Why it is the "social" in "social computing" that matters

I would go so far as to say that my current reading, How To Be Free, is one of the best books I have ever read. The following section particularly rings true given recent conversations about whether or not Enterprise 2.0 is bottom up or not when applied to organisational life.

The real task is to find the enemy within, not without. As the beatnik thinker Alexander Trocchi put it, we need to 'attack the "enemy" at his base, within ourselves'. Class struggle itself feeds the middle class, because when you fight against something you merely make it stronger. The answer is simply to ignore the things you don't like about the classes and concentrate about the things you do like about them. Class war is also a blind alley since it is a profoundly irresponsible attitude to life that says, 'If only those bastards hadn't screwed me, the everything would be OK.' Well, to an extent you allowed them to screw you, and you can choose not to be screwed. That way lies freedom.

It is our own complicity with the present way of organizing things that we must question. When we talk about anarchy, we do not mean a dissolution of order, a Mad Max environment where the most violent survive. We mean a decentralization of power; power to the people. D.H. Lawrence wrote that it is not a question of smashing the system but of putting a more humane one in its place: "There must be a system; there must be classes of men; there must be differentiation; either that, or amorphous nothingness. The true choice is not between system and no system. The choice is between system and system, mechanical or organic.'

Comments

[Andy Roberts]

What about class in terms of the relationship to the means of production? I suppose we could all choose not to have our labour power expropriated by the owners of capital but it's difficult to see how that will come to pass by simply ignoring them.

[Euan Semple]

Why?

[Mary Anne Davis]

I agree, here here- Ignore what isn't working and embrace what is. Certainly this isn't a perfect perscription for a perfect society, but Utopias tend to be fascistic. Why not approach decentralization as it is - imperfect. I like the potential of a calm approach to social evolution. Calmer....

[Wendy Campbell]

You have beautifully encapsulated the basis for Appreciative Inquiry - the way of change that appreciates the best of what is and takes that forward to create a better future. There is not really an "ignoring" of what doesn't work, rather a total focus on what has and does.

This is the basis of my work - bringing the Socially Responsible leader to the fore in boardrooms and other leadership groups. It's wonderful to see leaders become calmer as they realise that they don't need to fight any more - just be the best of themselves:-)

Your philosophy of holistic, of inclusion, is lovely. Do you have any links to how this sits with Web 2.0?

BlessingsWendy Campbell

[Euan Semple]

I can't really take the credit Wendy as the bits in italics are from Tom Hodgkinson's excellent book How To Be Free that I mentioned in the post.

However the reason I quoted the passage was that it sums up for me much of the point of web 2.0 - the ability for all of us to make choices about what we focus on and share and the ability that gives us to affect outcomes in a way we haven't been able to in the past.