Ubiquitous Connectivity and Pervasive Prosperity

Some of you may have heard of the "one laptop per child" initiative that aims to provide $100 laptops, powered by hand-cranks or foot-pedals, to children in developing countries. While such an initiative is laudable in its own right, it seems to come from a "ubiquitous computing," or computing-centric (or computation/device/gadget-centric) mentality. I've never favoured this view; from where I sit, it's ubiquitous connectivity that defines the dominant force that is reshaping contemporary society, through its concomitant effect of pervasive proximity. Connect two people who were not previously connected and magic happens (regardless of what this stupidity claims to say; as a contrast, this study asked the right questions).

Mobile devices have infiltrated deep into rural areas in developing and emerging countries, and the fact of connectivity has indeed changed lives for the better. Now, Treehugger reports that a new organization, Green Wi-Fi, is bringing the ability to connect all of these $100 laptops in ultra-low cost, solar-powered, mesh networks that can be provided anywhere there is sun.

Green WiFi is committed to providing solar powered access to global information and educational resources for developing nation K-12 school children striving for knowledge in a digitally divided world. There are approximately 3 billion people under the age of 15 living in developing nations. 42 percent of the developing world's population is below the age of 15. Green WiFi was founded on the principle that the welfare of our world is dependent, in large part, on providing these children with free and open access to the world's information.

As business people, we recognize the inherent infrastructure and associated cost challenges of providing free and ubiquitous internet access to developing nations. This is why Green WiFi has developed a WiFi solution that leverages low cost components, the latest advancements in solar power technologies, open source software and Java to deliver a self sustaining, self healing, WiFi grid network solution that is cost effective and easy to deploy.

This initiative is consistent with the post-industrial approach to infrastructure, called "leap-frog" technology.

"Leapfrogging" is the notion that areas which have poorly-developed technology or economic bases can move themselves forward rapidly through the adoption of modern systems without going through intermediary steps. We see this happening all around us: you don't need a 20th century industrial base to build a 21st century bio/nano/information economy.

Rather than following the already-developed nations in the same course of "progress," leapfrogging means that developing regions can experiment with emerging tools, models and ideas for building their societies.

One of my favourites in this category is the Light Up The World project, "the first humanitarian organization to utilize renewable energy and solid-state lighting technologies to bring affordable, safe, healthy, efficient, and environmentally responsible illumination to people who do not have access to power for adequate lighting." Think solar cells, "pico wind turbines," and 1 watt, high intensity, white LEDs (cheap, long-lasting and efficient; $20 for 50,000 hours of light, compared to $75 for compact flourescent that needs four times the power, or $1250 for the kerosene lamps typically used in rural villages).

The Slashdot commentary on this topic is mostly interesting (aside from the expected, simplistic, and uninformed response of "why buy them computing when they haven't got food or water"). Even more interesting is the evolution of Slashdot readers' awareness and sensitivity to issues of appropriate and sustainable global social development that I have observed over the last decade.

There's hope for this ol' world yet, I suppose.

[Technorati tags: green wifi | world changing | olpc | one laptop per child | light up the world | sustainable development | leapfrogging | leapfrog technology]

Cross-Border Blogging

The Wall Street Journal interviews Canadian-born, Israeli journalist and blogger, Lisa Goldman, concerning the ongoing conversation that is occurring between Israelis and Lebanese, despite the ever-present terror of bombs falling around them.

The dialogue is all the more unusual since the populations of the two countries had few ways to interact even before the fighting began. Lebanese law prohibits Israelis from entering the country, and there are no phone connections between the two states.

Most of the bloggers in this small group are Western-educated. Some attended the same universities but communicated for the first time in a comment thread on one another's blogs. Of course, on a blog, it is hard to tell whether a given contributor is in a bombed-out neighborhood in Beirut or an apartment in the U.S.

Lisa sums up the frustration and real tragedy of this conflict this way: ""So when you weep, weep for all of us -- Lebanese and Israelis ... as we watch our dream of peace destroyed by insane religious fanatics.""

[Technorati tags: lisa goldman | israel | lebanon]

The Tension of Middle East Polarities

I have, for the most part, refrained from publicly blogging or commenting on the war raging between Israel and Lebanon, and on the media coverage thereof. I will admit that I am terribly torn over the horror that is unfolding, and therefore, I find it exceptionally difficult to be anything close to rationally analytic, or even keenly perceptive, of the dynamics of the situation. I curse the evil intent of the Hezbollah, and despair over the tragic loss of life among hundreds of innocents (and orders of magnitude greater numbers of injured, and those that have lost livelihoods and lifetimes).

Broad, carefully constructed, and well-considered perspectives are impossible to find among the massmedia - and much of the North American reportage that I have seen (and I am not at all glued to the coverage) smells of larger political agendas at best, and demonstrates an uncomfortable, self-important, fatuousness at worst.

After hearing her on a CBC interview, I've begun reading Lisa Goldman's blog, On the Face. Lisa is a Canadian-Israeli reporter in Tel Aviv who gets to the humanity behind the sensational stories, such as this one about children "signing" tank missles. Today, she has a post about two editors of Beirut and Tel Aviv localized editions of what appears to be a global entertainment magazine, Time Out. Amir Ben-David, the Israeli editor, writing about his friend, the Beirut editor:

Ramsay Short, the editor of Time Out Beirut – the first edition was published just a few days before the conference – proved to be relaxed, friendly, and easygoing. The guy who wrote, The Hedonist’s Guide to Beirut, and enjoys being a DJ of electro music in bars during his spare time would have fit easily into Tel Aviv.

Now he is hiding in his house near the Beirut port, terrified of the Israeli bombs. You will be able to read about his depressing experiences and his even more depressing conclusions in this article. His words are full of rage, unfiltered and uncensored. It is not easy for an Israeli to read them. Even someone who supports “Israel’s strong response” to Hizbollah’s provocation should ask himself if hurting hundreds of thousands of Lebanese citizens and pursuers of peace like Ramsay Short and making them into sworn haters of Israel is the right thing to do under these circumstances.

Lisa continues with comments drawn from a conversation she had with Ben-David:

Amir stresses that he believes an Israeli military response to the Hezbollah attack was justified. "I am not a pacifist or naïve," he said. "I know what neighbourhood we live in. But still, it is possible to question the way we have reacted, and what we have done to the Lebanese people."

