Aristotle said that, by nature, we are all political animals.
I think that I am not the only one thinking something really simple.
I think that he really meant: any human has to be part of a community.
But what is funny is how, in our technological age, way too often we focus on details, and “politics” becomes just another marketing activity.
Do not worry, this post is not going to be a rambling about social and political theory- just a practical exercise.
In 1994, when I completed a Summer course at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden on Intercultural Communication and Management, I was supposed to apply my skills to write an essay.
As I did many times before, I decided to go the literary way- and I wrote a speech for a politician promoting cross-cultural communication and joint development (my American teacher liked it enough to give a 94- not a 100, because I preferred to use a non-technical word, as if it were a real political speech ).
I have been thinking about that speech quite often, over the last few years, while researching “the digital divide”.
We are so focused on giving everybody access to the technological new world, that we forget about a basic issue: communication.
Few years ago I was managing a software project on immigration in Italy- and started studying all the European legislation and so on: because, on most everyday issues, rules and technology are further integrated in EU than all the public squabbling on newspapers would make you think.
Disclosure: I am for a greater European integration, so you can understand my position.
Back to the communication issue: I was surprised to see, in all the public material on the immigration subject, including online material from other institutions, that most of the people writing was focused on a XIX century approach to nationality.
Borders, passport, papers, local translators: as if freedom of movement concerned only intangible assets, not people.
Moreover, also the political side was often proposing something that, from a purely economic sense, did not make any sense- like providing some specialized services (e.g. translation, multilingual mediators) everywhere.
Again, a XIX position, that discounted both the ease of travel and the possibility of using other ways to deliver basic rights and services everywhere.
If politically I am pro-integration, my half-life spent at crunching numbers across many industries gave me a simple idea: many activities can be split into something that require people where and when needed, but accessible to anybody who needs them.
If you want: I would keep an expert where (s)he can everyday use her/his expertise, but set up “slots” of her/his time to support others, should be needed, using all the flexibility that technology allow us.
No, not a centralized, call-center style: a distributed approach. The experts, in my experience on knowledge management, can keep being experts only if and when they keep using their skills on the ground- do not put them inside an ivory tower: they will become irrelevant or a nuisance quite soon.
Getting back to Aristotle’s “political animal”.
I have built as an experiment few small “virtual” communities online, first a private one, mainly with people that I knew or that were at most “two degrees of separation” away (i.e. they knew somebody that knew somebody that knew me).
Then, in early 2007, I built a 400+ community around travels, multimedia production, and my quirky “united hamster front” joke on current affairs- with a simple aim: see if I could generate communication and a community-like attitude around some “shared interests” fast, and without any personal connection.
Then, in Summer 2007, I did it again- this time, thanks to a connection in Eastern Europe
Now my “virtual village” there is steady at around 1100 members, with around 40-100 readers on a daily basis: without any advertisement or other active marketing activities.
The interesting part of building an online community is: it is like in any other cultural anthropology activity- you become part of that community.
But the main difference is: once in, it is almost impossible to leave. It is your community
And working with a multilingual community (the Soviet time diaspora implies that most of my 1100 “village dwellers” are scattered around the globe) creates a completely different perspective on communication.
When I wrote in the title “everyday politics” I was not thinking about “professional” politics.
I was simply stating: with the new technologies, that disrupt the usual communication organizations and control, everybody can do a political action. Everyday.
From the customer who is disappointed about what a company says and writes, to the politician who decides to ask voters to keep telling what they think about what (s)he is doing- like in: “am I doing what you would have expected me to do?”.
Again- I am not advocating a permanent campaigning or permanent voters’ approval: when you vote for somebody, you delegate your voice to somebody, based on what (s)he tells you that (s)he will do.
And, unless the elected one violates the basic guidelines of the political platform, you voted for that person because you expected that (s)he would adapt to changes in a way that is consistent with the promises that you received before you voted.
Everyday politics is something that was common when I was a kid in my country, and that in our TV-oriented times is completely lost.
You can do a political action everyday- just look at what you know, and do something for your community at large.
In my case, I have been a consultant for most of my life- and also a business and management coach, a project manager, negotiator, and so on.
So, I did something really simple: looked around. Looked at my skills and experience. And checked what could I do.
I started this experiment… in early 1990s, as soon as I had some useful experience (at least, people paid to receive advice- so, I assume that it had some value )
But beside posting articles here and somewhere else, and supporting few pro bono via skype/e-mail, I looked for a project that could be of a wider local interest.
I hold an Italian passport, and I live in Brussels. And I found that most resident Italians, despite the blatant similarities between some parts of the Dutch language and the Italian language, do not bother to learn it.
So, after finding a free grammar online, I asked the author: is there an Italian version? would you mind if I were to prepare one?
I already released the first draft of the first 232 pages of the grammar, except the part on the syntax and the appendixes.
But the concept is simple: look around you, and you will certainly find something that is worth doing- for something more useful (to others) than simply sharing your thoughts.
Costs? Nothing. I used, on purpose, only open-source software (OpenOffice), and if you want to create your own website, have a look at my NLschap experiment in language learning: I did not spend a penny, and I share it for free online (except the concept/format).
If you do not know where you can begin… search in my blog for DIY.
So, instead of just complaining in blogs about the latest, quixotic initiative of somebody that you voted for… do something
This entry was posted
on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 13:17 and is filed under commentary, publications.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Everyday politics :)
Aristotle said that, by nature, we are all political animals.
I think that I am not the only one thinking something really simple.
