THE
S.E.A.F. SOCIETY
Laurence J. Victor
composed
in
SEAF = Support / Enable / Augment / Facilitate
PREFACE
I began writing this to briefly review The Support Economy for others who will participate in future Meet-Up gatherings. It took on a life of its own and expanded to include links to contexts that I have found relevant to emergence from my study of the process over four decades. The style is mixed, with both first person and third. If I had time I would reformat this single document into hypertext.
PART I
THE EXPERIENCE
Background on Zuboff
Briefly, for those who may not be familiar. Shoshana Zuboff did her PhD research on the origins of the industrial revolution. On completion, and gaining a position at Harvard, she realized that a similar revolution was underway, the impact of new technologies (specifically computers and communication) on economic systems and that THEN was the time (1988-1994) to study the process first hand. This study led to her first book, In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, published in 1988. She witnessed how information sharing among all personnel gave a strong boost to the enterprise and began to severely reduce middle management. Unfortunately, this transformative process was reversed, the new technologies now used to reinforce old structures. Yet the potential remains, the theme of this new book, researched and written in collaboration with her husband, James Maxmin.
My overall personal experience in reading The Support Economy
I ordered the book, The Support Economy (TSE) from Amazon as soon as I rediscovered Shoshanna Zuboff, now regular contributing author of a one page essay in the new publication, Fast Company. Read four of her essays here. I had found her 1988 book, In the Age of the Smart Machine (ASM) very significant, and took actions on its behalf at the time.
I wrote in the book, ASM, that I
purchased it
I also wrote inside the cover of ASM: "I sense this will be a seminal book for me as were {Seymour} Sarason's "The Nature of Settings of Future Societies", {Donald} Michael's "On Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn", and {John} Platt's {SCIENCE Journal article} "What We Must Do". Yet, my copy of this vital book sat "unfinished" for almost three years! I need to explore my margin notes and other slips of paper inside this first book.
Another notation by myself at the front of ASM: "The issue of learning to find meaning in the symbolic is related to my issue of our Expanding Relevant Environment -- where the WHOLE cannot be chunked into Immediacy.” This is a reminder to myself to return to this vital concept: our Expanding Relevant Environment.
I also note that the title of Part 2 of In The Age of the Smart Machine is "Authority: The Spiritual Dimension of Power". I must seek linkage between this "spiritual" reference and the theme in The Support Economy that "value" must now emerge from the inner experiential world of individuals - NOT the material world. Are there roots in ASM to assist me in comprehending Part 3 of TSE.
I remember buying and giving a copy
of ASM to the dean of my college campus.
Later, at a meeting between college heads and representatives from
I started reading The
Support Economy with great excitement. It moved me on almost every page to
think deeply and query old assumptions (not an infrequent activity for me, but
not often so catalyzed by a single book).
A few truly new ideas were being presented, that I had not thought of
before - which is often rare in these domains of discourse (where my thinking
has been very expansive over the decades and there is little that I don't
recognize as but a variant of a previously experienced idea). Yet, I was
learning things of significance and looked forward to their further explication
later in the book. I decided to take
notes (on
Two major sections of my notes were labeled INSIGHTS and LIMITATIONS. I was also continuously aware of important issues being ignored/omitted from the text. This was OK, as no book can be comprehensive (as well I know with my own attempts) and practical decisions must be made for the intended audience - and some publication decisions are not fully under the authority of authors. Other "limitations" I viewed as entry points for dialog with Shoshana, in an attempt to provide her deep support in furthering the emergence of her key ideas.
One note I made, copy/paste here:
"READS LIKE A MYSTERY - HOW THE
SUPPORT ECONOMY CAN BE CREATED IS WITHHELD UNTIL THE END OF THE BOOK, BUT
That is how I must label my experience now, after finishing reading The Support Economy (TSE) by Zuboff and Maxmin: “One Colossal Disappointment”. In fact, I still have a few more pages to wade through (as this writing, since finished), the anticipated boredom and disappointment postponing my "finishing". But, when I turn the last page I will NOT have finished reading -- or more, I will not have achieved comprehension of the potentially significant ideas that motivated the long composing/writing of this valuable book. Why was Part Three of the book such a disappointment, after the excitement and anticipation when reading the first two parts?
Permit me to propose one interpretation as to why the parts of the book are so different. I don't make any claims that this is a true account.
After ASM was published, Shoshanna
became aware of the failure of her guardedly optimistic forecast for the role
of "informatting" on the deep practice of
business. New technologies made it possible for all stakeholders in a business,
including the front line laborers, to access
I also feel that all of significance in parts 1 and 2 could have been written many years ago - and may well have. But Shoshanna and James wanted more; they wanted to make an initial proposal for how significant change may occur. It is here, I believe, they encountered great difficulties (of which I will discuss later, in greater detail). I speak of epistemological and realworld-change difficulties, not any "personal" difficulties, which may also have been a factor in the delay.
Part 3 is almost beyond description. I will re-read it later, to give it a second chance. I have options of attempting an "objective" description or telling the story of my personal feeling and thoughts while attempting to read Part 3. As one who is frequently accused of being too abstract, it is difficult for me to say that the whole third part is "pure abstraction" -- except for a few, very short, attempted examples that (to me) did not ring true. And, these attempted examples gave me no grounding on which to anchor the abstractions. Did James Maxmin write part 3 (obviously in collaboration with Shoshana); and does James' mind move more comfortably in such ethereal domains of abstraction?