...

The response of Barak and those who supported the withdrawal [from southern Lebanon in 2000] was to promise that if Hezbollah did attack, Israel would respond with full military force.

That is why there is a wide Israeli consensus in support of the current IDF operations in Lebanon, even amongst most of the prominent supporters of the centre-left position - despite their great discomfort with the reports of the civilian deaths and destruction of infrastructure. There is a sense that Israel simply had no choice. Amir wonders if we are failing to ask the right questions, and I think that is fair enough. Israelis are proud of their strong democracy and of their ability to engage in self-examination; I don't see any contradiction between loving and supporting one's country and maintaining one's ability to ask difficult questions even during a time of crisis. Quite the contrary, in fact. Especially after what happened yesterday in Qana.

The world's seeming swiftness and vociferousness to condemn Israel as the primary aggressor ignores - indeed, precludes - our collective ability to ask the requisite difficult questions of all parties. Political rhetoric that obfuscates fundamentalist agendas from all sides prevents finding a solution that will enable the most fundamental human right of all: the right to live for Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Afghanis, and the thousands of Western soldiers who are being sent to risk their lives throughout the greater region.

[Technorati tags: israel | lebanon | hezbollah | lisa goldman | time out | amir ben-david | ramsey short]

Will the Real David Weinberger Please Stand Up?

David raises an interesting question about identity over at Joho the Blog:

Identity isn't a continuum with anonymity at one end and documented, certified, authenticated ID on the other. It probably never was and it certainly isn't online. There's a third vertex: Pseudonymity. Pseudonyms online are not midway between anonymity and ID. They're different in kind, but enough on the same plane that any discussion of anonymity and ID that does not include pseudonyms is likely to go wrong.

It's hard to find an exact analog to this in the real world. [How about costume parties? MF] Social roles aren't really the same as pseudonyms. But that means that we have to be extra special careful to include pseudonyms in our thinking so we don't port inappropriate real world schema into the new virtual world, especially since the porting is being done top down by the traditional fear-based organizations (big corps and governments).

Here's my response:

What David is really asking about (or rather, what I hear him asking about) is the construction of identity. I think that we as a society have become so dependent on the visual and tangible that we mistake construction of identity with visual familiarity. The visual aspect is manifest in everything from the North American/European obsession with body image to the parental fear over our young children trusting familiar strangers in parks. The tangible aspect is revealed in the choice of language - "virtual" used in reference to that which exists in cyberspace, in dichotomous opposition to "real," referring to that which exists in physical space.

David's strawman identity continuum reflects this erroneous dichotomy (i.e., virtual::real mapped onto anonymous::certified-grade-a) which is, I think, an artefact of the former dominance of the visual in modern society. In the UCaPP environment of our contemporary world, the dominant sensation is tactile, not visual (tactile as distinct from tangible); complex networks of relationships are key to the construction of identity.

The problem with social roles (in traditional role theory) is that they tend to be defined as discrete, fragmentary and contingent. Not so when they are considered as complex patterns of effects in relationships (this was the underlying premise of my master's thesis on Role*). In this context, I would understand each instance of pseudonymity as one (among many) emergent identities in the context of a complex environment of relationships, that does not correspond with either a visual, or a nominative (and possibly others already defined by regulatory or legislative agencies, for instance) identity.

I agree wholeheartedly that identity schema porting done by fear-based organizations is problematic in the extreme. The type of derivative identity construction from a set of digiSelves haphazardly gathered against a ground of paranoia and fear gives us the error-filled TSA watchlists, and cases of immoral and illegal detentions and renditions. Sadly, the type of complexity thinking required to solve this conundrum seems to be mutually exclusive with BAH (bureaucratic, administrative, hierarchical) organizations in general, and authoritarian organizations in particular.

[Technorati tags: david weinberger | identity | rolestar]

John Hodgman Explains Net Neutrality

The Daily Show's John "I'm a PC" Hodgman explains the issue of net neutrality. And you know, the Internet might well become a series of tubes.

[Technorati tags: net neutrality | john hodgman | daily show]

The Madness of King George

Republic: noun.

1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch.
2. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens.
3. A political descriptor that once could be applied to the United States of America, but effectively, no longer.

At least not according to an op-ed piece from the New York Times, that was re-published by the International Herald Tribune.

Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever- cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.

The article makes it clear that the so-called war on terror is a nominal justification to right what some in power consider as the wrongs learned from Watergate and the Iran-Contra scandal. The problems in those situations, according to the secular monarchists in the U.S. administration, were not due to over-reaching presidential power, but to the opposite: insufficient presidential power that would have made such illegal and immoral actions within the realm of presidential prerogative.

Jane Mayer provided a close look at this effort to undermine the constitutional separation of powers in a chilling article in the July 3 issue of The New Yorker. She showed how it grew out of Vice President Dick Cheney's long and deeply held conviction that the real lesson of Watergate and the later Iran-Contra debacle was that the president needed more power.

To a disturbing degree, the horror of Sept. 11 became an excuse to take up this cause behind the shield of Americans' deep insecurity. The results have been devastating. Civil liberties have been trampled. The nation's image as a champion of human rights has been gravely harmed. Prisoners have been abused, tortured and even killed at the prisons we know about. American agents "disappear" people, some entirely innocent, and send them off to torture chambers in distant lands. Hundreds of innocent men have been jailed at Guantánamo without charges or rights. And Congress has shirked its duty to correct this out of fear of being painted as pro-terrorist at election time.

The depictions in the latter paragraph are all too familiar in the contemporary world. They are usually applied (at least in the Western massmedia) to petty dictators, leaders of so-called banana republics, mass murderers residing in imperial palaces, and many of those accused by the U.S. of harbouring, funding, or otherwise supporting terrorists. That the U.S. has lost the respect (not to mention sympathy) of most of the rest of the world is unfortunate. That it has lost the ability to claim the moral high ground, and serve as an exemplar of liberty, justice and democracy is a travesty and a tragic loss for the world.

