Archive | July, 2007

BlogHer and Getting Back to What Matters

BlogHer and Getting Back to What Matters

Germaine's Luau

So, after a brilliant week away from it all, laying on a beach on an island made of lava, surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, we hopped another plane to the windy city to attend BlogHer Conference ’07 – A World Of Difference.

The only bummer about that was that, because of a 6 hour time difference, a red-eye flight and an additional late night arrival, we were pretty exhausted and missed most of the morning sessions. Otherwise, it was the perfect quotation at the end of that novel that gives me all sorts of insight into the meaning of life.

I had never been to BlogHer.

Really.

I know, it seems sort of ridiculous in hindsight. Actually, it seemed sort of ridiculous in foresight and parallelsight, too, but I hadn’t. Part of the reason, I think, was because somehow I didn’t think I would actually identify with many of the women bloggers there. What an odd thought! I suppose I had spent so many years playing in a man’s world that I felt I had more in common with the boys that I struggle to be equal with than with women who did…I don’t know…women’s things? Whatever I thought, I seriously denied a big piece of who I am in that assumption. I do think that in my journey, I needed to identify more with the boys for a time…to know what it takes to make it in that world. And yes, we live in the same world, but there are different rule sets for different sets of communities.

To put it all into context, here is a snapshot of the rules I was getting well versed in:

  1. Numbers matter. Oh yeah, we know they don’t really matter, but we need some sort of stick to measure against so that we are well aware of what matters and what doesn’t.
  2. It’s about the rockstars. The internet famous. If so-and-so says it, it MUST be true. Authority comes from volume. Volume breeds more volume. See #1.
  3. Link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link link. People will link back to you and read you more.
  4. Coalitions, coopetition, collaboration…we gather to win.
  5. Meritocracy is the way to go. You can speak when you’ve proven yourself a contributor…of course that contribution will be judged by a particular measuring stick.

But as I sat on the beach and finished reading The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property, Stumbling on Happiness and Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative (amongst a few other stinkers), that sort of stuff ceased to matter.

Not that ideas like collaboration and linking are bad, per se. I think that stuff is essential…but to a different end. Of course, it could be the sun and sand and the large hollowed out pineapple filled with slushie that was speaking, so I made some notes and prepared to go back to real life. Instead, I went back to a nicer form of it…BlogHer.

The entire time I was at BlogHer, I didn’t hear one single person say anything about numbers of readers or influence or coalitions or the like. I’m sure there was something there that was rooted in competition…in measurement, but even when women stood up and talked about their highlights at the end of the Open Day, they told stories about moments where they were changed. People they had been dying to meet because they did something wonderful and inspirational. And new friendships.

Success to everyone I observed was about connecting. Not for any sort of gain of power or money, but for the sake of connecting. And I would connect with one woman and she would begin that conversation telling me the most wonderful story of her most recent connection with another woman, who I would, of course, want to go and meet.

But to put it all into context…to weigh in with the overall paradigm of this group, I would say the new rules I was getting versed in were:

  1. Stories matter. Numbers were inserted here and there to make a point when talking about dire need or how a person made a difference, but they seemed like more of an afterthought. The story was the measurement: how much trust was there? How much was revealed? Did we identify?
  2. It’s about kindness. And it seemed that everyone there had it in spades. Or maybe we were all in the same boat…slightly nervous that we wouldn’t be accepted for who we were, then overwhelmed with gratitude when we were, so it spread.
  3. Share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share share. If that includes linking, then so be it. It isn’t for the kudos, it’s for the connections.
  4. Community, cooperation, collaboration…we gather to make things happen. Because we NEED one another. We can admit that we can’t do it on our own. Or at least, it would be much more fun together.
  5. Mentorship is the way to go. Newbies need encouragement. The surest way to measure the success of a community is how fast someone moves from newbie position to mentor position.

It’s a very different approach to interaction and one that I couldn’t put my finger on until I saw it in action at BlogHer 07. This is what matters and, I think, will be a growing paradigm for everyone over the next years. In every book I’m reading and every second person I’m talking to, I’m hearing the desire to move in this direction. More events and examples like this will validate that desire.

