W I T T E LO N T H E F U T U R E D E V E L O P M E N T O F T H E

D I G I T A L C O M M O N S A N D T H E N E E D F O R AG L O B A L B A S I C I N C O M E

is is an article about digital production and the crisisof capitalism. It is about production in the digital com-mons and its implications for the building of alternativesto a commodified world. As digital production is at thevery heart of cognitive capitalism, the digital commons isnot just any other disruption of the process of commodi-fication. is is the field of a fierce struggle over thefuture of the Internet and the future of capitalism itself.It is potentially the moment that moves back the fron-tiers of measurement, value and quantification towardsqualities, values and an expansion of the gift economy.For this potential to unfold, it is vital that those who aregiving, sharing, and contributing or the benefit ofhumanity are supported by global policies that enablethem to do so. ey have to be supported because theirgifts are not based on reciprocity and the obligation toreturn the gift. is is an argument about the future ofdigital labour. e article concludes that this could beachieved through a global basic income scheme.KEYWORDS ~ political economy; gift; digital commons;digital technologies; labour; commodification. | [15-24].

a b

I N N O V A T I O N [ H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T | A B S T R A C T S :: S U M M A R I E S | 1 0 0

Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, e map of Rome (detail).

ù

S E T

I N E I G H T,

N I N E A N D T E N P O I N T S

M O N O T y P E A D O B E G A R A M O N D P R O

T W O P O I N T S L E A D E D , A C C O R D I N G T O

S P A N D A C R E A T I V E U N I T ’ S L A y O U T

A N D P R I N T E D I N M A y M M x I V .

* **

ùù ù

ù

ù

ù

ùù ù

a b

Roma locuta est, causa finita est[Rome has spoken, the case is concluded].

AUGUSTINE (354-430), Sermons, bk, i.

a b

d i s c l o s i n g

t h e s t a t e o f t h e a r t i n

i n n o v a t i o n & h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t

c o g i t a t i o n s

‹f r o m r e l a t i v i t y t o t h r i v i a b i l i t y,

f r o m m i c r o - p r o j e c t s t o v i r t ua l e d u g a m e s ,f r o m o p e n c o m m o n s t o p r o m o t h e a n d a r k n e s s ,

f r o m p o l i t i c a l p l at f o r m t o e v o l u t i o n a r y p o l i t i c s ,f r o m p e o p l e ’ s f o u n d at i o n t o n o n l o c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s ,

f r o m t r a n s f o r m at i v e a c t i o n s t o c o u n t e r - c o d d i f i c at i o n ,a n d t o wa r d s t h e i m p o s s i b l e

a r e s o m e o f t h e v i s i o n s

u n v e i l e d i n

I N N O V A T I O N[H U M A N

D E V E L O P M E N T

‹

a d e b a y o c . a k o m o l a f e

m i c h e l b a u w e n s

a l e s s a n d r o c o l o m b o

u f f e e l b æ k

h e l e n e f i n i d o r i

j u r n a n g o o s

e l z a m a a l o u f

a n d r e w g a v i n m a r s h a l l

r i c k m c k e n n y

s a h l a n m o m o

j e a n r u s s e l l

s t e p h a n a . s c h w a r t z

a n d r e a s w i t t e l

‹

£ 2

8€

35

$ 4

5

s p a n d a