The open source sociology project (OSS). This will be the beginning of a growing network of sociology, anthropology students, teachers and thinkers. The intent is to decentralize academia and the professional circles, and bring the knowledge to everyone. The "open source" source philosophy is embodied here. As the world changes and becomes decentralized and "open," so too should its thinkers, philosophers and social scientists!
Had some wonderful discussion in the youtube version of this talk.
Some highlights:
"Academia should not merely reproduce its own knowledge, it should teach society to express its own.
The University is the Universe. There is no entrance."
As well as,
"Much like how creating spaces allows for the human BEING to show up. We BEcome when we start moving, sharing, expressing, living, loving. When inside a box or atop a pedestal - all of that is hardly possible. And even though these should never get in the way of you breaking through, a teacher teaches best by being space itself =) marvelous!"
Thanks guys! And last but not least a response video by Professoranton:
To summarize it... Knowledge and language aren't barriers if we, the professors and students don't make them barriers. Or, if we see language as not an "initiation" but a perspective-taking, enriching experience, where words are playful, dynamic, living expressions of ourselves... then academia need not be dry! In fact, it can be illuminating.
Organic education, I think has become the highlight of discussion. How can we reveal the natural ability for creative space? By releasing control, but integrating the traditional university path with more organic, living systems. A step away from bureaucracy might be a good one.
The philosophy of "open" source, also implies, I think, a new way of thinking about complex ideas. How can we portray them without the inherent barriers of academic-style writing? If no one can understand us, how do we expect to effectively help society in any way? Or bring about true knowledge? In other words, can we portray the same ideas without complicated jargon? If we can't, we face a huge challenge: having insight without having the words to express it.
There are a number of answers, and what we seem to be doing in the first place is
1) If you don't understand the language. Learn it! (ie. encourage more academics, the path of the college student). This appears to be a conservative application, though not misplaced. We should encourage others to study, to learn, to gain knowledge--yet know the limitations of such an approach. How many of us take time, or have time to dedicate ourselves to the delicate art of learning? After all, it's certainly art. We need to acquire a particular mastery in the skill of acquiring information, processing it, articulating the knowledge gained and critiquing it as well. We are encouraged to delve into other perspectives, as well as cultivating our own. Though not all professors heed this advice, it's a life path and a noble one. It also takes some skill not to become lost in a world of words, disconnected from our bodies and our immediate experiences.
This is a useful skill that should be encouraged, however, the insight into the academic life, if not translated to the populace, might be seen in the near future as, well, more archaic than useful. If information continues to be more decentralized, setting up a school or university in which one has to "enter" in order to learn might be going against the modern trend of "opening up" and flowering of information, open and accessible to more and more people. What once helped humanity may now begin to be seen as a limitation. There is nothing inherently wrong with the set up a university. It's just that times have changed, and relatively it may be seen to be too "closed off," from society to do the same job it had once done.
Like monasteries now stand as objects of "departure" from society instead of centers of knowledge, is the university destined to become the same?
We need to help educate people. But equally so, we must learn to come down from that mountaintop and bring our knowledge back without getting lost in it. Can we do that? And so, often 2) is offered: make it accessible to everyone, without limit.
Wikipedia, the internet in general has made this possible. However, with knowledge (content) there is also the need for structure (the internet, or centralized "universities.") How might we utilize the decentralized power of the internet to provide a more useful tool than a walled-off (sometimes physically) university? After all, a school is often rigorous, standing the test of time, credentials, legitimacy--how can a virtualized style education offer the same?
The third way, or the new way really, is yet to be seen clearly. It may take more time for technology to become more useful for shifting our focus from institution to collaboration. In the future, we may see a university as a network, rather than a focused point on a map. A digital framework of professors, with local "centers," which students are admitted and meet to do their studies, and apply themselves to more activities. This permeable, brain-like network of future universities might also help students collaborate between schools, effectively boosting the awesome power of networking to even greater degrees. The potential for such efficient networks might yield great benefits to the societies they thrive in, offering scientific, academic and technical knowledge to folks who live around them. To be a student might also mean to be engaged in society, rather than needing to disengage.
Here's to a brighter future for academics. Questions, comments, and critiques are welcome. After all, the future starts right here.
Two interesting TED talks I recently came across: Gordon Brown, prime minister of the UK and Rheingold, author of Smart Mobs discuss the implications of internet and mobile communication technology.
