Holoptism ( or more accurately " Holopticism " ? ) is opposed to panoptism. This conceptual distinction is used in the Collective Intelligence site of Jean-Francois Noubel, at http://www.thetransitioner.org/ic
Panoptism is how knowledge is distributed in hierarchical organisations. Only the top of the pyramid has a full view of what is going on in the organisation.
Peer groups are characterized by holoptism, i.e. the ability for any member to have horizontal knowledge of what the others are doing, but also the vertical knowledge related to the aims of the project.
Holoptism is the implied capacity and design of peer to processes that allows participants free access to all the information about the other participants; not in terms of privacy, but in terms of their existence and contributions (i.e. horizontal information) and access to the aims, metrics and documentation of the project as a whole (i.e. the vertical dimension). This can be contrasted to the panoptism which is characteristic of hierarchical projects: processes are designed to reserve 'total' knowledge for an elite, while participants only have access on a 'need to know' basis. However, with P2P projects, communication is not top-down and based on strictly defined reporting rules, but feedback is systemic, integrated in the protocol of the cooperative system.
Michel Bauwens, from The Political Economy of Peer Production.
"Just a word to say that I strongly disagree to say that the concept of holoptism may describe what we are seeking and trying to do here (P2P foundation).
I think that the concept of "Anopticism" may describe it better.
If it seems quite paradoxical to name the project of making the collective intelligence visible : "Anopticism" [from the Greek "a" (without) and "optik?" (vision)], it?s certainly because it needs some explanations ...
Of course, the anopticon is the opposite of the "panopticon". In a certain manner, the concept of "Anopticism" also differs from the concept of "holopticism" [from the Greek "holos" (whole)], which "consists of a physical or virtual space whose architecture is intentionally designed to give its players the ability to see and perceive all that occurs there ". If we consider the opposition of the Greek roots, we could even believe that there is a radical antagonism between Anoptic and holoptic. It's not quite the case: if Anopticism and holopticism, "are designed to give to each individual a modeled representation of space [...] in which he operates", the Anopticism mourns for the idea that the "totality" of this space is the "objectivity" of its representation, it insists instead on the arbitrary and subjectivity of the points of view that govern the models and on the rules that determine them.
For the Anopticism, human relationships are not reducible to the establishment of a cybernetic feedback loop between the group and the individual: the essential is forever invisible to us. The mourning of objectivity is made bearable by the fact that everyone is potentially the author of the points of view and the actor of the implemented rules and codes. In this way, the Anopticism intends to legitimate a "digital perspective" which may be applied within social systems." (p2p-foundation mailing list, Feb 2013)
- Slides: Holopticism Vs Panoptism, by Allan Rosenblith, at http://www.slideshare.net/AlanRosenblith/holopticism