No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
I don't know if this is the most creative period in human history, but sometimes in 2011 it certainly felt that way. Almost every day I discovered a new initiative, protest or start up that was trying to remake the world, in whole or in part. Even before Occupy was born and even excluding the more comples example of the Arab Spring, it was clear that 2011 was a time of radical experimentation and empowerment. Perhaps this was a reaction to the sheer despair of the economic and environmental situation or more prosaically a fulfillment of the potential of new, internet-based forms of social organisation.  
I don't know if this is the most creative period in human history, but sometimes in 2011 it certainly felt that way. Almost every day I discovered a new initiative, protest or start up that was trying to remake the world, in whole or in part. Even before Occupy was born and even excluding the more comples example of the Arab Spring, it was clear that 2011 was a time of radical experimentation and empowerment. Perhaps this was a reaction to the sheer despair of the economic and environmental situation or more prosaically a fulfillment of the potential of new, internet-based forms of social organisation.  


Back in June 2011 - note this was before the Occupy movement began - I suggested in an article for Open Democracy that a new kind of movement was developing<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/keith-kahn-harris/naming-movement</ref>:
Back in June 2011 - note this was before the Occupy movement began - I suggested in an article for Open Democracy that a new kind of movement was developing:


'No one institution or individual embodies it. It is rather a trend, a direction, an idea-virus, a meme, a source of energy that can be traced through a large number of spaces and projects. It is also a way of thinking and acting: an agility, an adaptability, a refusal to accept the world as it is, a refusal to get stuck into fixed patterns of thought'.  
<blockquote>No one institution or individual embodies it. It is rather a trend, a direction, an idea-virus, a meme, a source of energy that can be traced through a large number of spaces and projects. It is also a way of thinking and acting: an agility, an adaptability, a refusal to accept the world as it is, a refusal to get stuck into fixed patterns of thought<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/keith-kahn-harris/naming-movement</ref>.</blockquote>


Crucially, this movement is largely not conscious of itself as a movement. This is a reflection of its diffuseness and its resistance to centralised control. Potentially this is a source of resilience and robustness, but nothing is guaranteed. It may be that the lack of self-consciousness may mean that the movement may ultimately disolve into a mass of unconnected, vulnerable initiatives that amount to less than the some of their parts.
Crucially, this movement is largely not conscious of itself as a movement. This is a reflection of its diffuseness and its resistance to centralised control. Potentially this is a source of resilience and robustness, but nothing is guaranteed. It may be that the lack of self-consciousness may mean that the movement may ultimately disolve into a mass of unconnected, vulnerable initiatives that amount to less than the some of their parts.
Line 16: Line 16:
For that reason I suggested it was time to think about how to 'name' the movement. The very process of attempting to name the movement may increase its self-consciousness. I didn't suggest what the name should be and in a way this wasn't the point. My article sparked a lively conversation in a number of publications and blogs until the birth of Occupy began to dominate discussion of these matters.
For that reason I suggested it was time to think about how to 'name' the movement. The very process of attempting to name the movement may increase its self-consciousness. I didn't suggest what the name should be and in a way this wasn't the point. My article sparked a lively conversation in a number of publications and blogs until the birth of Occupy began to dominate discussion of these matters.


'''The conversation
===The conversation===
'''
 


One of the most interested outcomes of the publication of the naming the movement article was a discussion convened by Steve Wheeler on 4 July 2011, mischeviously called ‘Interdependence Day’. Steve had been thinking and writing along similar lines to me on his blog Steelweaver .  
One of the most interested outcomes of the publication of the naming the movement article was a discussion convened by Steve Wheeler on 4 July 2011, mischeviously called ‘Interdependence Day’. Steve had been thinking and writing along similar lines to me on his blog Steelweaver<ref>http://steelweaver.tumblr.com/post/6555903174/building-a-modular-thought-tank</ref>. The conversation took place, appropriately enough, in a legally-squated church hall in - of all places - Neasden, North London. Present along with Steve and I were Alan Chapman, Nick Stewart, Alex Fadera, Vinay Gupta and Eleanor Saitta (the latter two via Skype).
The conversation took place, appropriately enough, in a legally-squated church hall in - of all places - Neasden, North London. Present along with Steve and I were Alan Chapman, Nick Stewart, Alex Fadera, Vinay Gupta and Eleanor Saitta (the latter two via Skype).
   