Although recent issues in England about surveillance may make Brown seem a bit hypocritical talking about internet, democracy and a global government, I think the implications he's speaking of transcend any limitations he may have. The idea is that, the time has come for us to begin creating a closer, inter-dependent world civilization. The technology is literally at our fingertips. What Brown may not realize is, the need for central authority figures, institutions, etc. may slowly deflate, and finally go extinct by the end of the next century. I'm sure many folks are not yet aware of the implications of a network society. Rheingold goes into the details of what a network society might do, and what it is already doing. Collaboration, he argues, has always been a part of human nature. We do things when we think we can receive mutual benefit. I help you, you help me, we help each other. This inter-connection, although it isn't quite selfless or compassionate, helps bind people together, and may help folks slowly recognize and appreciate one another a little more.
To me at least, the idea of "tit-for-tat" is a primitive and basic component of human nature, which we should by all means enhance and exploit for the benefit of everyone. To paraphrase the words of Robert Wright, cooperation and collaboration trumps competition. As a sociologist, I believe at least creating an environment where "tit-for-tat" is now a primary focus for the majority of tasks in civilization (everyday life, greater projects, smaller projects, food, energy, etc), you generate a fertile ground for a more world-centric consciousness. That may sound fancy, but all it means is, we now have a more effective way for organizing ourselves in civilization, and that may eventually bind the world together, not in some great, bloated centralized government, but in a networked, diverse system of minds and bodies, a network civilization, more capable of dealing with environmental issues, energy problems and famine.
At any rate, both are great videos. Check them out when you have a few minutes to sit and listen.
As we creep further into the 21st century, many of the problems that plagued humanity twenty or thirty years ago still exist, many of them worse than ever. What practical solutions do we have in a world where pollution, global stratification, starvation and poverty dominate the majority of the human population? Globalization has come at a great cost. There is no golden path out of these problems, nor is there an easy solution. Those with money and power are often more harmful than helpful. So what are we to do? As social scientists, it's a difficult task asked of us: to attempt to understand the state of the world, and perhaps offer our assistance in any way possible. For all intensive purposes, we are David, looking for one good rock to take down Goliath.
To slay stratification, tyranny, injustice - what an ideal! And maybe, just maybe, the future is looking brighter. Will the 21st century close as a positive chapter in history, will it tell of a mass influx of democratic states, renewable energy, world hunger on the decline? It might, but anyone taking a look at these issues will tell you that the problems are daunting, complex, with no easy solution in sight. This is true. However, we may have to consider one major variable in the equation, one that may work to benefit the growth of a more interdependent, and connected world, reaching places people never before possible. That variable is the internet.
Often, technological inventions, if they are significant enough, bring about major change within a civilization. Particularly in the way information is distributed and how people can organize. The printing press is one such example. Following its invention, and subsequent mass-production, a ripple effect spread across Europe, contributing to a massive influx of decentralized knowledge - books! The Protestant Reformation, a spread of liberal ideals and philosophies (Voltaire, for example) were made possible by this technology.
Today, we have another technology that holds equal, if not greater potential than the printing press. The internet is literally structured like a decentralized web, linking up points across the globe. The more links, the more complex and interconnected the world becomes. If the trend over the past 20 years is any indication of the direction we are going, then expect the internet to become as foundational to communication as the radio, the TV, or yes, the printing press.
The daring idea many folks are considering, particularly Clay Shirky, is this: the internet is going to transform the way people interact, literally linking up and re-structuring our global village.
Many nay-sayers point out that this is hardly the case, that the internet will be shut down if it begins to act as a tool for protest, democracy, or a challenge the status quo. Is this really the case? In a recent video, Clay Shirky analyzes the criticisms and makes a powerful case in favor of the internet being a world-changing instrument, equal to the importance of the printing press. The key to transformative technology lies in its usefulness. Once a piece of technology becomes so common-place, it is no longer talked about, that's when it starts to change things. Or, in other words, once everyone has it and is using it (batteries, cell phones, telephone lines, ignition in your car), it begins to influence the way we interact and think.
What is so unique about the internet? Technologically speaking, it does what all previous forms of communication did, and then something more. It integrates text, images, audio, video, adding a special ingredient: decentralized conversation. No longer are we limited to "broadcasting," or "one-to-many," but now "many-to-many." That's the strength of the web. In the following video, Clay Shirky puts it in perspective: the internet is like a book that comes with a printing press for free.
[Here is the Clay Shirky video, watch at leisure!]