And not to make rockstars out of anyone, but the women who made this event happen, who have put years of heart and soul and time and sweat and tears into making this event and this organization a reality should definitely be recognized for this. It isn’t easy. Jory, Elisa and Lisa – thanks for everything!

Posted in community6 Comments

Awesome new Coworking Spaces + Upcoming Events to Notice

Coworking Spaces

Berkeley Coworking, Berkeley, CA

Berkeley finally has it’s own Coworking space! Put together by the ever-awesome Christopher Allen, it is conveniently located at 2930 Shattuck Suite 305 (cross-street Ashby and near Asby BART) in Berkeley.

Grande Opening event here: http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/225865/ (this Friday…)

cooperBricolage, Manhattan, NY

Talked about here on the Coworking blog, Sanford Dickert, a professor at Cooper Union (amongst many other things), has busted his tail to find an affordable, workable solution to solving a daily hangout for indies in Manhattan. Enter Cafe cooperBricolage! The solution? Use a restaurant that isn’t open during the day! It seems to be humming along with killer bandwidth and plenty of amenities. I’m looking forward to hanging out when we are back in NYC. Finding reliable, free wifi without the pressure of buying endless coffee wasn’t easy.

Hat tip to Nate Westheimer for the name Cafe Bricolage.

There are actually several on the brink of opening, but I won’t mention them quite yet…

Events

BarCampBlock, Palo Alto, CA – August 18-19th

Marking the 3rd annual BarCamp (and second year anniversary), this year’s BarCamp anniversary will take place full circle back in the same place it started: SocialText’s offices… and spilling out into the streets! Yep. We will be working with SocialText to get this puppy off the ground with the goal of having a multi-office party starting SocialText’s offices… and maybe looping in nearby neighbors like Facebook, iMeem, IDEO, Edgeio and so on.

SocialNetworkDevCamp, Richmond, CA – September 8-9

SocialNetworkDevCamp will focus on API and Widget development from Facebook, Twitter, Pownce, Linked In and others. The camp will also start the process of identifying open APIs and data structures which would facilitate the creation of open standards for social networking.

Much like the uber popular & successful, iPhoneDevCamp, the SNDC is focused on development…actually making stuff!

Posted in coworking3 Comments

An Interlude

An Interlude

Last day of drinks on the beach

I love some of these shots…I thought I’d share them with you…

I learnt alot about happiness and leisure time I’m going to be sharing in not too long…

Posted in Uncategorized4 Comments

Offline for One Week +

Here’s the thing. Tomorrow, I’m on vacation. Like a real, sit on the beach, reading a book, sipping Mai Tais out of a coconut sort of vacation. No email. No computer. Nada. Oh…no Twitter either. :)

So, if you send me an email, I may not get back to it for at least 3 weeks.

I will have my phone, but it is allergic to sun and sand, so I’ll only be checking the messages at the end of each day.

Posted in Uncategorized2 Comments

The Gift

The Gift

Gift Wrapping from PLB! on Flickr

Describing to others how Citizen Agency has become successful has been difficult. Mostly it’s because we couldn’t really pinpoint it. We don’t do anything that conventional wisdom would say could lead to success. We didn’t have a business plan. We refuse to use any traditional ways of marketing/advertising. Our website pretty much sucks. We don’t even keep our company blog up to date. Half the time we are out, we forget to take business cards. We don’t keep track of hours. We don’t have a process (patented or not). We are clueless when it comes to prioritizing. And we don’t have any business goals. We don’t get back to people very fast. We turn down big, lucrative contracts. We give more away than we keep. We don’t really care too much about growth. We value our leisure time over efficiency.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster, right? Yet…

We have more potential work than we can handle on a regular basis. We’ve never gone into the red (oops…wrong color!). We live amazingly great lives in the 2nd most expensive city in the US. We get to travel all over the world. We know people in almost several countries we can call friends (people who we could have dinner with or who will show us around). We are successful in exactly the way we measure it: a community of support, sustainable lifestyle and constant personal growth.