The question is not specifically whether what the President is doing is technically legal (even though it is not, according to the U.S. Supreme Court), nor whether his actions can be made technically legal by a Congress blinded by partisan considerations. The question for me is the same as always: are the resulting effects those that the American people want to create? Abrogating the rule of law. Participating in activities that could easily be classified as war crimes that, in turn, are used against captured American soldiers, journalists and others. Creating massive disruption in the lives and livelihoods of thousands of innocent people. Creating incentives and justifications that have aided the recruitment of hundreds, if not thousands, of young men and women bent on carrying out fanatical, terrorist activities. Trampling the Bill of Rights and effectively eliminating the fundamental freedoms that underpin democracy. Are these resulting effects those that the American people want to create?

It's a simple question.

To begin to do something about it, how about supporting the Electronic Frontier Foundation's bid to have both sides of some of this madness heard in a court of law. Right now, there is a bill speeding through Congress that would have supposed judicial oversight of many executive illegalities heard only in secret, with arguments presented only by the government. If you are an American, write to your Congressperson today!

[Technorati tags: reversal of america | international herald tribune | bush | rule of law | eff | fisa]

Middle East Burning

First, this excerpt from Baghdad Burning, that left me numb:

Rape. The latest of American atrocities. Though it's not really the latest- it's just the one that's being publicized the most. The poor girl Abeer was neither the first to be raped by American troops, nor will she be the last. The only reason this rape was brought to light and publicized is that her whole immediate family were killed along with her. Rape is a taboo subject in Iraq. Families don't report rapes here, they avenge them. We've been hearing whisperings about rapes in American-controlled prisons and during sieges of towns like Haditha and Samarra for the last three years. The naiveté of Americans who can't believe their 'heroes' are committing such atrocities is ridiculous. Who ever heard of an occupying army committing rape??? You raped the country, why not the people?

In the news they're estimating her age to be around 24, but Iraqis from the area say she was only 14. Fourteen. Imagine your 14-year-old sister or your 14-year-old daughter. Imagine her being gang-raped by a group of psychopaths and then the girl was killed and her body burned to cover up the rape. Finally, her parents and her five-year-old sister were also killed. Hail the American heroes... Raise your heads high supporters of the 'liberation' - your troops have made you proud today. I don't believe the troops should be tried in American courts. I believe they should be handed over to the people in the area and only then will justice be properly served. And our ass of a PM, Nouri Al-Maliki, is requesting an 'independent investigation', ensconced safely in his American guarded compound because it wasn't his daughter or sister who was raped, probably tortured and killed. His family is abroad safe from the hands of furious Iraqis and psychotic American troops.

It fills me with rage to hear about it and read about it. The pity I once had for foreign troops in Iraq is gone. It's been eradicated by the atrocities in Abu Ghraib, the deaths in Haditha and the latest news of rapes and killings. I look at them in their armored vehicles and to be honest- I can't bring myself to care whether they are 19 or 39. I can't bring myself to care if they make it back home alive. I can't bring myself to care anymore about the wife or parents or children they left behind. I can't bring myself to care because it's difficult to see beyond the horrors. I look at them and wonder just how many innocents they killed and how many more they'll kill before they go home. How many more young Iraqi girls will they rape?

Why don't the Americans just go home? They've done enough damage and we hear talk of how things will fall apart in Iraq if they 'cut and run', but the fact is that they aren't doing anything right now. How much worse can it get? People are being killed in the streets and in their own homes- what's being done about it? Nothing. It's convenient for them- Iraqis can kill each other and they can sit by and watch the bloodshed- unless they want to join in with murder and rape.

Such brutality and inhuman monstrosity that seems to be a too-common occurrence among American soldiers - is it born of frustration? Anger? Futility? Hopelessness? Helplessness? Is the continual frustration of America's nominal objectives for a well-running, functional democracy in Iraq legible to other factions in the region that might want to, say, take advantage of the overwhelming distraction, not to mention complete incompetence of the leadership, that the debacle in Iraq represents?

It is not beyond the realm of comprehension to read the recent aggressions that have emerged almost simultaneously from Pyongyang, Beirut, and Gaza City (and I would include Damascus and Tehran as well), as the actions of those who have little to lose and much to gain, taking advantage of the "world's policeman" being otherwise occupied (a deliberate choice of wording, by the way, in which the principle of reversal kicks in - the occupier becomes the occupied). Given that the bright lights in the White House tragically underestimated the effects and consequences of their Iraq (mis)adventure, they would not possibly have anticipated the degree to which they have jeopardized millions throughout the entire Middle East, not to mention the stability of the global economy. Would Hamas and Hezbollah have been equally bold if the Americans were at the top of their military game? Theodore Roosevelt had it right.

[Technorati tags: middle east | baghdad burning | hamas | hezbollah | america]

Net Neutrality: It's the Tubes, Stupid

Much has been made about U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens from Alaska's salient observation that the Internet - or at least his personal internet - isn't a truck, it's tubes. Jon Stewart's Daily Show take on Steven's Truck-Tube dichotomy is hilarious, especially since it brings in the House of Representatives hullabaloo over Internet gambling, demonstrating why online gambling on horseracing is compatible with Ted Steven's clogged tubes. (By the way, here's why the infamous "internet" sent to Stevens took five days.)

[Technorati tags: ted stevens | internet | tubes | truck | online gambling | jon stewart | daily show]

Film at 11

This just in. Breaking News. And other media clichés!

Bell Globemedia, the owner of, among other things, the Globe and Mail, the CTV television network, and a gaggle of specialty channels like the Comedy Network, TSN, Discovery Channel, and MTV Canada, has just announced that it is planning to acquire the CHUM Inc. for $1.7 billion. CHUM owns 33 radio stations and 12 television stations, including the popular and pioneering CityTV stations across Canada.

I was alerted to this news a couple of hours ago when a reporter from CityTV called me to do an on-camera interview about the ramifications of this acquisition (film at 6, actually). My concern - shared with many others around the media world and the blogosphere - is that of concentration of massmedia ownership. It is the editors and producers who direct the pointing of cameras and microphones that tell us what to pay attention to, in other words, what we should consider as important in our world. Marshall McLuhan used to say that there could only be one active war in the world at a time, since the television cameras could only point in one direction at a time. Although both the media and the world have changed considerably since McLuhan's time, it is true that for "hard news" reportage, the world relies on on-the-scene journalists to source materials. It is also true that the vast majority of Canadians rely on the conventional newsmedia for information. The fewer media owners, the fewer diverse voices are loudly heard. The fewer voices, the less vigorous is the public discourse, and that is detrimental to democratic process and participation. What's more, fewer owners means that greater influence can be exerted by politicians and policy makers.