To conclude this heuristic, did the authors run up against the fully understandably awesome difficulty of conceptualizing the emergence of a nu epistemology/world - with its so many variations (and their use of fractal metaphors) that they finally chose to cease composing part 3 and sent it to press.
I do not claim that part 3 is worthless. It may be text that requires detailed analysis.
A personal aside: My first graduate course in psychology (I had no prior courses whatsoever in psychology as an undergraduate - I came to my graduate program in educational psychology with an existing PhD in physics) was to unpack meaning from Chomsky's recently published Syntactic Structures. It took us two weeks of class to complete the first page! I believe there are some very useful ideas woven within the text-mandala of Part 3 in TSE. Although I don't believe we will find a "blueprint for action", something the authors are emphatic themselves in claiming is not being promised. It may require deep study of Part 3 for me to “get” what was attempted to be shared.
Cues for
There are a few potentially useful comments on the format and style of the book, beyond the great difference I found between part 3 and the beginning of the book.
The first two parts of the book are filled with quantitative data, that I found very interesting -- but which may bog down others; who I would recommend just skimming ahead. Changes in many features of our economy over the century, and sometimes for shorter intervals, demonstrating accelerating growth are succinctly reported in both absolute quantity changes and percent changes. This uniformity of quantitative reporting is useful. Personally, I would like to have seen small graphs in common format -- and, in fantasy, a means of dynamically putting the data together to generate a "big picture". In a few places this quantitative reporting goes on for pages; yet what is said and implied within the data is important.
I would greatly have appreciated a glossary. The authors coin a great many terms, both for the new economy, and -- if needed -- for the old economy, for contrast. They also use some conventional terms in ways that appear unique to me. I have intentions of constructing such a glossary for this report, should my motivation persist.
Metaphors are sprinkled throughout the book, but most don't work well for me -- although the theme does call for metaphors (and more examples). The solar system metaphor was useful.
My Summary
The main theme is about fundamental shifts in deep economic structure and "enterprise logic" in "capitalism" (of the USA/West variety). The focus is on the shift from Proprietary Capitalism to Managerial Capitalism, the growth and entrenchment of Managerial Capitalism well beyond its proclaimed efficiency and blocking the next shift to Distributed Capitalism. The strong resistance of Managerial Capitalism to reform is well documented.
These "facts" are not
new. What is new (to my reading) is gaining an enhanced feeling perspective as
to how much really
The highly concrete aspects of Managerial Capitalism are contrasted with rather theoretical (and somewhat ethereal) concepts of Distributed Capitalism, often requiring great effort to entangle.
My general impression of Part 3, detailing the abstract theoretical features of Distributed Capitalism, was that somehow Managerial Capitalism had simply gone underground and had been smuggled back. But, this may only be a consequence of attempting to squeeze the whole of humanity into an economic framework -- revealing one of my perceived limitations of their work, that it remains econo-centric (more on this later).
But, I am afraid I may appear too negative. That I am devoting valuable time on this report demonstrates the significance I give the ideas emergent within The Support Economy. Indeed, as concepts of Deep Support and its potential augmentation by new technologies were sketched in the first parts of the book, I became very moved as they were resonating with many of my own ideas for a “NU” future. That an easy way to get there was NOT provided in Part 3, and my subsequent disappointment is more a failing on my part in expecting what I fully well know is not so trivial so as to be so briefly presented -- even if only in motivation and not program.
INSIGHTS from TSE
New Categories of Workers and Consumers
New categories of workers and consumers can appear and/or rapidly expand in great popularity among populations, dragging economic structures and practices with them. Shifts in consumption lead shifts in production – the reverse of “conventional enterprise logic”. TSE made this process crystal clear. First, by contrasting population distributions among categories of working and consuming during the era of Proprietary Capitalism (where most household items were either made at home or handcrafted nearby, where owners insisted on performing what management functions were needed – they might employ assistants but never delegated authority, etc.) With the shift to mass production we had a whole new category of factory worker, a whole hierarchical system of employed managers, and the household items now needed to be made outside the household as household members were moving to urban settings and working in factories. Women became primary decision-makers as to consumption. The economic success of the 20th century was not by increasing working and consuming in pre-existing categories, but by enabling an accelerating increase of people working and consuming in categories that either didn’t exist or were marginal in the earlier era.
As today we worry about work being outsourced and wonder
were Americans will find jobs in the future we forget that major shifts CREATE
TSE doesn’t give enough attention to the human cost of such disruptions, and how the methods by which major corporations are outsourcing can have no ethical justification. Yet, previously under- or un- developed peoples (in poorer areas) are now having the opportunity to work and consume as 20th century middle class Americans. What is not said in TSE is that according to meta-corporate organizations (WTO, WB, NAFTA, etc.) work can only be supported if it creates goods and services FOR EXPORT, and most consumption must be from IMPORTS. Under the new rules a people cannot produce for their own consumption. The New (Economic) World Order FORCES global economic interdependence to such an extent as to deny people any real say in how their local communities function. This secures corporations against revolution, an ingenious if not “evil” plan.
According to TSE, “support” is a label for the new working and consuming categories of the 21st Century.
Primary Insight:
DEEP SUPPORT
Deep support is a masterful conceptual scheme - with great potential. We need to examine variations on both "deep" and "support" WITHOUT distracting us from the integral-spiritual {value?} aspects of this holistic vision.
.
The full scope of deep support is explicitly left open ended. We can imagine a few cycles down the line, but then chaos forces divergence. The distant future is always in a resonating fractal cloud, that is highly distorting if not opaque, or pure virtual fantasy, when taken seriously.