And one of the things we’ve learnt is something incredibly counterintuitive to current North American culture: the more we give away, the better we do.

When I make statements like, “It all balances out in the end,” I don’t mean that I buy person A a meal and the next time person A buys me a meal. I don’t mean that the volunteer work we do will generate leads, either. There is no obvious returns on investment…no clear reciprocal cause and effect of what we do. And I didn’t understand what was so powerful about that until I started reading The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property (thanks to Austin Hill).

Gifts Gain Value Through Circulation

In The Gift, Lewis Hyde explains through several folk tales and anthropological studies that the Gift Economy is not one of reciprocation at all. In fact, this obligatory reciprocation has sprouted from the idea of trade in our current market economy. A gift is not, in fact, a gift unless it continues circulating. So, I buy lunch for person A, then person A gives away her last $10 to person B, who uses it to buy sandwiches, which he shares with person C, who is now well fed enough to get creative and paint that amazing piece of art, which she gives to person D, who is so inspired by that art that he donates it to the local artist community, who displays it in their community garden, which many walk by to admire, one of whom decides to donate some money to a local neighbourhood beautifying project, which builds a spectacular park where I can now enjoy reading in, which will lead to all sorts of wonderful things.

The gift, as it moves along, actually becomes more and more valuable. In my example, a gift of lunch from me could turn into a large improvement in my community, but in really basic terms, the very nature of the gift is to continue to grow in value as it gets passed along and the increments don’t tend to be felt as burdens to the person passing the gift along, either as it is a natural process. Remember the story of the guy who ‘Traded up’ the paperclip for a house in Saskatchewan? Well, that’s kind of the idea…each ‘trade’ became a simple increment between a red paperclip to a whole house. And, at first glance, it may not seem like a very ‘gifty’ experiment (since only one guy got the house), but Kipling, Saskatchewan couldn’t be happier about the press and the sheer craziness of the act has sprouted many interesting copycat stories, re-ignited the swap industry and inspired many, many people to go out and try fantastic, crazy things.

As the paperclip story is passed along, it gives pleasure to all that are told it and status to those who tell it as well (storytelling is truly a gift). It’s the gift of possibility.

Instant Gratification Isn’t Part of the Gift Economy

We never really think about what we are going to get out of something we are giving, whether it is time or money or ideas or support. We do think about whether these gifts align with our own values, how the community will benefit and if we can afford to do it (we are definitely not martyrs and feel we can do better work if we can feed ourselves). I think this is a key point. So many companies will donate time, resources and money to something if they can establish a clear ROI. They’ll ask for a certain number of ‘impressions’ (logos, banners, etc.) or connections or a better public image.

Take BarCamp sponsorships, for instance. We’ve always insisted that sponsorships should work as follows: 1. companies can either sponsor a meal or donate a maximum of $250 cash, 2. companies don’t get any banners, logos, speeches or other ‘impressions’, 3. companies who sponsor are encouraged strongly to participate (or send representatives to participate) in the BarCamp, leading a session or just being there, getting involved. #3 is the most important point of all. Sure, the $250 is nice to have and feeds the troops, but we would rather lead the troops to the local Deli to buy their own sandwiches in lieu of someone’s participation time.

So many companies don’t understand this. It’s easy to throw money at an event, put up a banner and check that off their list of ‘good deeds done’, but it doesn’t contribute to the conversation. It doesn’t change culture. It doesn’t build relationships. These take time…not money.

Our good friend, David Crow, who was one of the people who led the BarCamp revolution in Toronto just recently joined Microsoft. At first I was a little skeptical about his move, then he described a recent interaction with another city throwing a BarCamp where they solicited him for a Microsoft donation. David agreed, but only if he was participating.

David understands that his participation is worth way more than Microsoft’s money. The money is a transaction, his presence is a connection.

Gifts Connect

When you buy a pair of shoes from Bata shoes, you exchange money for the shoes directly. Very rarely does that transaction create a deeper relationship with either the company or the shoe salesperson (unless they are amazing, but even then…I’ll explain later on). But when someone you meet gives you a gift, a deeper bond emerges. The more personal the gift, the deeper the connection (as long as it is not given as a device of control or obligation, which I probably won’t get to in this post).

