Mapping the Co-creation of a Commons Paradigm Task

= Discussion document for the Economics of the Commons conference in Berlin, May 22-24.

Proposed by Jan Inglis. Version without graph.

Source: Excerpt from longer paper by Jan Inglis on the Co-Construction of a Commons Paradigm: Creating New Economic and Governance Relationships May 2013

Text

Jan Inglis:

"The following diagram is an excerpt from my PhD dissertation on the social construction of a commons paradigm. I have attempted to simplify it and am sharing it at ECC 2013 in hopes that it might first of all make sense, but more importantly, stimulate reflection and discussion, as well as aid data gathering and documentation during and after the conference. The diagram is an attempt to graphically, and symbolically, represent the multiple aspects involved in establishing a new paradigm to replace the current paradigm.

My research regarding the co-construction of a commons paradigm inquired into how meaning is relationally constructed especially regarding paradigm change. My study involved integrating adult development research, integral theory, and complexity theory as related to social change, public discourse, decision making, and legitimacy regarding complex public issues. It also involved field study, interviews, and observations.

My own motivation is global in scale specifically in regards to personal and organizational beliefs and behaviours in the context of addressing climate change.

Below is the graphic along with descriptions and relevant discussion questions.

Figure 1: Tension Inherent in Change Efforts

One aspect is the tension that occurs between the complexity involved in responding adequately to issues, and the challenge of including and addressing the diversity of sub issues, needs and viewpoints involved in those issues. This is graphically represented in Figure 1. For example, a tension commonly felt in most social change efforts can arise between a loyalty to the breadth and popularity of the grassroots social movement, and the need for deeper learning and conceptualization regarding processes and procedures arising within the epistemic community.

Q. How well are we, as commons theorists and practitioners, noticing or effectively working with both of these dynamics ? What issues and sub issues need to be included and addressed? What diverse viewpoints can be anticipated that relate to those issues? How can evolvement of complexity i.e. conceptualizations, processes and procedures be supported?

Figure 2 Graphically Mapping the Co-creation of a Commons Paradigm

Description

A. The original paradigm (thesis, set of beliefs, operating system) often referred to as the market state paradigm based on reductionist assumptions of limitless growth, short time frames and individuality. Excerpt from longer paper by Jan Inglis on the Co-Construction of a Commons Paradigm: Creating New Economic and Governance Relationships May 2013

Complexity - Conceptualizations, Processes, and Procedures

From A - B: involves observations and shared articulation that some things are just not working or fitting into the previous paradigm i.e. anomalies. Anomalies coalesce to now be seen as patterns that indicate the previous thesis in not credible and has lost much of its legitimacy, at least to some. Eventually a crisis is recognized. This involves multiple domains, and in the consideration of a global commons paradigm, it entails interconnected and diverse social, ecological, and economic issues.

Q. How did we co-construct the current economic and governance paradigm? Has it (orienting beliefs, needs, practices, and anomalies) been analyzed and articulated sufficiently that we can now step outside of it and understand why we need to consider a new paradigm and what that paradigm needs to address?

B. A turning point, or revolution occurs based on this shared awareness (at least amongst a significant number). Declarations are made that some thing needs to be done, a new path needs to be taken. In this phase, an antithesis or polar opposite to the thesis is articulated. Once this is collectively and publicly declared, turning back is less likely. Projections are made as to what the new paradigm might look like.

However, a bandwagon effect can happen and overly-simplified absolutist assumptions of cures can be made. Aspects of the prevailing thesis can be highlighted as wrong, and their opposite therefore becomes the right beacon to head towards and proselytized. For example, if the situation is framed as a single problem stemming from a globalized, growth based economy, then local voluntary simplicity might be considered the only solution. If greed and competition is seen as the only problem, then cooperation is the only solution. If top down power is seen as the problem then grassroots initiatives may be seen as the solution. Proponents of the status quo paradigm can be seen as the persecutors and those impacted by these practises, seen as the victims.

Q. Has a turning point been reached? If so, how is it showing up? With whom? Is the process stuck in polarization? What can help it move to the next stages?

From C- D This often overlooked phase is described by this fine zig zaggy line representing the back and forth messiness of social change priority-setting and decision-making. There are actually many many lines for each for the many sub issues named. These lines indicate that the path towards D is not smooth, linear and predictable but actually chaotic and potentially overwhelming. This chaos, if faced full on, can also provide the source material for transformation. If neither the original paradigm A, nor its polar opposite B, are adequate to move us up the ladder of complexity to a fully operational new paradigm, then other options must be co-created and weighed out. Research in adult development and public deliberation processes can be enlisted here regarding how this comparing, sorting, weighing out, reframing and integrating can be supported so that neither wishful thinking, nor bogging down in the complexity, is as likely to happen. The challenging process of specifically analyzing issues and deliberating options in order to reach well thought out decisions is necessary but may take more time, commitment, and capacity than many can give it.

Q. Are we in this phase, is it yet to come or are we stuck in it? What observations are we making? What processes seem helpful?

D. Synthesis occurs: the outline and operationalization of a viable new paradigm (such as an operational commons paradigm) is agreed on by enough participants that it gains legitimacy and can start being tested and implemented. This synthesis must transform the conditions of the previous paradigm across multiple interconnected systems. However, the new paradigm can be accepted and gain validity only if it adequately addresses the diversity named in A-B (i.e., the crisis, the anomalies in the diverse domains, and the legitimacy gained by meeting needs as defined by the diverse range of viewpoints of those involved). It eventually must have recognizable operational structures and actions that are deemed credible and doable by a diverse range of actors This proposition must show concretely how it is better at addressing and integrating these issues than the various other options presented. The set of responses proposed in Phase D must address the tensions between the axis of complexity and diversity. The process is not static and this synthesis, after a period of stability, will become the new thesis that will of course have its own set of anomalies and the cycle will continue.

Q. Does the proposed commons paradigm concretely show how it will address needs, not met by the market state paradigm, across multiple interconnected systems?

“X” A Meta Overview Jump. Co-designing a potential operational new paradigm ( D) by those able to consider this scale of vision, then back casting what is required to make it operational and useful for those involved, may assist the movement through the challenges of public deliberation(C). The process of broad public engagement at different scales and levels cannot be omitted. However, in the context of urgency regarding rapid climatic change, “what if ,“ out of the box scenarios may need to be proposed and considered, arising not from ungrounded wishful thinking, but from taking into account the real world challenges, processes and procedures needed to balance complexity and inclusivity. These may provide the scaffolding for the movement to evolve and test new systemic responses to local and global crisis.

Some of these visionaries may be within the commons movement and some may be offering experience from other contexts.

Q. What behaviors do we most need to decrease in order to take care of our most threatened global commons? What behaviors do we most need to increase? What feedback loops can stimulate this behavior change? How can these be coordinated? What do we need to put in place to accomplish this most efficiently, comprehensively, and quickly? Where are the best leverage points for this meta system change? Who are key individuals or organizations?"