My guess is that the CRTC would not approve the acquisition without requiring divestiture of some television stations, especially where there is overlap. The business strategy may well be for Bell Globemedia to acquire the radio properties, plus the CHUMCity's specialty channels, such as FashionTV, Bravo, Star!, SexTV, and MuchMusic, all of which have extensive content licensing revenues. They will likely kick the CityTV A-channel stations overboard, rather than sacrifice the local CTV affiliates. The question is, who might be the likely buyer? TorStar Group is awaiting approval of an investment in BGM, so they might not be a likely (read: approvable) suitor. Craig and Quebecor have just divested themselves of television holdings, as did Shaw a few years back. CanwestGobal has the same overlap problem as does BGM, with much less cash (and cash flow) to play with. CBC... well, enough said...

For a wild and crazy idea, perhaps we'll see an American company enter the Canadian market, perhaps fronted by some Canadian partners. We've seen it happen in the satellite radio business, and before that, in the mega-bookstore business some years back. Even wilder and crazier might be an Internet company seeking to build some content production expertise and capability. YahooCanadaTV or GoogleCanadaTV? The Canadian market would be a perfect one in which to launch an interesting experiment, not in convergence, but in pervasive proximity production. After all, the slogan of the news desk is "CityTV. Everywhere!"

Update (13 July 2006): Speaking of being kicked overboard, 281 CityTV operations and news staff from every location except Toronto lost their jobs within hours of the major announcement. Seems that the branch CityTV locations will become not much more than fancy community access channels: "Citytv stations in Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg will move from traditional one-hour evening newscasts to a new daily half-hour local news magazine show "In Your City", with in-depth coverage of community stories coupled with a new daily half-hour national and international news package currently being planned."

[Technorati tags: bell globemedia | chum | citytv | media concentration]

Post-Modern States

Regular readers will know that I tend to rail on about the "reversal of america," and the correspondences between America under Bush-the-Younger, and Russia under Stalin. I have even pointed to the rise of fascism in the country that has heretofore been hailed as an exemplar of democracy. But today, I came across an interesting article by George Schöpflin posted at openDemocracy concerning Russia framed as a post-modern state in a battle against globalization. I was struck (again) by the correspondences between Putin's Russia and Bush Jr.'s America - not in the specifics, since both countries are coming from very different grounds, but in the intended effects.

Schöpflin describes how globalization brings about three principle effects that serve to undermine authoritarian control, reducing the ability of the state to control both its population, and the flow of information, and to introduce a continual process of change through enabling technologies whose complexity of consequences are more or less unpredictable by command-and-control oriented authorities. Putin's problem with respect to globalization is an interesting one. He had to re-establish some degree of stability in the chaotic aftermath of Boris Yeltsin's introduction of pseudo-democratic politics, and a quasi-open market economy, without reverting to the former iron-fisted Soviet-style central planning and control.

Globalisation has strengthened individual empowerment. This can be seen in the demands that the collective will of the majority and state power should give way to individual preference. Simultaneously the state is made more porous through the impact of new technology, information and immigration, to name but three. Putin's Russia is determined to resist this weakening of the state. Its understanding of the relationship between state power and the individual is one of dependency, not reciprocity.

Schöpflin describes the ideological threat of Isalm, which nonetheless "does not prevent ad hoc deals with Islamic states" as a matter of "pragmatism." He describes the return of "xenophobic rhetoric and a recovery of influence and voice by Orthodox Christianity. The old idea of sobornost (the community of the faithful) has acquired new life and necessarily excludes non-Russians." He also notes the "mounting hostility towards Europe" and points out Russia's reinforcment of its control over economic resources. Finally, Schöpflin observes how "the elite ... live in a semi-detached way from the people, and concentrate hegemonic power in its hands... [while] giv[ing] the people enough to pre-empt serious discontent, but not enough to create the preconditions for an upheaval." These goals are accomplished by reducing government services, clamping down on serious dissent while tolerating limited, marginal, and obscure protests, tightly controlling the politically-oriented mass media while enabling populist television programming, and creating systemic impediments to the formation of strong civil society institutions and organizations.

As I read this description of Putin's handiwork, I cannot help but hear echoes of analogous social constructs and constrictions that are occurring throughout America. Cloaked in technological debates about intellectual property rights and net neutrality, the underpinnings of civil society's ability to organize and disseminate information are swiftly being eroded. Politically explosive reportage by mass media outlets result in calls for jail or worse by key government players. The sharp increase in "xenophobic rhetoric," the influential rise in orthodox (read: fundamentalist) Christianity, and the exclusion of non-Americans may be different in figure from those issues in Russia, but the intended ground effects seem to be identical. However, coming from a historical ground of individual liberty and openness, Bush's America is experiencing a more troublesome transition to rather hidden central control than Putin's Russia:

There is little sign that Russia's new form of state is facing any kind of crisis; far from it. ...it seems to have found an equilibrium, at any rate for the foreseeable future. Whether the Putin system can weather future shocks is another question, but for the time being it looks well established and has no incentive to change. It's a system that is going with, not against, the grain of Russia's culture.

[Technorati tags: bush | putin | russia | america | reversal of america | globalization | schöpflin | opendemocracy]

Mission Statement

I’ve been doing some further reading into complexity thinking as applied to organization environments, as my Valence Theory is founded on a multiplicity of interconnected relationship networks, from which complexity arises. I came across this summary of a typical conception of organization, and what occurs therein, in an interesting paper by Ronald Murray:

An organization as a social entity is described by its mission, processes, structure and culture. Its mission defines its reason for existence in terms of the difference it makes in the lives of consumers of its products and services – its added-value to them. The mission may serve others in the organization, external organizations or individual consumers. It may be very clear and consistent, or may become vague and inconsistent indicating a loss of commonality in the consciousness and realities of the organization’s members.

The organizational capacity to achieve the mission is provided by the other elements of the socio-technical infrastructure. Processes provide a dynamic perspective no members working together using standardized procedures to create and deliver products and services for customers and to manage the organization. … An organization’s processes and structure are based on the shared attitudes, values and perceptions that constitute its culture.

