Category: Interdependence

This morning I had a few thoughts related to creating containers, which is how I think of an approach to designing technology to support transformation:

Freedom among people requires structure. As much of that structure that can be emergent as possible rather than dictated leads to self-responsible interaction,. For that to happen successfully, the container must be created with some constraints and intentions. The space must be named as a place for being self-responsible. Those who create the space do not control it.

Spaces are structures.

Spaces shape structure.

Maybe it sounds like a strange thing to build a business around, but I think this way of thinking about things creates a ton of value for any group that wants to make change, at least change that has an element of personal and collective transformation.

Jo Freeman’s essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness helps to frame the direction of transformational space design. We need the small, intimate, conversational experience to help us learn how to be together and to feel a sense of meaning and mattering. And we do need structures that support interdependent action. Neither is optional if we want to develop spaces where we’re not practicing dominance over our friends and allies.

To quote liberally from the essay, these are the specific practices that our spaces (in this case, digital spaces) should support and even encourage:

1) Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs or tasks only by default means they are not dependably done. If people are selected to do a task, preferably after expressing an interest or willingness to do it, they have made a commitment which cannot so easily be ignored.
2) Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to those who selected them. This is how the group has control over people in positions of authority. Individuals may exercise power, but it is the group that has ultimate say over how the power is exercised.
3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires those in positions of authority to consult with many others in the process of exercising it. It also gives many people the opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn different skills.
4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person’s “property” and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual does not have time to learn her job well and acquire the sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.
5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. Selecting someone for a position because they are liked by the group or giving them hard work because they are disliked serves neither the group nor the person in the long run. Ability, interest, and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. People should be given an opportunity to learn skills they do not have, but this is best done through some sort of “apprenticeship” program rather than the “sink or swim” method. Having a responsibility one can’t handle well is demoralizing. Conversely, being blacklisted from doing what one can do well does not encourage one to develop one’s skills. Women have been punished for being competent throughout most of human history; the movement does not need to repeat this process.
6) Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. Information is power. Access to information enhances one’s power. When an informal network spreads new ideas and information among themselves outside the group, they are already engaged in the process of forming an opinion — without the group participating. The more one knows about how things work and what is happening, the more politically effective one can be.
7) Equal access to resources needed by the group. This is not always perfectly possible, but should be striven for. A member who maintains a monopoly over a needed resource (like a printing press owned by a husband, or a darkroom) can unduly influence the use of that resource. Skills and information are also resources. Members’ skills can be equitably available only when members are willing to teach what they know to others.

(Underlines in original, bolding my own emphasis)

When we create spaces that allow people to matter, we don’t erase all of the ways that systemic power, culture, and lived experience shape us. Reverend angel Kyodo williams said this morning that we have to be intentional about shifting the loci of power so that these factors don’t reinforce status relationships that come from systemic inequities.

When we’re working in the context of transformation, we can be aware that growing up with certain advantages based on race, gender, or other statuses may mean some people may have certain skills or more money due to their opportunity to access. The group can choose to welcome these skills or resources without making them what confers power or governance within the group. You don’t need to be disappeared or feel pressured not to contribute because you’ve been seen more readily in school, work, (or even on social media) before you joined the group.

In Al-Anon, which has welcomed millions of people from very different backgrounds into decentralized groups with rotating and distributed governance, members are encouraged within meetings to “avoid outside issues” which can be things like profession, religion, or whether they are also members of other 12-Step fellowships.

We can go further by inviting ourselves to consider how our own way of supporting inequity might play into a space, even when that support comes in the form of believing limiting or negative things about ourselves. If our space leads us to feel like we should hide aspects of ourselves, we probably are perpetuating unbelonging in our collective.

We can also notice when we might be able to step back, know we are not ‘the only one who can..’, and hold space for those whose voices may not be as forthcoming. I’ve noticed that for me, I often feel reluctant to be vulnerable at first, but once I feel more comfortable, I need to pay attention to my pause and hold space for other people. I’ve also experienced people with more power pushing me to stay quiet, saying ‘you don’t know how much influence you have.’ In all of these situations, the solution is a mixture of self-awareness and structure, when there are roles and rotation of responsibilities.

In making technology that can support structures like this, which apply to most communities of practice, support, and changemaking, we can inform the options of a space (which technology always constrains and mediates) to support both intimate and trust-building communication and processes that allow for more inclusive, distributed, effective means of non-domination-oriented leadership and action.

What does this look like in actual design? Working on it! Of course I would love your thoughts or feedback.