Theory of Extreme Democracy

January 4, 2006
by Russell Cole

here is a perception in society that the most efficient and rational method by which to structure an institution is through a hierarchical architecture that possess levels of strata endowing individuals assuming statuses in those strata with certain powers and responsibilities. This sentiment seems almost self evident; without hierarchy and the delegation of responsibility distributed by an executive source, standing atop a hierarchical structure, there would be no accountability as well as planning, and, for that matter, organization, at all.

This description is applicable to the ordinary corporatist institutional configuration, where there are levels of employees and gradations of management, and power is acquired through ones acquisition of a status that has a specific position in the hierarchical structure that is not in the lowest strata of the vertical grid constituting the organization. Many political parties subscribe to this conventional wisdom regarding organizational theory, and what results is a hierarchical structure manifested from this archaic philosophy’s implementation into practice.

Currently, third-parties, such as the Green Party, are in the process of arranging vertical positions within the framework of its party’s organization. The basic Membership is losing a lot of the influence it once had upon the Party’s platform and the specific imperatives, or plans of action, developed in order to actualize the state-of-affairs described by the propositions included in the platform. I will not even go into a description of the two business parties because their hierarchical structures are so evident that it is ostensible and extraneous to even provide a description of their inegalitarian structures.

I want to introduce a radically new conceptualization of organizations that is becoming quite a popular school of thought in both democratic theory and organizational theory. I will refer to this paradigm as Extreme Democracy. This understanding of organizations recognizes that vertical differentiation that is prepared in advance of the organization’s enactment is counter-productive to the organization’s ability to place the best people in the most influential places; by, the best people, I am merely referring to those who are willing to work harder, produce more, and manufacture commodities - intellectual and material - that are qualitatively superior. These people, due to the dynamics of the organization I am about to describe will naturally ascend to positions of disproportionate influence.

The type of organization that fosters this meritocratic scheme for determining who will amass the greatest impact upon the organization is a loose network of associations that is entirely egalitarian with respect to the fact that there are no preconceived stratification within the social body. Here is the dynamic that operates within this network that propels the most productive and effective to positions of influence within the network, or the loose organization: Those who can produce better results will attract others in the network to form relationships with these individuals, who possess the ability to achieve prodigious tasks. In other words, naturally, people in the organization are going to want to exchange commodities - in the form of intellectual information or more tangible constructs - with those who provide a more beneficial product.

Therefore, the number of relationships possessed by an outstanding member of the network will proliferate, and through these links within the network the products produced by the talented and hard-working individual will become dispersed more widely throughout the system, and his or her influence will be exacerbated. He or she will then, through a completely egalitarian process, ascend to a position of power when it comes to shaping the contents and dispositions of the organization.

The theory of Extreme Democracy is somewhat of a by-product of the social phenomenon of social-software projects. People noticed the trend referred to above taking place within the loose organizations of associates who were involved in the production of the coding necessary to enhance computer products. Mozilla/Firefox is probably the best example of this type of social activity. Jon Lebkowsky has been responsible for much of the expansion of the school of thought referenced as Extreme Democracy. Though I agree with him on many aspects of his theoretical contemplations, there are still numerous problems to be worked out. Nevertheless, this still appears to be a fruitful avenue to pursue for those who are interested in improving society by institutionalizing improved forms of democratic polity.

Situating Extreme Democracy within a Larger Sociological Context

January 19, 2006
by Russell Cole

Sociologists usually consider two dynamics when providing explanations for the social systems that are instantiated by the interactions of the individuals comprising a pocket of humanity; a cultural group; a society: The first consideration is the actual structure of the social system, itself. I shall refer to this as a synchronic description of a social system. The second dimension to be included in the analysis is a description of the processes that lead to social change. I shall refer to this domain of analysis as the diachronic element to the sociological explanations provided for the observable social events occurring within the context of a social group, or aggregate.

Sociologists typically tend to concentrate their efforts on one of the before mentioned elements of analysis or the other, but rarely conceptualize theoretical frameworks that integrate the two dynamics of social interaction. However, there is an exception to this generalization regarding sociological discourse. It is provided by an anthropologists of the latter half of the previous century. I am referring to Victor Turner, and his conception of communitas, which is the process through which social change occurs while continuing to maintain a social group or body.

Communitas is a liminal state; a state that falls in between two to other states, which possess structural properties. The intermediary state, communitas, however, fails to instantiate structural properties, and is, in fact, defined by its absence of structure. Therefore, communitas is a state of flux; a point of in-determinability; where the next state is decided by unpredictable factors which consist of the agencies of the individuals comprising the social group. Communitas is a condition where the only aggregate property, which continues to persist, is the pure solidarity between and among the individuals within the culture. It is a state of pure community, void of the structural elements that we often associate with society. This aggregate property can be thought of as the pure emotive attraction between and among the individuals, who are involved in the communitas, and comprise the social group.

I now want to connect the concept of communitas with the concept of Extreme Democracy. Extreme democracy is a form of organization that is also constantly in flux, undergoing revision and change, due to the fact that there is no institutionalized structure. The shape that the organization assumes is always dependent upon the innovation and unpredictable inventiveness of the agents included in this network, who are not constrained by any objectified statuses and roles, connected with those statuses. There is affiliation but no institutionalization. By extension: there is community, but no society; there is solidarity, but there lacks any structural impositions that are reinforced by the regulatory mechanisms, which maintain the integrity of a social structure.

An Extremely Democratic organization is completely voluntary and completely egalitarian in the respect that there are no per-established statuses forming a hierarchical, vertical formation. Statuses are constantly subject to revision based upon the agency of the individuals who are emotively attached to one another by virtue of the fact that they identify one another with a collective history and a shared teleology, or purpose, with regards to the fact that the agents perceive one another as working in conjunction under the pretense of a shared cause; although that cause can be reinvented by the agents who remain in the organization, in an ongoing basis, but is typically maintained in a form that does not alter its predecessor too abruptly, because such a change would alienate much of the membership. In short, the telos that unites the agents included in the organization is subject to Extreme Democracy. It is shaped and formed through the decisions made by the agents.