As in days of yore, maps had frilly clouds of mystery at the borders. Contemporary science (and their many backers) arrogantly claim that they will eventually push the mystery clouds away. Often they populate the mystery domains with highly imaginative, creative fantasies (virtual processes, dark matter and dark energy, new terms added to old equations, etc.). A scandal? We must examine this within the whole complexity of human emergence to reveal this as scientific "business as usual". Yet, physicists have license to be bolder in their virtual speculations. In my view, they are only increasing the Mystery. Yet, a deep belief that mystery can be deleted may be very dangerous.
For a quality analysis of our state of scientific knowledge, read the works of Steve Fuller, specifically "Social Epistemology" and "Thomas Kuhn: a philosophical history for our times". Fuller takes you well beyond the adolescent SCIENCE WARS.
So, we must attend to variations of "deep" and "support"
SUPPORT
The book's exemplar for the objective of support is to gain a person TIME. Parts 1 and 2 convince us that pressures and stressor eat up any discretionary time -- and this includes time given to addictions and other time-wasting games. Many other things to do are becoming available, but we have no time for them. One feature of the proposed support economy is that it will be structured to enable us to buy time -- eventually a lot of time. Managerial Capitalism is a glutton for time - a big time time eater!
There are simple ways of buying time - hire others to do things for you. But for many people, the full cost of quality and honest assistance is not affordable -- in our contemporary economic system. Might it be different in other types of economic systems? The Support Economy claims to fill the bill. If so, how might we transit? Later I will suggest that “buying time” is not the primary motivation for creating a support economy.
The genius of Shoshana and James, is to clearly see how each individual can be supported (in all that they elect support for) -- primarily by effective use of the next generation of computer managed automated systems. The key for support is helping each person navigate this highly complex and changing data exchange interface (and its underlying programs). A lone person can only function at a very limited level. But, with "support" by special persons (advocates) to assist you interfacing with data exchange interfaces, tasks so awesome to be beyond imagination become quite feasible.
I am embellishing here; but I feel that Shoshana and James would approve.
Almost everyone devotes time being
an advocate in the support system, and is in turn supported. Tuned well,
supporting and being supported can be concurrent - with activities designed to
accomplish both. Effective support requires well tuned tools and techniques
with a digital interface
DEEP
I interpret the modifier "deep" to imply that support supports supporting more supporting support, etc. “Support” Grows, Adapts, Learns, Develops, Evolves and Emerges. “Support” feeds back on itself with accelerating synergy, exploding synergistically into the "feared" SINGULARITY == a world condition beyond the best imagination. Such DEEP SUPPORT is not only possible, but much needed as we brace for the tumult of this century and beyond.
PART II
RETROSPECTIVE COMMENTARY
This part of my report is my attempt to write an alternative Part 3 for The Support Economy, which I would re-title: The SEAF Society.
The Book’s Title is Too Conservative
I propose, as constructive critique, that the book title is not a sufficiently assertive attractor to the really radical shifts in perspectives and paradigms the authors are themselves not yet fully aware. However, the title is probably more suitable for marketing and promoting readership. I take issue with both primary terms in the title, "Support" and "Economy". Here I will only hint at why.
First and foremost, we need a shift from our econo-centric model of human society. "What is good for GM is good for the country". If a country's economy is successful, wealth will "trickle down" to meet all societal needs.
I will explicate deeper elsewhere. I propose that this limiting perspective of human societies, that the economic subsystem should dominate all other subsystems, probably was a stowaway with the takeover by Managerial Capitalism, as Zuboff and Maxmin describe. To deny an economic subsystem dominance does not claim that the health of a whole society doesn't depend on the health of its economic subsystem. It simply claims that the whole of a society’s functioning can have many forms that involve different patterns of interaction between the primary societal functional subsystems.
To cite a few other primary societal functional subsystems: educational, healthcare, governance, economic, energy, transportation, legal, agriculture, defense.
Thus, a minor edit of the title would replace "Economy" with "Society" -- although using just one term may be another example of "the slippery slope", discussed next in the context of choosing an alternative term for "Support".
Second, "Support" is a passive variant of a larger class of actions that have been given a diversity of names. Indeed, to focus attention to "Support" may well insure failure of "the movement".
I list here a few terms in a cluster of terms/concepts. These are all activities an individual's social/physical environment that may influence how that individual acts and changes. This list could be modified and expanded - it is presented only as an example.
THE SEAF CLUSTER
On definitions: I avoid dictionary definitions as they seldom distinguish close meanings. I checked some of these terms with GOOGLE's define, and was greatly disappointed. So, I will briefly state how I intend to use these terms, and how they are to be distinguished in the SEAF cluster.
SUPPORT
Support provides passive resources, either material or emotional. Support doesn't specifically assist or help or participate with the person in doing what they are being supported for. I discovered this important distinction when people were gracious in offering me emotional support but who were not willing or able to give me their time -- other than in talking with me, giving me "support".
ENABLE
Enable is also passive, but more specific than support. Often there are specific actions recommended or access to resources made readily available. Sometimes being "enabled" also implies being free to act, as being released from constraints that prohibited action. Enabling may involve "paving the way", "giving a push", and making getting started "easier".