As the internet becomes faster, easier, and more linked up across the globe, it's causing problems for nations unaccustomed to such decentralized forms of communication. In the video, Shirky references the recent earthquake in China. The Chinese government was unable to hush the event, due to the fact that it was being broadcast to the world exactly as it was happening, from multiple sources. The only way to prevent this from happening again, of course, would be to shut down major components of the internet, effectively blacking out communication.
This raises various political issues. For instance, alright, so what if it's harder to track communication? These nations will just shut off the internet, control it, limit it. Problem solved. The elite remain in power. What's so innovative about that? Given, governments may have the power to "black out" their citizens, or severely limit their freedom online (i.e. China), but as modern civilization continues to invest more of its time, money and energy through the internet, it will also become increasingly difficult to control. In effect, nations which isolate themselves from the internet, will also be isolating themselves from the world. There will be tremendous pressure on nations which have too much control over access. Isolation of the 21st century will have little positive effects. This pressure to "link up" with the world, if these ideas are at the very least intuitive, will force the humanity of the 21st century to become ever-closer, ever more inter-connected.
The events in Iran are another example, though somewhat controversial: exactly how much of a role did Twitter really play in the political turmoil and mass protests?
Nevertheless, twitter did at least help the rest of the world see what was going on, in some cases, before major news stations broadcast the information. As we understand the potential to utilize the internet more and more, perhaps journalism of the future will evolve with the times.
Examining the big picture:
Taking a step back, and trying to analyze the internet as a phenomenon, I believe we can see another parallel in history. Towards the end of the middle ages, there were significant trade roots which exposed western civilization to the far east, bringing with them new ideas and new culture. With this exposure, many civilizations were affected. The internet, virtually, is acting in the same way. By linking up parts of the world that were once unable to communicate as instantaneously (or nearly as much), ideas permeate throughout nations, influencing citizens halfway across the world. This permeable, interconnected "global village," is continually saturating the world with more and more communication, information that was not possible before (Wikipedia, new technology and digital education, etc). We are literally having a second renaissance of information explosion, and the means to share it with each other in a decentralized manner.
This networked structure makes it very difficult for any central authority to reign supreme. As newer and easier means for the internet become technologically possible, and profitable, we might observe a massive influx of communication, including in the third world.
This new structure of communication is also a new way of organization. New possibilities, including collaborative research, a weakening demand for bureaucracy, and powerful democratic means to organize and protest may radically shake the foundation of our civilization. Take a quick look at Open Source projects, the Creative Commons or Science Commons for observing these trends in action. For the first time in history, we have a decentralized method for mass organization, and that, more than anything else, is going to create a very different civilization. This is literally re-wiring civilizations from the inside out, as internet communication and technology continues to be used.
The irony is that many of the problems we have today, with globalization, world trade organizations, and so forth, have made it possible for the internet to expand and dominate communication. In a way, they have made the ground fertile, and decentralization is only going to continue to spread like wildfire.
So what are the practical solutions for world problems? How many times have we heard that we must rewire society first, because the way governments and businesses work are never going to be able to handle issues, and only encourage stratification? Well, the means are here: decentralization via the internet. The more the world has it, the more potential there is for transformation and new activism. As the years go by, the internet becomes less and less a separate entity, and more a bedrock of modern civilization. If you're looking for one thread, or underlying pattern across the world, this is it. Follow it to its roots, and you may begin to find effective means for helping it spread. And so it comes down to this; David has found his pragmatic rock to slay Goliath through a simple philosophy: illuminate the world by linking the vast points together.
Note: edited this post a bit to clarify some issues...
Just found this interesting article, comparing the contemporary battle of open source vs. "closed" as something like aggressive, territorial Klingons vs. the more peaceful, "open" Federation. Good analogy. In the Star Trek universe, money has been done away with, and although there is still organization, institutions, etc, they seek as a major profit: scientific and social discovery. The federation is a "peaceful empire" of sorts, expanding and, in the words of Captain Pike from the new movie, "a peacekeeping armada." Interesting concepts, although are they idealistic?
Wouldn't it also be interesting to see what science fiction writers could do with the philosophy of open source? Could we imagine entire societies running in such an open, decentralized and collaborative way? How would you make money? What would be the ups and the downs? Society would appear more like a "hive" of minds working to create "nodes" or projects of one sort or another. Interesting possibilities! Any creative minds out there?
The purpose of the Open Source Sociology Network was greatly inspired by Open Anthropology Project. Our intentions are the same- to enhance communications between social scientists, taking collaboration and information exchange to a new plateau. A network of blogs can help support each other, give valuable feedback and help sociologists and other social scientists remain up to date with current events, publications and projects. It also will provide everyone with an easier means to share their ideas, and create new projects. The internet is a valuable and powerful tool that sociologists can utilize!