From the perspective of its members’ interactions, an organization is described in terms of their roles, responsibilities, relationships and resource management practices. … Such roles and responsibilities are interdependent with the organization’s processes, structure and culture. If defined entirely within the context of an organization’s units they are consistent with fragmented processes, thick boundaries, and a possessive culture, but these elements will be very different if roles and responsibilities are defined in relation to the organization as a whole. Similarly, members’ working and reporting relationships… the same is true of resource management practices. … When organizations are perceived as patterned human behaviors underlying their elements as social entities and as members’ interactions, they can be described in terms of their internal and external information flow and the mental model that allow members to acquire a common reality (p. 221-222).

I can map Murray’s description to Aristotle’s four causes, namely, formal (the “essence” or nature of the thing), material (its substance), efficient (relating to what brings it into being, closest to the conventional, if misguided, notion of cause-and-effect) and final (its ultimate reason for being).

I make the following correspondences in the traditional view:

	Mission	Raison d’être, purpose, end	Final cause	Based on perceived (and often conceived) need
Socio-technical environment	Process	Means	Efficient cause	Based on shared attitudes, values, perceptions
	Structure	Means	(Arguably) Material cause
	Culture	End	Final cause	Shapes and influences shared attitudes, values, perceptions

Adherence to the priority of an organization’s “mission,” considered to be its purpose or “raison d’être,” is often used to justify certain behaviours, and pre-empt considerations of wider effect. It is many of these rationalized behaviours that have been indicted as characteristic ills of modern corporations, and sometimes result in an over-enthusiastic (to put it mildly) response to some of these ills. Even the simplistic notion, espoused by the likes of economist Milton Friedman, that an organization’s “social responsibility is to increase its profits,” places the “divine right of capital” (as it is characterized by author Marjoree Kelly) as the ultimate mission of any commercial organization.

With Valence Theory, the “mission” can be considered as something other than the final cause, the purpose or the end. Rather, the mission can be considered a means towards an end that is defined according to Effect-ive Theory. In this characterization, the mission defines the form of the endeavour, corresponding more to an aspect of formal cause of the enterprise organization, rather than its final cause. Specifically, it is a means to enable the organization’s formal cause or effect, within the context of its environment.

Culture, defined in terms of Effect-ive Theory, reflects the measure of effects, especially reflexive effects (that is, the effects of organizational interactions fed back and affecting the component actants within the larger organizational collective (à la Latour). This is the essence of my culture/effect-ive theory argument. As well, organizational culture, as a final cause, is a non-deterministic, emergent effect of the network of valences among a given organization, its component members, and the other organizations with which it shares valences.

Why, then, should an organization’s mission necessarily be considered as its immutable, guiding light? Over time, mission, too, becomes an emergent property of the greater organizational system of valences, non-deterministically and intimately tied to the emergent culture. Whereas conventionally, mission was considered as the predominant expression of an organization’s instrumentality – what does the organization want to do? – under Valence and Effect-ive Theories, the notion of mission changes slightly, but significantly, to ask what are the nature of the changes among its valences that this organization will effect? A organization's management and members are only effect-ive if they can anticipate and bring about the intended effects.

References

• Kelly, M. (2001). The divine right of capital. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
• Murray, R. (2005). Theory of integral complex organization. In Richardson, K.A. (Ed.), Managing organizational complexity: Philosophy, theory and application (pp. 217-35). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
• Friedman, M. (1970, September 13 1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 32 ff.

[Technorati tags: mission | valence theory | effective theory | ronald murray | organization of the future]

Tunnel Vision

The news this week, that alleged terrorists - none of whom were in the U.S. - were arrested for conspiring to blow up New York's Holland Tunnel and flood lower Manhattan (despite the fact that lower Manhattan is above the river level, so no New Orlean-style flooding here, folks), gives me pause. It's not that would-be terrorists exist - the policies of the current Bush administration are the fuel for a veritable terrorist manufacturing engine. It's not that plots worthy of a Hollywood disaster flick dance before the eyes of newly fledged jihadists like so many sugar plums... wait... bad metaphor mixing... like so many virgins in paradise.

What gives me pause are two things: first, the "pre-crime" aspect of this event, as well as that of the earlier Miami arrests, is beginning to emerge as a disturbing pattern. I have no doubt that international law enforcement agencies could, at any arbitrary time, swoop in on various and sundry cells that they are monitoring via infiltrators, received tips (perhaps from rival factions), and intercepted Internet traffic. That the timing can be deliberately chosen turns these events, by definition, from law enforcement and crime prevention activities into political theatre and spectacle. Such spectacle, of course, is what is deliberately used to frighten the public into passivity, and acceptance of whatever government authorities choose to do, be it illegal, immoral, anti-democratic, or combinations thereof.

Second, as a political act, such arrests - and the media circus that surrounds them - tends to polarize policy debates along partisan lines, rather than encouraging a critical examination of the ground issues. Historically (for those who, unlike the current U.S. President, have actually read history), it is the lack of ground perception - perceiving the true, indirect effects of policies and actions that most people ignore - that enables countries to slip into dangerous, totalitarian territory.

Here is what is particularly telling about the political nature of this most recent event: the "Canadian connection." Apparently, one of the arrested suspects took some business courses at Montreal's Concordia University ten years ago. Long after this trivial detail is forgotten, the impression of a memory of a Canadian connection to an alleged terrorist plot in the U.S. will fuel calls for a tightening of our own domestic, anti-terrorist surveillance activities. And one more thing: the arrests made the news on the anniversary of the bombings in London perpetrated by "home-grown" terrorists. Coincidenza?

And speaking of home-grown terrorists, did you hear that military enlistment in the U.S. is up, at least among a certain demographic? "The reasons are obvious: soldiers are trained to be proficient with weapons, combat tactics, and explosives, to train others in their use, and to operate in a highly disciplined culture that is focused on the organized violence of war."

Why yes, as a matter of fact, I am becoming afraid of "home-grown" terrorists, especially those that are grown using good ol' U.S. of A. know-how, equipment and provisions, regardless of colour of their skin, or how (and to whom) they pray.

[Technorati tags: war on terror | holland tunnel | reversal of america]

The House on Lippincott

Since beginning my graduate work, I have put aside any hope of reading fiction until I'm done. There is simply so much heavy reading to do in the course of doctoral degree - not to mention ancillary reading and research for lectures and talks - that fiction would seem like the proverbial busman's holiday. I did, however, make one exception.