AUGMENT
This is my favorite term, and I attribute my usage to Douglas Englebart. The dictionary says to "increase", but what Englebart discovered early in the development of computers was that they increased the potential of relevant actions to be taken by individuals. Englebart saw that the computer, then viewed as a tool only for big business, could "augment" the intelligence of personal users. Englebart invented such computer tools as the window, hypertext, the mouse, the one handed keyboard, and virtual communities. His first mainframe computer, called AUGMENT, was years ahead of its time. Englebart remains active operates his "Bootstrap Institute". Howard Rheingold in Tools for Thought presents a history of the "augmenting" concept as it emerged among the early pioneers creating computers. Tools for Thought is an eBook. Read about other pioneers in the augmentation movement.
Englebart's approach to augmentation reminds me of Bucky Fuller's approach to create inventions (patents) for tools that by their use would free humankind to become what was their potential. In this sense "augmenting" is also passive -- but Englebart and his followers are deeply concerned with actively introducing and facilitating use of augmenting tools. I would include some ideas as "augmenting" - as conceptual tools.
FACILIATATE
To facilitate is to actively intervene in the life of a person, to influence their behaviors so that they can accomplish what they would probably not have accomplished without facilitation. SEAF advocates facilitate. One important type of facilitation is to introduce a person to augmenting tools and the training processes whereby they can learn to use the tools.
ASSIST, HELP
Assistance is requested, usually for more simple tasks that need more than one hand to accomplish. Yet, many tasks go unperformed because a person is reluctant to request assistance. A SEAF system would provide an easy way for assistance to be requested. Helping is a popular term, mostly assisting, but also may include some facilitating.
COMFORT, ENCOURAGE, MOTIVATE, REWARD, REINFORCE
These activities are directed at the individual independent of the task to be performed. They are variations of what I have called "support". They may precede the action or may accompany the action, their focus being on the mindset of the person and less on the actual activity attempted.
INSTRUCT, TRAIN, COACH, GUIDE, LEAD, EDUCATE
These SEAF actions are directed towards changing the person so they may have new or improved competencies, knowledge, or attitudes. These have their own tools and techniques for performing these SEAF functions.
COLLABORATE
This has
emerged as a powerful process. As a SEAF
activity, it has the individual join with others to accomplish a JOINT
project. The individual may need to
modify his/er project to make it fit with the
projects of other members of the collaboration.
To collaborate is to join fully in a team. Uniquely individual objectives may be pursued
during collaborations (and then other team members may SEAF that person); but
the focus in collaboration is the MUTUAL objective. The
CRITIQUE
An honest critique is a very powerful SEAF process, and probably should be included in the four forming SEAF. To be diverted from wasted effort, that may even damage relationships, can be a very valuable intervention. Critiques may also suggest alternative routes; but the critique calls on the person to re-examine their goals, objectives, intentions, attitudes, and values. Most people will need to learn to perceive honest critique and distinguish it from negative criticism.
I propose that we resist selecting one of these terms to represent the cluster. When a term is elevated from a cluster to represent the cluster, the whole cluster necessarily acquires the connotations ascribed to the selected term. This is a subconscious process and cannot be easily "controlled" - if "controlling by consciousness" is even desired (or possible).
This phenomenon was first called to
my explicit attention by Douglas R.
Hofstadter - who labeled the phenomenon "the slippery slope". See:
Metamagical Themas, pp 151-158. He
was first to apply the concept to use of sexist labels. "HE"
for "she and he" or "
I have since discovered many
dangerous slippery slopes. One most
troublesome is elevating "genetics" to label the cluster including
"evolution", which implies that all "evolution" is determined
by
This points to a deep problem in sharing (beyond communicating) where single terms must carry an infection of bias.
For example, the choice of single terms to characterize Ages. The Space Age, or The Information Age. We now have The Decade of the Brain, etc. Before an "Age" or "Decade" is upon us, we are biased as to what is dominant in our minds in those times prior to the coming of the Age. When the Age is past, we look back with the bias of that future time (now present) and see the past "Age" differently, in retrospect. But, in both cases, the real issue is attempting to squeeze a whole period of human living into a single label.
Yet, how to we refer to a specific model or proposal for future-directed contemporary action? If we replace "Economy" by "Society" (and not "Culture"), with what term do we replace "Support"?
I recommend that we create an acronym comprised of some of the key terms from the cluster. I acknowledge that one can't legislate terminology, but I do need a term to use in the continuation of this discourse.
S.E.A.F. -- SEAF - A word that is readily pronounceable, but has no close associates. For Support-Enable-Augment-Facilitate. Towards A SEAF SOCIETY.
A SEAF Society already exists.
We just need to learn to perceive and think in new ways.
What is characteristic of our econo-centric society dominated by managerial capitalism (and other power domains) is that economic value is ascribed to some activities in the SEAF cluster and excludes others.
A "shadow economy" has been used to label some of those activities currently not ascribed economic value: parenting, homemaking, shopping, learning, and commuting. However, the new "employment and consumption" categories forecast for a relationship (and not transactional) and distributed economy take us beyond these "shadow economy" categories. And THIS is where Zuboff and Maxmin are really onto thing vitally significant!
But first, some comments on issues providing context for SEAF. Why has the "shadow economy" remained outside the formal economy?
Proposition: There is a causal relationship between what activities are ascribed formal economic value and the proximity of those activities to the financial subsystem (the money system).
Value is multi-dimensional; yet we force all activities to be projected on the linear dimension of monetary value. That we can perform such a projection doesn't make it objective real, although assigning a monetary value to a thing or activity does impact our perception and thus our behavior. How much secure money would you require to murder another person? Does everyone "have a price"? How much would it cost for you to sell that very personal gift given to you long ago which you cherish? A million dollars? YES, we can make such comparisons, and sometimes make the exchange.