You may have experienced this even in market economy transactions. You order a t-shirt from Threadless and when it arrives, you open the package to find ‘extras’ – little gifts in the form of stickers and postcards and buttons. In a non-market transaction, a gift given by a friend becomes more dear. The picture frame you were given reminds you of her every time you look at it. An unexpected bouquet of flowers not only tells you that he is thinking of you, but also connects you deeper.

Think of gifts passed down through generations, too. Both the connection and the growing value of the gift collides in your great-great grandfather’s pocket watch. Through generations, you are bonded more closely with an ancestor.

Gifts from strangers can hold weight, too. Someone holding open the door for you or helping you with your load connects you to an unknown person, even temporarily. Of course, living in the market economy has made us weary of accepting actual gifts as we always suspect a reciprocation or exchange is being required, but on those rare occasions where someone offers a gift unconditionally, their memory is permanently transplanted into your experience. This is true for both the giver and the recipient. I gave a coat to a freezing man years ago. I could still tell you what he looked like. I remember how I felt afterwards and how I felt so great that I called up a friend I had been fighting with to apologize.

Gifts Stick With You

You don’t need to have a whole lot to give. The fallacy is that, if you give, you are then without.

My experience has been the exact opposite. I’ve found that the more I give, the more I gain. No, it’s not instantaneous or even necessarily monetary.

Citizen Agency is built on a mixture of the market and the gift economy. Obviously, the market economy comes into play with our consulting practice. We give time, support and energy to our clients and they pay us for that. Clients want goals and plans and some sort of equivalent value for the money they pay. But the gift economy part of our business comes in how we have been successful. We grow because we give.

Chris gives so much of his time to new entrepreneurs and to web standards work — so much I sometimes have to pull him back on it and get him to log in those wireframes or similar task. I spend time and energy in my communities like coworking and encouraging the many young women in technology who reach out to me. We both volunteer our time and energy to projects like Net Squared, the Sunlight Foundation, Creative Commons, Freecycle and a variety of other non-profits. We offer an inexpensive (and free for some) community space and hire people to make sure it is available and sufficient for use by any group that needs it. We constantly connect people we meet to others we meet so that they can go further. We travel all over the world, most of the time at our own expense, to assist and encourage Coworking, BarCamp and other local global communities. We do all of this without really thinking about what we could get in return. Personally, I just get a high from doing it. Maybe it’s the Cancerian in me, but seeing others benefit from connections I make or advice I give is high reward.

But somehow it all comes back tenfold. It comes racing back at us with so much more than we could ever give. It’s almost embarrassing at times how much we get out of it all.

For those who say this isn’t scalable or transferable, take this into consideration. Less than two years ago, I was some chick working as a New Media Marketing Manager at some HR association in Ontario. Yeah, I had ideas and a bit of experience under my belt, but I was known to 5 people and one of those 5 was my Mom. Chris? Well, he’s the braver one. He came out of the gate with crazy ideas and a total lack of regard for the market economy ‘norms’. He taught me to embrace my own crazy ideas and go for it. But even Chris came out of obscurity not long ago. He moved to San Francisco and knew 3 people.

We both started simply…giving a little and playing along with “the rules” more. But as we moved along, we liked giving more than playing along with the rules…plus, the rewards were enormous! (but not the point) And it became addictive. Hell, we don’t really have much to give money-wise, but we knew we could give more of our time and experience. And wow, we found out that social capital is worth way more than money (and actually multiplies itself as you give it away).

And I start to think about this possibility: what if everyone started to act this way? If the world defaulted on generosity and the gift economy was given as much value as the market economy (but not a monetary value), what would happen? And we really think that the best way to make this happen is to just keep spreading this through example…and maybe pushing those clients we give up on too easily a little harder. And maybe we could put these theories into some more solid practice so that those who are scared of these hippie-sounding ideas could actually start to implement them into their businesses and lives and start to see the rewards themselves.

