Nothing new under the sun

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11)

Howard Rheingold, and the people he refers to in his TED Talk (social scientists, evolutionary psychologists, biologist, etc.), have reached a point in their explorations as to ‘discover’ (or finally recognize) the importance of cooperation and collaboration. To some of us, this realization is so obvious that the true insight one can gain from a talk like this is how utterly oblivious the Western ideology and conception of history, the world, economics, and society really are.

Rheingold discusses the competition between businesses as if it were different than hunter/gatherer communities a long time ago. Actually it is the same thing. Co-operation and collaboration within the community and competition with other communities. Co-operation and collaboration within a big company like Google and competition with other companies. People discuss capitalism today as if it were still grounded in the classical notion of capitalist competition — when nothing could be further from the truth.

So, if there isn’t anything inherently insightful about the notion that human society, by necessity, depends on collaboration, why are we continuously raising the question with social media in mind? The difference is not that people are collaborating or how they are collaborating but why they are collaborating. And how this motivation makes a big difference for how the collaboration plays out.

In evolutionary psychology, one of the reasons given for the fact of religion is that it helps societies grow beyond kinship ties and reciprocal altruism (check here for an abstract to an article about this). It does this by creating a standard by which to measure the trustworthiness of others (adherence to religion indicates trustworthiness, one reason why atheists are among the least trusted groups). Now, it is also a known fact that the affluent societies of Europe and North America have been decreasing in religiosity. However, in these societies we use secular notions of democracy, freedom, etc. to play the function that religion used to for creating an atmosphere of trust (thus a good citizen is inherently trustworthy in the same what that a religious person is).

Okay. So, if we pick on one of the models of modern collaboration that has everyone one in a tizzy, the free software movement, we immediately begin to see both why and how they function. People who believe in free software use this belief to create an affirmative environment of trust: this is where their community is built and what facilitates the effective collaboration.

The key difference I see in a community like this, versus the traditional company model, is the way that hierarchies are not (and could not) be enforced. The very founding principles of this movement mean that it would be difficult for any one person to exert and undue amount of influence over the software being developed. This horizontal, instead of hierarchical, approach to collaboration is what is new and exciting about the introduction of new technology supporting collaboration.*

It allows for trans-national communities to be built on one guiding principle. It allows for these people to find, identify, and work with one another in a collaborative creative process. What those who are used to perceiving Western society as a collection of individuals in competition are surprised by is that this horizontal modality of collaboration is effective. That it works. That it can create some of the best products available today.

This is what is challenging and beautiful about something like Wikipedia: it does not allow one person to arise to authoritative standing but uses the many contributors to create an authoritative document. It is the cacophonous voices of hundreds of people speaking at once that becomes the authority. More than anything, this is the revolution brought about by collaborative software and 2.0 technologies. It is a structural change, not a new creature we haven’t seen before.

We have always collaborated and co-operated. We always will. The beauty of 2.0 is in the chaos it creates.

*Note: hierarchies tend to spontaneously spring up in every community but the definition of free software means that if you don’t like what someone does with it, you can change it — putting a distinct limit on any individuals influence.