Bonnie Burstow is one of my professors - one of my exceptional professors - and has become a friend during my time at OISE. She is also the author of a most remarkable book, The House on Lippincott, published this spring by Inanna Press.

Embedded in Canadian and world history, and set in downtown Toronto between 1947 and the turn of the century, The House on Lippincott is a Jewish family saga which weaves together family caring, Holocaust trauma, abuse, aging, betrayal, anti-Semitism, resistance, and celebration, while introducing vital new characters to the Canadian landscape. There is brilliant feminist scholar and thinker, Miriam Himmelfarb, from whose perspective the story unfolds, her parents--Rachael and Daniel--both Holocaust survivors and activists, mysterious Uncle Yacov, and sisters Sondra and Esther. As children of survivors, early on, Miriam and her sisters make a decision which is to haunt them. A woman with heart, the aging Rachael presents her family with yet another harrowing choice. Compelling, passionate, touching. Long buried secrets come to light. Throughout, this novel is engrossing, passionate, captivating. Grounded in the language and conundrums of a Jewish immigrant family, it has the appeal of any novel embedded in a specific culture. At the same time, it extends beyond that culture, and indeed, beyond the Holocaust, bringing us face-to-face with the human condition: our ability to create joy and meaning even under dire circumstances, human suffering, growing up, responsibility, love, betrayal, family ties, the realities of growing old, death and the vulnerability of the human soul.

The book is at once profoundly moving and intellectually challenging as it recounts the life and times of the Himmelfarb family, perceived through the eyes and heart of Miriam, the second eldest daughter, in the role narrator. I love this book for a variety of reasons:

First, I know these characters. Not only do they represent people who have passed through my life at one time or another, Bonnie has created characters with such nuanced depth of personality that they are, indeed, real. Even the minor characters correspond faithfully to my experience and memories of those who have been on the periphery of my life.

Second, in the three daughters, Sondra, Miriam and Esther, Bonnie has explored three very distinct responses to the family life of Holocaust-survivor parents. None is a caricature, yet each in her own way, captures the unique mentality of a child - and later adult - attempting to make sense of the incomprehensible as it infiltrates her own life.

Third, without revealing the end of the story, the final scenes represent the ultimate triumph of the human spirit over the evil that was perpetrated during the Holocaust, even in the final decline of that spirit. The resolution of the story, facilitated by Eema (mother) in her final days, stands in stark contrast to the ultimate defeat of her husband by the ghosts of the Nazis that tormented him throughout his life, and through him, I would say, tormented his daughters.

Fourth, there is an important process of witnessing that occurs throughout this story that I have not encountered elsewhere. In particular, the gendered experience of the Holocaust represents a set of experiences that have not been widely publicized, that are important to chronicle. The tragic experience of evil and depravity has always been, and continues to be, a gendered phenomenon. It is only relatively recently that the awareness of this divide has reached the mass media and popular consciousness. In my own reading about the Holocaust over the years, and through the representations and narratives contained among Holocaust memorials and museums that I have visited, I had only heard very few of the experiences in the camps that were uniquely experienced by women and girls.

Fifth, and perhaps most important, this book is the story of the particular heritage of the Canadian Jewish community. While it starkly confronts the reader with images from Auschwitz, it equally confronts the reader with images from countless homes across Toronto and, I would expect, Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and the various smaller centres that were the final destinations of thousands of post-war, Jewish refugees. Albeit a fictional account in which the characters are all amalgams of life stories drawn from both research and Bonnie's clinical practice as a trauma therapist, these stories are important for Canadian Jews to know. Irrespective of whether readers share their generation with Miriam, Sondra and Esther, or whether they are the children of that generation, the book is one of the ways to understand our own psyche.

The book is, unfortunately, in very limited distribution. In Toronto, it is available at the Toronto Women's Bookstore, at some Book City outlets, at Israel's, and some other independent sellers. It is also available directly from Inanna. It has just become available in Vancouver and a couple of other cities as well. However you manage to obtain a copy, read this book.

[Technorati tags: house on lippincott | bonnie burstow | holocaust | shoah | holocaust survivors]

If You Have Nothing To Hide...

...then don't think you have nothing to fear. Not after the report in today's Globe, that

Bell Sympatico has informed its customers that it intends to "monitor or investigate content or your use of your service provider's networks and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request."

Bell Sympatico's new customer service agreement, which took effect June 15, is a clear signal the telecommunications industry expects the Conservative government to revive the surveillance law, said Michael Geist, an Internet law professor at the University of Ottawa.

Duly executed court orders and warrants, I have no problem with. But given the "I want to be just like my big brother, George" attitude that seems to characterize the Harper government, I'm more wary about the "governmental request" aspect of Bell's revelation (thanks for telling us, guys!).

The big problem with the types of intrusions into civil liberties that characterize a steady decline to fascism is this: Those with something to hide? They generally take great pains to hide it. Those folks for whom being evil, or criminal, or both is a livestyle choice know all about encryption, proxy servers, and anonymizers. Us ordinary, more or less law abiding, nothing-to-hide types? We do all sorts of things about which we don't think twice, that, arranged and juxtaposed in a particular way, against a ground of law enforcement officials needing to find something could make us look awfully suspicious. Think about those poor people who traverse the entire justice system and back, and are still wrongfully convicted due to overzealous officials. The reversal that applies to this situation cannot be understated: If you have nothing to hide, you have much to fear, since your innocuous behaviour can be deliberately and maliciously misinterpreted, when and how it suits those with discretionary power.

My name? Uh, Smith. Joe Smith. That's joe.smith@sympatico.ca, in case you're listening in.

[Technorati tags: sympatico | privacy | nothing to hide | nothing to fear]

Creating a Culture of Innovation

I had the privilege of visiting the Service Canada Leadership Conference yesterday, hosted by the Canada School of Public Service. Some of the initiatives that I heard about were truly forward-thinking and tremendously encouraging as a new way to deliver Government services to Canadians (although it would be inappropriate for me to blog about them specifically). Suffice it to say, this isn't your parents' public service. I did a session with them called Creating a Culture of Innovation [pdf]. Here is the outline of the four principles that I shared with them:

four simple principles that are crucial to creating a culture of innovation. Here they are:

• See what isn’t there.
  