Projections from higher dimensional structures to representational structures with lesser dimensions usually involve (sometimes serious) distortions.
For example, there are alternative
ways of projecting points on a spherical surface (e.g., the Earth) onto a flat
map. The projection of the land mass
boundaries we are most familiar with (the Mercator projection) best represents
the SHAPE of the coastlines and most suitable for navigation; but highly
distorts the size of areas (especially near the poles, as shown by the very
large island of Greenland). It also
shrinks the size of
Just because some practices lead to quantification [the association of numbers to operations (of measurement)] and these numbers can be mathematically processed to yield other numbers DOES NOT INSURE MEANING to these computed numbers. For example, numerals on the backs of football players don't ascribe quantitative meaning to their association. The sum of jersey back numbers of a team in play at any time doesn't have meaning.
But there are more serious misuses of quantification. In Basic Concepts of Measurement, Brian Ellis distinguishes four types of number scales: Nominal, Ordinal, Linear Interval, and Ratio. He also describes what mathematical operations are (or are not) valid to apply if your numbers are from each type of scale. What is revealing is that most statistical operations applied to data is valid only if the numbers are from a ratio scale. That is, for taking averages of students grades, the amount of learning for a grade change between 90 and 95 must be the same as for the amount of learning between any other 5 percent points scale, such as between 60 and 65. Unless this is the case, taking an average is mathematically and scientifically meaningless. Yet, it is done all the time - and because the averages generated don't shout out, "we are not valid", and both teachers and students don't know the difference - we continue to use them.
The same applies to mathematical operations on monetary numbers assumed to measure value. If the value of an item, projected on a monetary scale is not a ratio scale (that preserves interval differences) then most mathematical operations in business are invalid. Why don't we get into trouble? We do, but we don't know it -- "things" don't always go as we would like, and we blame it on whoever we can. We seldom consider that the use of a one dimensional value system for exchange is the source of much of our difficulty. The confusion from this invalid mathematics gives permission to the movers and shakers of money to play their games.
But, these monetary value assignments are very unstable -- even for those things which we expect to have monetary value. Also, this assignment of monetary value IS NOT TRANSITIVE. If you value item A over item B, and value item B over item C, it does not hold that you necessarily value item A over item C. Monetary value is not transitive - yet we behave economically as if it was.
Money can be used to make more money. This is true today, but was not always true, and need not be necessarily true in the future. Indeed, it is a very dangerous practice, even when honestly regulated.
Zuboff and Maxmin include "investment" as a process in their support economy. "Investment" could be generalized to include goods/actions voluntarily given to an individual (or organization) so as to SEAF their intended actions -- with no anticipated direct return on the "investment". That the SEAFed intended actions add value to the world, and thus indirectly to the "investors", may be well sufficient in a SEAF society.
Yet, contemporary monetary investment is often usury - money provided with the intention of gouging more money back. That the invested money adds value to the world is not important; what is important for the money investor is that their investment is relatively secure and potentially lucrative. Indeed, the most lucrative investments today actually destroy value for the world and the future of our children.
I believe that a support economy will not be successful unless it simultaneously reforms how the financial systems (and corporations) operate, and regulates deception.
In analogy. We cannot mix intelligence gathering and covert actions into one agency; or even permit those who will digest and act on intelligence to have any influence whatsoever on the intelligence gathering process. This independence is never granted because the power elite intend to bend intelligence to their personal needs. Thus, in our analogy, we cannot mix creative and productive economic organizations with the system that performs the accounting for transactions. When money can be created by processing economic transactions, we have an explosive mixture.
Those who work within financial systems can earn income as workers in any economic system. This will include "workers" who SEAF the operations of the financial systems (including so-called "managers" earning a salary, as any other "worker"). What should not be permitted is that anyone associated with financial systems gain additional money by providing "special" favors to others.
We have recently seen how removing the regulation prohibiting the mixing of accounting and analyst functions in single organizations SEAFed corruption. It is an interesting exercise to trace the process and forces involved in changing this regulation.
Alternative money/exchange systems have been under design and experimentation for decades. There is an extensive literature critical of how financial and money systems have been historically engineered to make those involved much richer and powerful -- as well as an extensive literature on alternatives. To start, investigate the works of Thomas Greco and follow the links.
Coupled with serious critique of financial systems is an equally significant critique of the system of corporations. There is also an extensive literature on this. I recommend one start with the works of and links from David C. Korten .
I can understand why Zuboff and Maxmin are silent on these issues (as serious as the tyranny of managerial capitalism), as they would not gain the readership they desire. It would be an end to their influence if they were dumped into the erroneously perceived category of troublemakers characterized by Greco and Korten. Yet, for those who seriously wish to see some of the changes they forecast actually occur, these two complementary issues (finance/money and corporate power) must not be ignored.
While in this vein, I probably should mention some other issues of significance. The success of managerial capitalism must be attributed, in great part, to their mastery of deception, theft, and exploitation.
It is possible to conceive of a form of managerial capitalism where these "evil" practices are strongly regulated and thus managerial capitalism may have achieved success on its own merits (the factor cited by Zuboff and Maxmin related to the efficiencies of mass production). However, that is not OUR history. Exploitation goes beyond "theft" to include environmental and ecological destruction (the distinction is important but will not be explicated here). With technologically SEAFed "corporate globalization", these "evils" have become dominant factors in contemporary crises.