   
We had no fixed agenda and sought no definite outcome. Nevertheless, the conversation became more focused as it proceded. Being broadly in agreement that something important was happening right now and that that something needed support, we began to address the tricky, paradoxical questions that the movement raises: how do we spread and nurture the movement when it is, by definition, resistant to centralised control? How do we increase the self-consciousness of the movement without homogenising and directing it? How can we articulate a set of principles that are neither too general to be useful, nor too explicit to be responsive to particular circumstances?
We had no fixed agenda and sought no definite outcome. Nevertheless, the conversation became more focused as it proceded. Being broadly in agreement that something important was happening right now and that that something needed support, we began to address the tricky, paradoxical questions that the movement raises: how do we spread and nurture the movement when it is, by definition, resistant to centralised control? How do we increase the self-consciousness of the movement without homogenising and directing it? How can we articulate a set of principles that are neither too general to be useful, nor too explicit to be responsive to particular circumstances?


'''The protocol
===The protocol===
'''


At some point we came up with the idea of a 'protocol', a series of practices and principles that could be freely shared and adopted in a wide range of settings. This protocol would be flexible enough to be used by initiatives with different degress of institutionalisation, at different degrees of scale, with different kinds of priorities. It would also be explicit enough to act as a forceful and challenging call to practice in a particular way.
At some point we came up with the idea of a 'protocol', a series of practices and principles that could be freely shared and adopted in a wide range of settings. This protocol would be flexible enough to be used by initiatives with different degress of institutionalisation, at different degrees of scale, with different kinds of priorities. It would also be explicit enough to act as a forceful and challenging call to practice in a particular way.
Line 35: Line 33:
So here it is:
So here it is:


'''THE NEASDEN PROTOCOL
===THE NEASDEN PROTOCOL===
'''
 


'''Facing outward:
'''Facing outward:
Line 74: Line 72:
''
''


'''Commentary
===Commentary===
'''
 


To the extent that the protocol's prospects will be determined by its comprehensibility - or lack thereof - the more explanation it needs the less useful it is. If it seems either overly enigmatic or overly obvious then do not use it! The protocol must take its place within the free(ish) market of ideas.I would though, like to highlight one clear plus and one clear minus to the protocol.
To the extent that the protocol's prospects will be determined by its comprehensibility - or lack thereof - the more explanation it needs the less useful it is. If it seems either overly enigmatic or overly obvious then do not use it! The protocol must take its place within the free(ish) market of ideas.I would though, like to highlight one clear plus and one clear minus to the protocol.
Line 83: Line 81:
The negative is that the protocol lacks an overarching statement of values or ideology. It could, in theory at least, be appropriated by fundamentalist or extremist groups. The lack of ideological explictness is a due to the impossibility of pinning down the movement's principles beyond bland statements.  
The negative is that the protocol lacks an overarching statement of values or ideology. It could, in theory at least, be appropriated by fundamentalist or extremist groups. The lack of ideological explictness is a due to the impossibility of pinning down the movement's principles beyond bland statements.  


'''The question
===The question===


So that's the Neasden Protocol. Is this iteration merely the first in a series or is this its simultaneous first breath and last gasp?
So that's the Neasden Protocol. Is this iteration merely the first in a series or is this its simultaneous first breath and last gasp?
<references/>

Revision as of 15:14, 20 January 2012

THE NEASDEN PROTOCOL

Keith Kahn-Harris

The movement

I don't know if this is the most creative period in human history, but sometimes in 2011 it certainly felt that way. Almost every day I discovered a new initiative, protest or start up that was trying to remake the world, in whole or in part. Even before Occupy was born and even excluding the more comples example of the Arab Spring, it was clear that 2011 was a time of radical experimentation and empowerment. Perhaps this was a reaction to the sheer despair of the economic and environmental situation or more prosaically a fulfillment of the potential of new, internet-based forms of social organisation.

Back in June 2011 - note this was before the Occupy movement began - I suggested in an article for Open Democracy that a new kind of movement was developing:

No one institution or individual embodies it. It is rather a trend, a direction, an idea-virus, a meme, a source of energy that can be traced through a large number of spaces and projects. It is also a way of thinking and acting: an agility, an adaptability, a refusal to accept the world as it is, a refusal to get stuck into fixed patterns of thought[1].