So, this is also something much bigger that I’m planning to talk about as part of my book, which I will provide the outline for at some point in the near future. I really believe the idea of the gift economy is going to play a big role in the future. We just need to wrap our heads around how we fit it together with the market economy in a way that balances the two sensibly.

Posted in community, social capital28 Comments

Happy Birthday Citizen Agency

Happy Birthday Citizen Agency

First birthday! on Flickr

Today Citizen Agency is one year old. Wow. That feels good.

We’ve been all over the world. Talked to anyone who will listen. Learnt a helluvalot. Met so many amazing people. Worked with some great clients. Had oodles of wins and very few setbacks. And the thing I’m most proud about: we didn’t go into a penny of debt. Not a penny. We didn’t ever borrow money or go into a line of credit. And we’ve traveled, built an office and enjoyed life in one of the most expensive cities in the US – and given lots away, too! (I’m going to be writing how the Gift Economy has immensely helped our business very soon)

I’m really quite proud of what we’ve built. It isn’t always sunshine, but it’s always been interesting and exciting. I’d like to put a big shout-out to my PiC, Chris Messina, for having the guts to go in this with me and for making it work so well. We don’t always see eye to eye. I know I get on your case. But you are brilliant and this company is so much you.

Here is to the first year and to the future many years or whatever the years may bring!

Posted in Uncategorized18 Comments

Great Insight from Sam Rose

I asked Sam Rose‘s permission to highlight his comment from my post…because I heart new information:

Tara, it’s interesting that you’ve intuited the pattern of “individual” and “collective” in the way that people go about solving problems. About 40 years ago, this is the pattern that Clare W. Graves found when he did psychological research on his students over about a 15 year period. You can read about it here: http://clarewgraves.com/ I’ve mentioned his work here before, because I think it is really relevant to a lot of what you are talking about, and observing (as conveyed by your blog posts). And, for all of it’s incompleteness, it’s one of the best theories that we have about human nature. Graves changed his theory over time, to account for new data. One example from the Futurist Magazine can be found here

and an even better explanation is here.

Basically, Graves found that human nature tends to center on either the “individual” or the “collective” focus. This can hold true even for one person. In one situation, you may solve problems by focusing on the “communal” in some way, in other situations in your life, you may solve problems by focusing on yourself. This is true for all of us, I believe.

The amazing (sic) thing about Graves’s work is that we came to his conclusions by asking people to write a conceptualization of what they thought a “mature healthy adult” is. Then, he tasked the same people with defending their conceptualizations against each other, and gave them a chance to defend them against the leading “authorities” of the time period. Then, he turned the data over to independent (sic) judges and asked (sic) them to “quantify this any way that you can”. He did this for 15 years or so. Amazingly, the first pattern that emerged every time was the “independent” and “communal”. The exact same patterns you came up with, by observing your dinner party social dilemma! Later, people started calling this the “Locus of Control”, and started calling the patterns “inner directed” and “outer directed”, and other names which basically all mean the same thing.

Graves’s “levels” were really just more specific versions of these two “locus of control” centers.

Thanks Sam! I’m reading these resources right now…

Posted in community4 Comments

The Dinner Party: Individual vs. Collective

The Dinner Party: Individual vs. Collective

adam and trish on Flickr by gretchenblaire

A group of us gathered for a friend’s birthday dinner last night. Everything was delightful up until the moment the bill arrived. It’s been several years since I’ve had such an awkward bill splitting experience.

There were a few ‘complications’ going into the process. First of all, there were many ‘shared’ items at the table: multiple bottles of water and many appetizers. There was also the case of it being a birthday, which I’m used to pitching in for (but not everyone feels that way). There were vegetarians at the table as well as non-drinkers (for just us, Chris is a veggie and neither of us drink alcohol these days). Back to the appetizers, many of these were ‘meat based’, so the vegetarians couldn’t really partake in many of the communal appetizers.

Still, I was content in splitting the bill in equally around the table (minus the birthday girl).

This was an issue, though. A big issue that seemed to ruffle more feathers than necessary. Thrown into the mix, the ever-generous Stowe Boyd has come up with a ‘bank’ system that he believes solves these sorts of problems (but I suspect made it more complicated) whereas he says everyone throws in what they think they owe based on their own philosophy and he will cover what is left over.