• Think what no one else can think.
  
• Do what no one else dares to do.
  
• Multiply your mind by giving it away.

In the talk, I describe how the Laws of Media tetrads can be used to create anti-environment awareness for the first two principles, and how the UCaPP world changes the nature of knowledge creation, and hence innovation, for the second two principles.

What haven’t you noticed lately, particularly about the four principles that enable the creation of a culture of innovation? If you line up the first three – See what’s not there; Think what no one else can think; and Do what no one else dares to do – you end up with some very mundane and ordinary advice: See. Think. Do. But by putting them through the tetrad tool that enhances and extends our perception and cognition we get a reversal: See – what isn’t there, what we have been conditioned to ignore because our attention has been directed elsewhere for so long. An extension – Think – what no one else can think, in other words, beyond the imposed mental restrictions that limit creative cognition. An obsolescence – Do what no one else dares to do, because the societal ground in which their actions once made sense is now obsolesced. And the fourth principle – Multiply your mind by giving it away – is the retrieval, the dominant mode of the tetrad. One could say that this fourth principle is the retrieval of simple, old-fashion charity, but in a new and incredibly powerful form. Because in the UCaPP world, multiplying your mind by giving it away is another way of affirming that together, we’re all smarter.

I also shared the tetrad-enhanced technique of better brainstorming. In retrospect, I would have liked to have had more time to spend with this "brains-on" application of what I spoke about in the talk, but then again, that sort of thing is rather difficult to do in a meaningful way with a group as large as 80 people (which was the sign-up limit for my session). (Of course, I'm always available to do a more in-depth follow-on session with individual departmental groups!)

Thanks, CSPS and Service Canada, for the invitation. It was an interesting day.

[Technorati tags: service canada | innovation | culture of innovation | laws of media | tetrad]

Understand the Ground, Understand the Speaker

A great object lesson in figure and ground, and the importance of the latter to understand the former. Via boingboing out of John Batelle, comes mention of a speech given by one Leo Hindery at the Convergence 2.0 conference in Washington, D.C. In this talk, Hindery predicts the demise (and/or acquisition and assimilation) of the "portals" (Yahoo, Google, MSN, AOL and eBay) in favour of the the content aggregators (big networks and media content companies like Time Warner and Disney) and the distributors (cable, satellite and the few RBOCs remaining). While conference attendees lap up Hindery's content (the figure), and Batelle and others deconstruct it, let's consider Hindery's ground and the ground of the conference itself, to understand what it is he is actually telling us.

Leo Hindery ran AT&T's broadband division for a short time in the mid-1990s, and was head of a content distribution company that distributed New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils games via cable. He also headed the National Cable Television Association (a Washington lobby), and is now involved in the merger and acquisition business involving content and distribution companies. Little wonder, then, that he views the Internet in the same way that most of the content and distribution companies do, that is, as only a communication channel. The conference itself is concerned with "consolidation in broadcast, cable, telecom and mobile." Little wonder that his talk focuses on the demise of those elements of the 'net that promote interactions that are not part of a broadcast model.

Irrespective of whether what he says would tend towards being an accurate or inaccurate prediction on its face (figure), what is more useful is to assess how the speaker perceives (or rather, conceives) the world (ground). As I say in a talk that I'm doing tomorrow (more about this on Thursday - stay, uh, tuned)

Our intense focus on precisely what we have been trained to do controls what we believe. And what we believe controls what we are able to see. ... We have been trained to ignore anything that does not support our preconceived point of view or expert opinion. ... We have been conditioned to believe that the world exists only in diametric opposites.

Hindery may make a logical and reasonable argument within the limited ground of his worldview, and that of the conference attendants. I wouldn't, however take that to the bank.

Update (27 June 2006): Jay Rosen over at PressThink has what turns out to be a great response to Hindery - The People Formerly Known as the Audience:

The people formerly known as the audience are those who were on the receiving end of a media system that ran one way, in a broadcasting pattern, with high entry fees and a few firms competing to speak very loudly while the rest of the population listened in isolation from one another— and who today are not in a situation like that at all.

• Once they were your printing presses; now that humble device, the blog, has given the press to us. That’s why blogs have been called little First Amendment machines. They extend freedom of the press to more actors.
  
• Once it was your radio station, broadcasting on your frequency. Now that brilliant invention, podcasting, gives radio to us. And we have found more uses for it than you did.
  
• Shooting, editing and distributing video once belonged to you, Big Media. Only you could afford to reach a TV audience built in your own image. Now video is coming into the user’s hands, and audience-building by former members of the audience is alive and well on the Web.
  
• You were once (exclusively) the editors of the news, choosing what ran on the front page. Now we can edit the news, and our choices send items to our own front pages.
  
• A highly centralized media system had connected people “up” to big social agencies and centers of power but not “across” to each other. Now the horizontal flow, citizen-to-citizen, is as real and consequential as the vertical one.

[Technorati tags: figure | ground | leo hindery | convergence | jay rosen | audience]

So Many Potential Titles...

... for this post: Weapons of Mass Distraction. Nope, overused. Monkey See, Monkey Do. Nah, too obscure. Hallowe'en Comes Early This Year. Maybe, but that only refers to the last half minute of the clip. A probe! A probe! My kingdom (such as it is) for a probe!

Looks Simple

Ah yes, that works on so many levels. (Exercise for the reader is to identify the many levels.) Magicians Penn and Teller have a great routine called, "Looks Simple," in which Teller apparently lights a cigarette, takes a puff, and discards it, all to illustrate the seven principles of magic: Palm, Switch, Simulation, Misdirection, Load, Steal, and Ditch. That sort of describes the goings on in the Excited States of America lately, with the recent arrest of seven suspects in Miami, allegedly for a plot to maybe blow something up, perhaps in Chicago, perhaps in Miami, without weapons or explosives of any kind. They were reported to be Black Muslims, who, as it turns out, "train with the Bible" (the Christian flavour), whose only contact with the Al Qaeda terrorist movement was via the FBI inflitrator who posed as a member of the Al Qaeda terrorist movement. The Daily Show treatment of the news conference hosted by U.S. Attorney General (although he should be busted down to at least Attorney Captain for this one) Alberto Gonzoles is priceless (wmv and qt via Crooks and Liars, The Daily Show's own site should have it up in a day or two). Watch for Stewart's rhetorical question ("So what harm does it [meaning the arrest and news conference] do?") being answered right at the end of the clip.