Distributed practices, as forecast for a support
economy, are critically dependent on honest and accurate information and
knowledge access. This is currently impossible to the vast many because of
narrow corporate control of mass media
SEAF Infrastructure for DOING (by individuals, teams or organizations -- which I will label as a cluster "orgs" for organisms and/or organizations -- living systems a la James Miller).
Orgs interact with their environments. At one level conceived of as physical systems comprised of matter and energy. At another level there are material structures (buildings, machines, instruments, tools, supplies, etc.). Embedded in these physical and material environments are other orgs (individuals, teams, organizations) - themselves (on scientific analysis) comprised also of matter and energy. All the above is, however, conjecture and construction on the part of YOU (and your cohorts) trying to make sense of your conscious experientials.
Orgs can simply react to the immediacy of their changing environments. Orgs can learn by variations of conditioning processes. Orgs change their environments as they are changed by their environments. This holds for fish in the sea, early humans living in tribes, humans interacting with other humans in home, work and more public environments. The environments of orgs "support" what the orgs "do" in those environments; they also limit what an org might do by not providing support. Any of the activities from the SEAF cluster can effect what an org does or doesn't do. So what is new?
With human orgs we have the co-evolution of language processes and the emergence of future-projected intentions. Via implicit intentions human orgs, throughout history, have altered the SEAF aspects of their environments. "Natural selection" is at work in human manipulation of their environments, specifically their SEAF potentials. Due to many factors we won't delve into at this time, selection of SEAF potentials favored some and worked against others. As Zuboff and Maxim describe, the SEAF potentials shifted during what we call the Industrial Revolution, with a more recent shift in SEAF potentials favoring the practices of managerial capitalism, and against the practices of proprietary capitalism -- and they forecast new SEAF potentials will favor a distributed, relationship, support capitalism.
What is emerging as unique is the degree to which SEAF potentials can be made explicit and intentionally created. This is not really new, but the new technological advancements in processing information (coded in semiotic structures such as text, data, and other audio/visual media) fuel the engineered creation of SEAF potentials. These new SEAF potentials, in turn, enable human orgs to imagine new things to do and things to create - including new patterns of relationships and types of organizations.
What Zuboff and Maxmin don't note in their book is how limited the development of SEAF potentials will be IF restricted to activity within an economy, and within an economy dominating an econo-centric society. This leads them to a limiting view of consumers, workers and advocates.
For example, they focus primarily on the support (SEAF) needs of the new individual, who has discovered his/er potential for self-determination. They view the new determinations available as new modes of consumption (which they properly generalize beyond the simplistic luxury consumption at shopping malls -- to all individual’s exchanges with their environments). The new consumer discovers a vast array of things to do and things to buy - an overload of choices -- and it is to support the new consumer in making these choices that a new economy will emerge - a support economy.
At the first, and superficial level, the support buys time. By employing others to do things for them, paying "cash" for "time", the new consumer can do more -- because they have more time. I fear that this will not satisfy the new consumer, just as building new roads doesn't reduce traffic congestion. No matter how much "time" is released by buying support, new choices will more than fill the gap. Yet, buying time will be important.
What SEAF does, more significantly, is to widen the field of choice for the individual. Individuals, using SEAF, can do things they could not imagine doing without SEAF. SEAF provided by computers is a clear example, even though learning to use and maintaining computer systems consumes time. Even here, the potential doings augmented by computers is severely limited by the lack of SEAF for training and coaching individuals in using the tools they already have available. However, imaginative innovators are rapidly creating new SEAF potentials (such as GOOGLE, see ahead) that will make using SEAF more and more efficient. It is in this sense of SEAF generating SEAF that Zuboff and Maxmin mean (to me) by DEEP SUPPORT (deep SEAF).
But, there is more to SEAF than providing for the
consumer. There is also the worker, to
include anyone doing things for an economic organization (or non-economic
organization). Mass production was made
possible by new SEAF potentials - both the workplace tools and procedures
Zuboff and Maxmin rightly point out that individuals (consumers and workers) need personalized SEAF to make full use of SEAF. That is, a SEAF system must explicitly seek out to determine the needs and desires of each individual to use the SEAF. It is too much to expect any individual to scope-out what is available in their SEAF and to prepare themselves to effectively utilize SEAF potentials. Specialists in tailoring SEAF to individuals are needed, and are called "advocates" in The Support Economy.
However, advocates are themselves only workers in the new SEAF economy -- and they will themselves need advocates. In the emergent SEAF society, classifying a person as a consumer, worker, or advocate will not be possible. Each individual person, at different moments of the day, or during different periods of their lives, will function as all three: consumer, worker, and advocate.
How might we distinguish between these three functions - if such distinctions are appropriate (we can only tell after trying).
An org functions as consumer when what they do is primarily to satisfy their own needs and desires. That there may be spin-offs that provide SEAF for others is OK, so long as they would probably NOT do as they do if it were NOT for themselves (or to contribute to a deep personal relationship with another).
An org functions as a worker when what they do is primarily to contribute to the SEAF for others, both directly and indirectly. That there may be personal satisfactions is also OK; but the doing would probably not be done if it were not from a responsibility to the larger whole -- and as not be a shirker/parasite. However, it should be rare when an individual is required to perform specific work at a specific time when not freely agreed upon in advance.
An org functions as an advocate when what they do is primarily to permit another individual to use their SEAF, as either consumer or worker. There may be personal satisfaction performing as an advocate, as well as contributing to the creation and maintenance of the overall SEAF system (a worker function). However, the individual would not function as advocate if there were not a specific other person needing their advocacy. It should be noted that functioning as an advocate will require time and effort working with the SEAF system, so as to enable them to be an advocate for a specific person, BUT when not -- at that time, directly working with the advocee.