I asked aloud, “Well, why don’t we just all throw in the equal amount around the table?”

Which was met with protests of: “We don’t drink” and “Some people didn’t eat as much as others”

So, (perhaps too) boldly, I offered, “Neither Chris nor I drank, either. And Chris is a vegetarian, but we are of the philosophy that in the grande scheme of life, it all balances out over time, so we don’t mind pitching in equivalent numbers.”

More protest. Grumpiness. Bad feelings.

“Well, what if someone is having a bad month and they really watched what they were eating?” came from the Birthday girl herself.

Nobody spoke up. I wanted to offer, “Well, that person could make it known and we can all pitch in a few more dollars to balance it.” but I thought I’d shutup while I was ahead. I could tell my opinion wasn’t the popular one and I felt I had made enough of an ass of myself.

So…we paid our 2/12th’s, the vegetarian/non-drinking couple across from us paid their 2/12th’s, the 2 glasses of champagne, but hardly a nibble on the appetizers woman kitty corner paid her 2/12th’s and the other side of the table seemed pissed. I’m sure Stowe got the short end of the stick.

In my experience, dinners where you calculate your contributions down to the dime end up short changed 95% of the time. People forget to pitch in for their contribution to the appetizer or forget to calculate the tax or their portion of the tip (and we all tip differently). With a communal throw-in, the bill gets covered and someone may throw in $20 more than they owe (usually the difference is much less).

Stowe’s bank system is generous and I admire his sacrifice to make the peace (I wonder if he is Libra?), but I can’t see anyone really feeling good about it. Stowe may be the only one. I know I felt awful thinking about what he had to make up for.

There were two strong philosophies there:

  • Pay exactly what you owe – Individualism
  • Split the bill in equal portions – Communalism

Stowe became the United Nations. The uneasy middle ground between dichotomous philosophies. This is his solution to the delicate balance of respecting all philosophies. But were there other options? Could have there been a democratic vote? Maybe an equal split with room for individual protest (Everyone throws in $80, but John Doe protests that he only ate $40 worth of food, so everyone throws in an extra $5 to help cover John…I mean, what is $5 on $80)? Perhaps we should have requested individual checks at the beginning of the meal and agreed not to have any shared food/drinks (as it seems that we started with one philosophy then tried to impose the other one)? Perhaps the group should have just imposed its will on the individuals?

A simple dinner turned into an interesting study of the struggle between individual and community that I’ve been studying lately.

I was just reading about the way World of Warcraft deals with the diversity of gamer types: through realms. For those who just want to gain personal points, there is a realm for you and others like you. For those who are really into the community role playing aspect, there is a realm for you and others like you.

Now, I already know why that doesn’t work in real life. Plus, I think we all need to feel uncomfortable from time to time and have our ideologies challenged.

I can’t say, “Before I agree to dine with you, I should know what your bill splitting philosophy is.” LOL. Although this does tend to happen naturally over time with the way we form groups of friends. Enough awkward check moments and the amount we go for dinner will taper off.

For me, the communal check splitting seems the most reasonable (and I’m the first to speak up if I see a member of the table who deserves to jump out of the tally), but I’m also a very community-oriented person.

Perhaps others can offer me their perspectives on this one since I’m not as familiar with the experience of the individualistic perspective on this one…

:: Stephanie (aka The Birthday Girl) has responded
:: Stowe has responded

what a funny thing…

Posted in community48 Comments

Me, Myself and I

Me, Myself and I

Hey, what about... on Flickr by Lex'n'Ger

Ah….individualism. Freedom. Our own special snowflake world. Yep. We live in a world where we can celebrate personal freedom (albeit not beyond the boundaries of others’). We are all unique. That’s a good thing.

Of course it is.

However, just like any other ‘ism’, religion and ideology, extremes can be rather unhealthy.