Crucially, this movement is largely not conscious of itself as a movement. This is a reflection of its diffuseness and its resistance to centralised control. Potentially this is a source of resilience and robustness, but nothing is guaranteed. It may be that the lack of self-consciousness may mean that the movement may ultimately disolve into a mass of unconnected, vulnerable initiatives that amount to less than the some of their parts.

For that reason I suggested it was time to think about how to 'name' the movement. The very process of attempting to name the movement may increase its self-consciousness. I didn't suggest what the name should be and in a way this wasn't the point. My article sparked a lively conversation in a number of publications and blogs until the birth of Occupy began to dominate discussion of these matters.

The conversation

One of the most interested outcomes of the publication of the naming the movement article was a discussion convened by Steve Wheeler on 4 July 2011, mischeviously called ‘Interdependence Day’. Steve had been thinking and writing along similar lines to me on his blog Steelweaver[2]. The conversation took place, appropriately enough, in a legally-squated church hall in - of all places - Neasden, North London. Present along with Steve and I were Alan Chapman, Nick Stewart, Alex Fadera, Vinay Gupta and Eleanor Saitta (the latter two via Skype).

We had no fixed agenda and sought no definite outcome. Nevertheless, the conversation became more focused as it proceded. Being broadly in agreement that something important was happening right now and that that something needed support, we began to address the tricky, paradoxical questions that the movement raises: how do we spread and nurture the movement when it is, by definition, resistant to centralised control? How do we increase the self-consciousness of the movement without homogenising and directing it? How can we articulate a set of principles that are neither too general to be useful, nor too explicit to be responsive to particular circumstances?

The protocol

At some point we came up with the idea of a 'protocol', a series of practices and principles that could be freely shared and adopted in a wide range of settings. This protocol would be flexible enough to be used by initiatives with different degress of institutionalisation, at different degrees of scale, with different kinds of priorities. It would also be explicit enough to act as a forceful and challenging call to practice in a particular way.

One of the models for the protocol was Alcoholics Anonymous. AA has no centralised structure, yet it is a global movement that marries a high degree of consistency from place to place with a flexibility that allows the model to be easily adapted to a variety of circumstances and issues. At the heart of AA and related groups is a core set of principles and practices - the 12 steps etc - that provide a 'toolkit' that anyone can make use of. The protocol aims at this ubiquity while recognising the daunting odds against this happening.

Although the constituent elements of the protocol were developed through a group discussion, I was the one who eventually worded it in its most explicit form and was probably the most enthusiastic about it. So while not exactly claiming ownership of the protocol, I take on the responsibility for the particular form it has taken. In the spirit of the movement, the protocol can be freely adapted and adopted with or without acknowledgment.

So here it is:

THE NEASDEN PROTOCOL

Facing outward:

Reach out

We continually strive to make new connections with others.

Meet up

Our relationships will be more than virtual.

Scale up

We aspire to change more than our immediate surroundings. Our work will always be a prototype for work elsewhere.

Facing inward:

Take care

We are concerned for the well-being of each other.

Take time

We create space amid the flow of everyday life.

Take turns

We rotate leadership roles regularly.

Commentary

To the extent that the protocol's prospects will be determined by its comprehensibility - or lack thereof - the more explanation it needs the less useful it is. If it seems either overly enigmatic or overly obvious then do not use it! The protocol must take its place within the free(ish) market of ideas.I would though, like to highlight one clear plus and one clear minus to the protocol.

The plus is that the protocol's principles would seem to be just as applicable to a handful of friends in a book group and to a multinational NGO. Aspiring simultaneously to outward-facing change-making and to an inward-facing mindful ethics, would seem to be a good idea no matter what the size and complexity of one's collective.

The negative is that the protocol lacks an overarching statement of values or ideology. It could, in theory at least, be appropriated by fundamentalist or extremist groups. The lack of ideological explictness is a due to the impossibility of pinning down the movement's principles beyond bland statements.

The question

So that's the Neasden Protocol. Is this iteration merely the first in a series or is this its simultaneous first breath and last gasp?

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.