My job here is just to help string the network together, adding more blogs to the network. To view a similar project, I recommend checking out Open Anthropology's plan:
A place to share ideas A place to find like-minded anthropologists A place to collaborate A place to hold virtual conferences A place to host podcasts A place to ask questions A place to learn about new tools for anthropology (online tools, field tools, etc.) A place to find resources (e.g. databases, good grad programs, upcoming colloquia, software, field opportunities) A place to publish The idea of an engaged anthropology for the 21st century in relation to the digital revolution Group blog with posts from both Keith and others Forum for discussion Online press to publish longer pieces The incorporation of Twitter, social bookmarking, wiki, etc
This list is wonderful. If any sociologists would like to help me come up with a similar list, or contribute their ideas to the development of this network, please feel free to join in on the discussion, email me or leave comments. Also, feel free to post links to your own blogs, so that they can be added.
What's currently on the agenda for the OSS:
1) Continue to spread the word and link blogs. 2) Develop a neater looking badge, as well as any other networking tools. 3) Possibly create a ning website, this would help create a "hub" for us to further discuss ideas.
Clay Shirky is the author of Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. In this video, he articulates just how society is transforming from the ground up. Instead of needing institutions and "centralized" agents, we are growing towards a decentralized and network-style way of running society. Technology empowers everyday people to do things never before possible.
There are a number of projects already going on right now in the same spirit of "open" or "public" sociology. For instance, Public Sociology itself has the same goal. There is also Sociologists Without Borders. However, OSS and the "social science commons" are a bit different in the sense that these new ideas utilize the blogosphere to be the means to collaborate and network. The most powerful tool we have today is the ability to collaborate and create organizations without much hierarchy or bureaucratic structure. As Clay Shirky says, it's a matter of institution vs. collaboration, and collaboration is becoming an ever more successful model for getting things done. "Public Sociology," as its stated on the website, has the task of "Institutionalizing Public Sociologies." I'm not sure we'd want to do this. Rather, let's compliment the already existing efforts with a networked, grassroots project. Imagine even a few hundred sociologist, anthropologist and political scientist bloggers, chatting away in the blogosphere. Closer friendships, ties and even activities and research could arise from there, without the constraints of needing an "institution" first, or even an official journal. In other words, I'm arguing for us to use the social networking tools to help us create an organic collaborative community.
The purpose of this blog, as well as other blogs that join the network, is to engage in a simple but growing medium of communication. Internet communication is becoming an integral part of social communication in modern societies. As the means to express ourselves enhances and evolves, this interconnected, networked social structure emerging in the 21st century has potential to revolutionize the way society works. Many have taken the networked, decentralized structure of the internet, and used it to develop the "open source" philosophy. Originally starting as a term for sharing programming source codes, "openly" in a collaborative atmosphere, open source has become a word for a growing collaborative way of creating content. Aside from operating systems and websites, pictures, music, writing, videos and film have all become an expression of this new idea. Websites like Creative Commons offer both a community and a means to license your work for a new internet age.
The latest aspect of society to be influenced by "open source," are the scientific fields. The power of sharing scientific knowledge with other researchers across the globe can revolutionize scientific development. Researchers can cross-examine each other's work, learn the pros and cons and more efficiently. Other new technological developments means departments and organizations, no matter where they are, can share their work and collaborate. This was never possible before. The latest and greatest example is Science Commons.
What "Open Sociology," means to do is begin applying this not only to the hard sciences, but the social sciences. We seek to create the beginning of a "social science commons." The internet offers us a powerful transformative tool for communication, research, and social activism. Why not take advantage of it? That's the purpose of this blog, and the blog network in a nutshell. We aim to plant the seeds for a grassroots network of sociologists, anthropologists and other social science professors, students and advocates, to share their knowledge, collaborate on research and activism, and help the social sciences take an updated and evolved place in an ever changing civilization.
"I believe that the world needs public sociology - a sociology that transcends the academy - more than ever. Our potential publics are multiple, ranging from media audiences to policy makers, from silenced minorities to social movements. They are local, global, and national. As public sociology stimulates debate in all these contexts, it inspires and revitalizes our discipline. In return, theory and research give legitimacy, direction, and substance to public sociology. Teaching is equally central to public sociology: students are our first public for they carry sociology into all walks of life. Finally, the critical imagination, exposing the gap between what is and what could be, infuses values into public sociology to remind us that the world could be different." -Michael Buroway