North America, and especially the United States, is a very Libertarian region. Personal freedom is seen as the pinnacle of importance. Anything that smacks of socialism and communalism is viewed as a threat to the ideals of that personal freedom. I mean, why the heck should I pay for my neighbour to slack off all day? Really. ;)

On the flipside, the extremes of socialism and communalism are also incredibly unrealistic. There ARE people who produce more and work harder to get ahead. There are people who take advantage of any system and who are enabled to do more of this by a totally cushy social system.

But there has to be a happy medium. Somewhere between the two where individuality and personal freedom is important, but so is community and watching out for one another.

This is what is at the core of the battles on various social networks — the struggle between personal freedom and community health. A community too intent on consensus will please nobody, but a network bent on personal rewards won’t survive very long either. The balance is delicate, but necessary and every community has a different sweet spot. Certainly the personal rewards type of communities like DIGG have been very popular with a particular set of people, mostly those that enjoy notoriety, gaming and power (my observation – many alpha geeks hanging around there. I’ve never found a place to fit in there). But these networks are also highly spammable, game-able and manipulate-able. DIGG has been a personal favourite of black hat SEO’s and swarms for some time now.

And personal freedom maximized is awesome as long as everyone is pretty much equally healthy, wealthy and wise. It assumes we all start from the same starting line and that we have equal opportunities along the way. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Even in the fabled utopic online world.

Although I don’t have any personal experience with online communities that are purely communal driven, I think of the recent film Hot Fuzz, where the townspeople’s eerie mantra was, “It’s for the greater good” as they snuffed out any sign of non-compliant behavior and made a grotesquely monolithic culture. Even the tightest of onine communities have a good share of dissent on decisions that account for the 80/20 ‘greater good’.

Up until this point, the pendulum is stuck in a position way too far to the personal freedom end of the swing these days. Maximizing personal freedom creates value for things like: rockstars, rapid growth for the sake of growth, numbers, competition, gaming, and the 20/80 phenomenon. It devalues things like: compromise, cooperation, sharing of ideas, trust, empathy and mentoring.

A couple examples of this have arisen for me over the last couple of days. Number one is around the response to Michael Moore‘s recent documentary Sicko. Love him or hate him (and it seems there is nobody in between, really), the number of stories he had submitted to him is quite compelling. I have a story of my own as someone who had some tests done that weren’t covered by my $700/month healthcare (and they were pretty routine, really) that I’m still paying for. danah has her own story over here. It’s not about ‘those people’.

But I saw several messages from people I know like this one:

Twitter / Phil Leif: "Sicko" would be more intri...

Liberal guilt or not, if there ever comes a day that Phil or a family member gets sick and he finds out his great health plan ain’t so great, it will be too late. And Phil is in every right to focus on what he’s got and ignore the guilt of how others have been affected. It doesn’t make him a bad person and he shouldn’t feel guilty. But in a country where one would be taught to be concerned about the plight of one’s neighbors, Phil would probably think differently. I don’t know if it was the fact that I was raised in a small town where we all knew one another’s business and had potlucks and such, but I feel sad to be part of a system where so many fall through the cracks.

And this isn’t about healthcare at all, really, it’s about community and how we view it. It’s about where we let down our own personal boundaries and desire for maximized personal freedom to contribute to the health of one’s community – physically, mentally, etc. It’s about trust. And if one wants to still frame it in the personal, it’s about empathy – imagining that anything can happen and you could be that person denied coverage or discriminated against or litigated into bankruptcy. Instead of celebrating the lone rockstars – those who make millions and put more $$ in their bank accounts – I’d like to see more of celebrating people who are contributing more to the community. Not money, but time and ideas. What I heart about Open Source is that personal freedom and expression has played a backseat for a long time to the freedom of ideas and the pursuit of common goals. I’m entirely elated that Open Source is quickly becoming a more publicly celebrated phenomenon (unfortunately, the media still likes to treat it as personal stories, but they will learn).

By no means do I think it is healthy to start a dichotomous war between individual and community freedoms – I really believe that there are delicate balances to be forged. However, it is about time for everyone to think about what type of community you’d want to live in. One that you can achieve personal greatness in or you can count on when the going gets tough?

Posted in community15 Comments


Photos on flickr

Tweets