I am avoiding, as do Zuboff and Maxmin, how to SEAF the SEAF society. I do have specific ideas, but that is a long story, beyond the scope of this discourse. However, we may attempt leaping ahead and imagining how such an system of orgs embedded in SEAF system might be structured, organized and function.
Network is a key term for SEAF.
A few useful ideas about networks (and systems, holarchies, and ecologies).
The basic architecture of a network is clear - it is composed of nodes and links, visualized by points connected by lines. We may complexify the system by using different kinds of nodes (different colors, shapes and sizes of the visual "points") and links (different color, thickness and curvature of visual "lines" connecting points).
Actually there are two "figure/ground" perspectives for a network. In one perspective, the nodes are primary and the links defined by their connecting the nodes. This is the most popular perspective. The other perspective views the links (relationships) as primary, the nodes being only "outcomes" of the relationships. An example of the latter would be the imagined "dyad", a bonding relationship between two persons who devote themselves to their relationship and let the relationship redefine who they are, as individuals. In some human cultures, a person is defined by the convergence of relationships and is not viewed as having an intrinsic self independent of the relationships. Indeed, Zuboff and Maxmin postulate that this is how human persons viewed themselves ("I am the son of my father", etc) until recently liberated by the riches of consuming in a mass production society.
If we were to continue our speculation, we might consider a "fractal-type" network where if we zoom in on a node it expands into another network -- and we may propose some (hidden) links between a node in the node and another node in the larger network. I speculate that this may be somehow related to the mathematical ideas of spatial dimensions beyond three, additional dimensions that are "coiled".
There is also a vast mathematical literature on networks, some of which has applications in electrical and road networks, and more recently in computer circuit and neural networks.
For our purposes, with SEAF, we can distinguish three basic network types.
First there are is the network of hardware components, computers and peripherals -- as well as machines that may be operated by the computers. These hardware nodes may be connected by wires or cables (for transmission of electricity or light) or via electromagnetic radiation (so-called wireless). A material "document", either printed or otherwise created (including graphics, etc. and audio/video creations capable of "playback") will be included as nodes in the material network.
The second network has its nodes each individual human person (or org) that utilize the hardware nodes. A person may use more than one hardware node. Persons at hardware nodes may interact with information stored within the hardware network OR may communicate with other individuals located at other hardware nodes. Patterns of interpersonal interaction over hardware networks can emerge as so-called "virtual" communities or organizations. Individuals may also interact by the physical exchange of material items, such as documents -- as well as exchanging email.
The third network has as its nodes "packets of information". A book will be one node in this network, no matter how many copies were published nor where they are stored. Before the computer nodes in the information (or knowledge) network we cited by references. Today we can make hypertext links between knowledge nodes. How the concept of hypertext - or "networked knowledge" can be traced back to the marginalia in pre-printing manuscripts, read Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing by Jay David Bolter (1991).
Human history can be viewed as the dynamic interaction, over time, of these three networks. This many millennial human evolution continues to accelerate.
One overview of these three
networks assigns reality priority to the material, then the personal, and
finally to the knowledge networks.
However, there are good arguments to reverse this assignment of reality
priority.
Indeed, many of our contemporary disagreements about "truth" can be mediated when it is realized that all "empirical" confirmation is based on the material study of texts (documents) and NOT so-called "observed reality". Observations are recorded and it is the recordings that are always consulted. Even when further experiments are called for, it is the reports of those further experiments that are consulted in judgments of "truth".
Science, without any loss of "authority", can
be redefined as the study of patterns in
Deception in the media is based on the confusion of these "realities". Naive viewers tend to believe that all reports represent objective reality -- and don't comprehend that the assessment of competing "truths" can be done ONLY by a careful study of different text/reports and the reports of the histories of these documents. There can be no going back to an "objective reality" to assess the accuracy of a report.
SYSTEMS are a distinct and alternative form of reality, in comparison to NETWORKS.
The literature is filled with both open and implied competition between "systems" people/ideas and "network" people/ideas. Systems people caricature network people as undisciplined and loose. Network people caricature systems people as obsessively controlling. These confusions come from the specific situations where systems and network ideas are encountered.
A system description always has a network skeleton. Remember, we are discussing language descriptions of systems and networks, not "objective" systems or networks. The components of a system are nodes in a network. What are added to this network to make it a system are restrictions on how the nodes can relate. A system is a formally constrained network.
Networks, as entities cannot do anything other than facilitate interaction between nodes. When node-node interaction is constrained, the actions of nodes is focused and limited, and enables the whole, the system, to act as an entity. Many networks of persons are disappointed that they (as a collective) don't accomplish anything (other than a simple sum of their individual actions). The cliché that "as system is more than a sum of its parts" has its truth in the ability of being less (node freedom) generating more (coordinated action of nodes leading to the emergence of "the system" as a viable entity).
No human system (org) is precisely constraining of individual human action, and thus has networking aspects. No human social systems last forever. The future of SEAF may be viewed as the dynamics of viable systems temporarily emerging from networking individuals -- acting as systems as needed -- and then dissolving back to networks. Advocate teams are systems that can accomplish specific tasks. Each individual stimulates a team formation process -- that attracts persons from the larger SEAF network to organize as a SEAF team of advocates. A rich accessible knowledge SEAF network will enable teams to emerge on need -- as needs are "advertised" on the SEAF network. I propose we call such entities SysNets.