Precisely. With the Aministration's popularity, not to mention general credibility among even the Republican-controlled Congress, in a downward spiral, what better way to improve the chances with the Congressional mid-term elections looming than through "Palm, Switch, Simulation, Misdirection, Load, Steal, and Ditch." The current exercise in simulation and misdirection is even more important now, as it broke the day that it was (under)reported that the dead bodies of two U.S. servicemen killed south of Baghdad were used as the now-ubiquitous improvised explosive devices (identification could only be done with the DNA that could be collected). "Load" the 24-hour news cycle with supposed terror arrests, to misdirect attention from the news that, once again, the Administration seems to be violating the Fourth Amendment (against unlawful search and seizure) by accessing banking records without a warrant, and by initiating a call for repealing the First Amendment (specifically freedom of the press) by now insisting that the government should be allowed to restrict what is reported by the press, if it will embarrass the government (hello, "treasonous" New York Times).

Here in Canada, the situation is a little different. Our alleged terrorists actually attempted to purchase ammonium nitrate. They even had a computer, a cell phone, a barbecue and barbecue tongs! While some cynics might say that the U.S. is merely trying to keep up with Canada in the Great Home-Grown Terrorist Hunt, I, for one, am much more cynical than that!

[Technorati tags: war on terror | arrest | miami seven | alberto gonzoles | daily show | crooks and liars | home grown terrorists | reversal of america]

Accountabilty Means Never Having to Say You're Poor

It also seems to mean that those with government-funded budgets for lobbying will be doing the lobbying. As Michael Geist points out in today's Star, the Harper government is actually paying an industry lobby group nearly $400,000 over the next three years to lobby the government. Some accountability!

According to government documents, last fall the Ministry of Canadian Heritage entered into a multi-year agreement with the Creators' Rights Alliance, a national coalition of artists groups and copyright collectives with members both small (the League of Canadian Poets) and large (SOCAN and Access Copyright). The CRA has eight objectives, which notably include "to ensure that government policy and legislation recognize that copyright is fundamentally about the rights of creators" and "to ensure that international treaties and obligations to which Canada is signatory provide the strongest possible protection for the rights of creators."

Internal correspondence also reveals that the contract was designed to further the department's own policy objectives. A senior official outlined the rationale behind the proposed contract, stating in an email that once the CRA funding was complete, "we should have streamlined, stable funding to an organization whose structure, purpose and activities suit our own policy needs."

Imagine the future of hearings concerning copyright reform and network neutrality. Government-funded lobbyists, who have influenced the formation of policy in the first place that serves the special interests of those with considerable commercial power and influence and who want to preserve their de facto monopoly positions, will be the ones heard from over the voices of many other constituencies. (On the other hand, compared to the former Bulte Commission, what else is new?)

So while the Harper government touts their special brand of lobbying and campaign financing reform from one side of their mouth, from the other side, they provide money exclusively to one, already well-financed, side of an important and divisive issue so that the government can be lobbied effectively.

With respect to the Harper government, I'm getting tired of calling out, "for shame!"

[Technorati tags: michael geist | copyright | creator rights alliance | lobbying | accountability | harper]

Congratulations, David!

Today, my son, David, convocated from University of Toronto with a Bachelor of Music degree, with honours! Four long years of hard and often difficult work, and it all comes down to the diploma, and proud parents and grandparents! His major was music history and theory; his minor, East Asian studies - putting his love of Japanese pop culture, manga and anime, not to mention his serious interest in Japanese history, classical literature, and the evolution of the culture's various art, performance and musical forms, to work for him while he learned the Japanese language, grammar and cultural studies. His first instrument is violin (playing since he was 3); during his university years, he has acquired experience with koto, shamisen, erhu, gamelan, and taiko, bringing together his two scholarly interests. In addition to his school work, he was active throughout his university years on the Faculty of Music Undergraduate Association as a frosh leader, treasurer, and was responsible for rewriting the student organization's constitution, and overseeing its elections (and revamping the election code). He won the University's prestigious Cressy Award for exceptional contribution to student life.

Congratulations, son! Your mother and I are very proud of you!

[Technorati tags: david federman | university of toronto | graduation]

The Unethical Ethicist

There has been much sturm und drang over the decision of Ryerson University to award an honorary doctorate to McGill professor and so-called ethicist, Margaret Somerville. The controversy arises from her views on, or to be more precise, against, same-sex marriage. According to the Star,

Somerville, who insists her views are not religious or political in nature, believes same-sex marriage is wrong because marriage is fundamentally about creating children and they deserve — and need — both a biological mother and father.

Acknowledging she has many critics, Somerville said it's important academia operate in "a discourse of mutual respect" about unpopular views rather than succumb to the "chill of political correctness."

I agree that the academy must be a place in which civil discourse can fully examine disparate opinions and unpopular views. So as far as I am concerned, Prof. Somerville is more than welcome to lecture at McGill, or return to Ryerson for a public debate on this controversial and divisive subject. On the other hand, an honorary doctorate confers a recognition tantamount to an endorsement of the honoree's work. Thus, it was entirely inappropriate for Ryerson - a university located in downtown Toronto, a mere stone's throw from the heart of gay culture in this city - to award the honor. What were they thinking? Well, according to some post-hoc statements made by Sheldon Levy, the president of Ryerson, the committee was not aware of her stance with respect to same-sex marriage. This, of course, does not explain why they didn't back down when the news broke.

Somerville's reason for opposing same-sex marriage raises some questions that I think belie her supposed ethical position. While I can appreciate the opinions of those who are opposed on religious grounds, Somerville claims that the purpose of marriage is to produce children, and children need both biological parents; hence same-sex marriage is unethical. Based on this position, one must conclude that she equally opposes adoption, and marriage between people who are not capable of (or not interested in) procreation. So, for all those who are enjoying a second or third marriage later in life, for all those who are medically incapable of having children, for all those who have enjoyed the love of adoptive parents, you're all in the same boat with gays and lesbians who want to create a stable, family unit, according to Prof. Somerville, and she is against you. Sad, really. And unethical on its face.

[Technorati tags: ryerson | somerville | same-sex marriage]