I think that he really meant: any human has to be part of a community.
But what is funny is how, in our technological age, way too often we focus on details, and “politics” becomes just another marketing activity.
Do not worry, this post is not going to be a rambling about social and political theory- just a practical exercise.
In 1994, when I completed a Summer course at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden on Intercultural Communication and Management, I was supposed to apply my skills to write an essay.
As I did many times before, I decided to go the literary way- and I wrote a speech for a politician promoting cross-cultural communication and joint development (my American teacher liked it enough to give a 94- not a 100, because I preferred to use a non-technical word, as if it were a real political speech
).
I have been thinking about that speech quite often, over the last few years, while researching “the digital divide”.
We are so focused on giving everybody access to the technological new world, that we forget about a basic issue: communication.
Few years ago I was managing a software project on immigration in Italy- and started studying all the European legislation and so on: because, on most everyday issues, rules and technology are further integrated in EU than all the public squabbling on newspapers would make you think.
Disclosure: I am for a greater European integration, so you can understand my position.
Back to the communication issue: I was surprised to see, in all the public material on the immigration subject, including online material from other institutions, that most of the people writing was focused on a XIX century approach to nationality.
Borders, passport, papers, local translators: as if freedom of movement concerned only intangible assets, not people.
Moreover, also the political side was often proposing something that, from a purely economic sense, did not make any sense- like providing some specialized services (e.g. translation, multilingual mediators) everywhere.
Again, a XIX position, that discounted both the ease of travel and the possibility of using other ways to deliver basic rights and services everywhere.
If politically I am pro-integration, my half-life spent at crunching numbers across many industries gave me a simple idea: many activities can be split into something that require people where and when needed, but accessible to anybody who needs them.
If you want: I would keep an expert where (s)he can everyday use her/his expertise, but set up “slots” of her/his time to support others, should be needed, using all the flexibility that technology allow us.
No, not a centralized, call-center style: a distributed approach. The experts, in my experience on knowledge management, can keep being experts only if and when they keep using their skills on the ground- do not put them inside an ivory tower: they will become irrelevant or a nuisance quite soon.
Getting back to Aristotle’s “political animal”.
I have built as an experiment few small “virtual” communities online, first a private one, mainly with people that I knew or that were at most “two degrees of separation” away (i.e. they knew somebody that knew somebody that knew me).
Then, in early 2007, I built a 400+ community around travels, multimedia production, and my quirky “united hamster front” joke on current affairs- with a simple aim: see if I could generate communication and a community-like attitude around some “shared interests” fast, and without any personal connection.
Then, in Summer 2007, I did it again- this time, thanks to a connection in Eastern Europe
Now my “virtual village” there is steady at around 1100 members, with around 40-100 readers on a daily basis: without any advertisement or other active marketing activities.
The interesting part of building an online community is: it is like in any other cultural anthropology activity- you become part of that community.
But the main difference is: once in, it is almost impossible to leave. It is your community
And working with a multilingual community (the Soviet time diaspora implies that most of my 1100 “village dwellers” are scattered around the globe) creates a completely different perspective on communication.
When I wrote in the title “everyday politics” I was not thinking about “professional” politics.
I was simply stating: with the new technologies, that disrupt the usual communication organizations and control, everybody can do a political action. Everyday.
From the customer who is disappointed about what a company says and writes, to the politician who decides to ask voters to keep telling what they think about what (s)he is doing- like in: “am I doing what you would have expected me to do?”.
Again- I am not advocating a permanent campaigning or permanent voters’ approval: when you vote for somebody, you delegate your voice to somebody, based on what (s)he tells you that (s)he will do.
And, unless the elected one violates the basic guidelines of the political platform, you voted for that person because you expected that (s)he would adapt to changes in a way that is consistent with the promises that you received before you voted.
Everyday politics is something that was common when I was a kid in my country, and that in our TV-oriented times is completely lost.
You can do a political action everyday- just look at what you know, and do something for your community at large.
In my case, I have been a consultant for most of my life- and also a business and management coach, a project manager, negotiator, and so on.
So, I did something really simple: looked around. Looked at my skills and experience. And checked what could I do.
I started this experiment… in early 1990s, as soon as I had some useful experience (at least, people paid to receive advice- so, I assume that it had some value
)
You probably read recently my article on sharing intellectual property.
But beside posting articles here and somewhere else, and supporting few pro bono via skype/e-mail, I looked for a project that could be of a wider local interest.
I hold an Italian passport, and I live in Brussels. And I found that most resident Italians, despite the blatant similarities between some parts of the Dutch language and the Italian language, do not bother to learn it.
So, after finding a free grammar online, I asked the author: is there an Italian version? would you mind if I were to prepare one?
I already released the first draft of the first 232 pages of the grammar, except the part on the syntax and the appendixes.
If you speak Italian, have a look here (it is a 1.4 MB Acrobat file), covering: spelling, verbs, nouns, articles, pronouns.
But the concept is simple: look around you, and you will certainly find something that is worth doing- for something more useful (to others) than simply sharing your thoughts.
Costs? Nothing. I used, on purpose, only open-source software (OpenOffice), and if you want to create your own website, have a look at my NLschap experiment in language learning: I did not spend a penny, and I share it for free online (except the concept/format).
If you do not know where you can begin… search in my blog for DIY.
So, instead of just complaining in blogs about the latest, quixotic initiative of somebody that you voted for… do something
Tags: animal, anthropology, aristotle, change, cultural, election, political, politics, theory, voting
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 13:17 and is filed under commentary, publications. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.