There will be higher order systems, where teams organize with other teams. These larger organizations will always emerge from bottom-up processes, based on the needs and desires of orgs (individuals and teams) as reflected in the information accessible to all.
To be complete, I need to at least mention two other basic forms, along with NETWORKS and SYSTEMS: HOLARCHIES and ECOLOGIES.
HOLARCHY is a term coined by Arthur Koestler to label what James Greer Miller, in his monumental book Living Systems, calls a Nested Hierarchy (as distinct from Echelon Hierarchies - or typified by organizational charts where "levels" are "layered" and not "nested"). Holarchies may be viewed as systems within systems within systems. Atoms organize to molecular systems, which organize into macro-molecular systems, which organize into biological cells, which organize into tissues and organs, which organize into functional subsystems (respiratory, circulator, muscular, etc.) and multi-cellular organisms. Both Miller and Koestler continue to view social/cultural organizing as holarhical or nested hierarchical.
An ECOLOGY is a network of networks, holarchies and systems. It involves interaction of both individual organisms and species, along with the physical environment. The physical environment, over time is actually created/modified by the ecology. For example the chemical composition of both the atmosphere and ocean is the "breathe" of the biosphere.
An important distinction needs to be made between "conservation", "environmental", and "ecological" perspectives and issues.
Conservation identifies specific organisms or species and seeks to control their populations. Specifically, to conserve specific species in prescribed areas, and to avoid extinction.
Environmental perspectives look to the superficial distribution of species in a region and issues attempt to preserve or modify the environment. This is usually done for the use of that environment by humans, even if only to preserve a wilderness environment for controlled recreation.
Ecological organizations are concerned with the longer term changes in the ecology of a region. The impact of global warming is an ecological issue.
Economic and political organizations confuse these distinctions for their private purposes.
There is debate on whether the
whole of the biosphere is more than an ecology. The
In a more stable future, with well established SEAF systems, what will individuals be doing?
Will they be each pursuing highly personalized projects, each expecting SEAF teams? Or, will most people be acting as part of teams and larger ventures, where they gain personal satisfaction from good work and their creative contribution to collaborative projects? Even when an individual has a powerful insight - to pursue it requires not SEAF for the individual but a SEAF team to form a collaborative expedition of those who adopt the insight as also their own and together they work to fulfill a mutual dream. There will be "ample room" for those rare "artists" who need SEAF for their highly personal creativity. I don't expect the vast majority of the population to be such highly gifted, deeply personal, artists.
I do not fear a future full of selfish individuals, each wanting to do THEIR thing and have ample SEAF systems as personal servants. I expect there may be some individuals (probably mentally disabled) who will be frustrated that ample SEAF is not available for them. Even if a majority seeks SEAF for highly personalized endeavors, SEAF would work IF they are also willing to participate in SEAF for others.
Everyone will be connected to a viable SEAF system, as consumer, worker, and advocate. Everyone will have the ability to engage in realtime dialog with anyone else, through augmented virtual presence. A person's advocate can live anywhere on the planet, and yet have close P2P interaction.
Automated self-organizing learning systems will SEAF each person in selecting the advocates, advocatees and other persons to provide SEAF services. This will require highly sophisticated system for authenticity (proof of identity) and personal security (privacy). Each person's "track in cyberspace" will be recorded and processed; but each individual will also control access to this information.. An excellent discourse on these two complementary needs is provided by David Brin in The Transparent Society .
SEAF and Education
I find a deep resonance between Zuboff and Maxmin's vision (manifested in economic processes) and my own radical view of education, which I call Learners for Quality Education (LQE for short). In LQE it is the learner (not the student) who is the primary decider as what they will do to learn (and learn-to-learn, and learn-to-learn-to-learn). Content experts will be consulted, but they will not determine "curricula" or "methodology".
This will work only when learners, themselves, learn the need for an LQE system and learn to be responsible participants within the whole system. Instead of "students" being consumers of services provided by educational institutions (students are not functional components of contemporary educational systems), they are the primary components of such systems - actively participating in the design, management, and maintenance of the educational systems.
In a dynamic LQE system, everyone is a learner/educator; in analogy with TSE's consumer/producer. I would add an LQE advocate to the mix.
Temporarily, see a paper on LQE .
It may be that the primary activity of humans, in the future, will be participants in "organizing for learning and learning for organizing" (my new definition of "education"). At one time it was proposed that our future would be labeled A Learning Society.
SEAF EXEMPLAR: GOOGLE and GOOGLE
ANSWERS
Google went public on Wall Street today (
"Virtually everything about Google's decision to go public is a departure from standard practice." says John Markoff of the New York Times.
"Started in 1998, Google
challenged the common wisdom of the time that searching the Web would not be a
valuable technology but essentially a commodity freely offered by the lucrative
portals like
The founders preface their offerings with an "An Owners Manual" for Google, outlining how they viewed Google as different from the standard.
Also, by Alex Berenson.
Librarians and other research consulting systems have long been providing useful service to individuals.
GOOGLE ANSWERS is a new venture that is providing quality service at low cost. You can compose your question and state how much you would pay.
Some offer as low as $2. GOOGLE takes 50 cents for each question answered. Qualified persons in the GOOGLE ANSWER NETWORK select questions and propose answers. You may further qualify your question and have personal dialog with your answerer. Others may contribute additional comments, for free. You can tip your answerer, and you are asked to rate them.
All questions and answers can be viewed on Google Answers. GOOGLE ANSWER is but one of many SEAF services in development. There are probably many other SEAF services in the pipeline.