The Liminal Society

Background

Charles-Arnold Kurr van Gennep, a Dutch-German-French anthropologist is most famous for his study of “rites of passage,” like moving from childhood to adulthood or from lay person to sacred (e.g., a Priest).

The ‘passage’ in a rite-of-passage is from an established order to a new one. Three phases of a rite are recognized: separation (from what is), liminal (betwixt and between), and incorporation (established in what is to be).

The German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, viewed history as an ongoing process of moving from “thesis,” what is; “antithesis,” where the established order is challenged and new possibilities are posed; and “synthesis,” that which will be.

The two ideas can be combined and applied to societies or cultures: there is an established order, a rite-of-passage, and a, resulting, new order. Unfortunately, history provides us with few examples of the rite-of-passage phase. Politically, the norm is an old order, a revolution, and the immediate establishment of a new order; with no intervening passage and, most importantly, no liminal phase where possibilities can be explored and evaluated.

In 1888, Edward Bellamy published Looking Backwards: 2000 to 1887. It was the third bestselling novel, in the U.S., in the 19^th century. [Number one, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin; and two, Lew Wallace’s Ben Hur: a Story of Christ.)] Bellamy wrote a sequel, Equality, in 1897 that added detail to the utopian world depicted in Looking Backward.

Bellamy described a society with economic equality, elimination of money, shared prosperity, voluntary labor from age 21 to 45 assisted by machines, universal access to education and healthcare, along with advanced technology like air cards, and television and a vegetarian diet. So inspiring was this novel that 165 Nationalist Clubs (aka Bellamy Clubs) were formed across the U.S.; with weekly meetings discussing how to bring about the described future. The movement faded, but not before influencing the Populist Party and establishing roots for the American Socialist movement of the next century.

Synthesizing these ideas leads to a proposal establishing an entity dedicated to defining and implementing a “rite of passage” that will facilitate/precipitate a transition/transformation of the current system to a preferred state. By rite-of-passage we mean: planning and executing actions and activities that facilitate separation from the existing system; exploring and prioritizing characteristics desired in the new system (the liminal phase); and then planning and executing actions and activities that will incorporate and sustain the desired system.

Arguably, the most important of these phases is the liminal, the exploration of possibilities and adoption of goals and objectives among those possibilities. Once adopted, it will be possible to define and implement concrete actions for both separation and incorporation.

Hence, establish a

Liminal Society

with the mission

to transform society.

Seed Conversations / Projects

The vision for the Liminal Society involves multiple local communities, ala the Nationalist Clubs; their physical presence complemented with an on-line community and annual or semi-annual conventions.

Unlike the Nationalist Clubs, there is no desire to become purely philosophical discussion groups, nor any desire to seek influence or take action within the existing political framework; as did the Nationalist Clubs by joining the People’s Party and ensuring their demise as a recognizable force.

The aspirations to transform society require concrete action. Discussion with regard factors leading to the current society and with regard a possible future society are essential, but they must be operationalized: ideas evolved into plans and plans executed.

Two current projects (inviting participants) are presented as examples or frameworks for future efforts: “Rethinking Business and IT” and “Becoming Human.” Both derive from a more general discussion regarding social equity and the need for a contemporary era akin to the Renaissance (14^th—17^th century in Italy) with an efflorescence in humanism, scientific inquiry, and artistic innovation.

Rethinking Business and IT

Business is paradoxical: simultaneously responsible for so much prosperity and improvement of the human condition while creating great disparity in wealth, reducing human beings to mere consumers, and treating employees as commodity cogs in a machine.

A movement, small but growing, to rethink business is already underway. Beginning with the idea of a “triple bottom line (people, planet, profit),” benefit corporations, Conscious Capitalism, and “Teal” organizations. The driving values of these alternative forms of business include the humanism and social equity goals of the general discussion of a neo-Renaissance.

Information Technology (IT), the use of computers and software systems to support business, has a far more checkered history. Few benefits other than allowing businesses to achieve greater scale; a plethora of ills: bloated and overly complicated systems; demeaning human beings, both clients and developers; endemic failures; waste; and ecological unsustainability.

Multiple efforts have been made to ‘reform’ IT, some major, like objects and agile, most minor and technical. None have had significant impact, always diluted, contorted, and absorbed by the prevailing mindset.

Both business and IT need a different perspective and a different set of tools in order to realize their objectives and realistically implement their values. This project seeks to establish and implement such a perspective.

Key points:

· Business is a Complex System: dynamic, unknown, ambiguous, and unknowable variables and relations among them. Not amenable to tools and techniques developed to master and design deterministic, mechanical, systems.

· Business and IT constitute exactly one system; not the two, one artificial and deterministic, the other natural and complex that characterize the current perspective and state of the practice for development.

· Adoption of von Bertalanffy’s definition of a system: “a set of elements and the relations among them.” This yields a simple model, a bubble (labeled with an element name) and arc (connecting line labeled with the nature of the relation) diagram.

· Recognizing the need for a comprehensive—all of the elements, all of the relations, and all of the scenarios of those elements interacting to achieve objectives—is required.

o The only instance of humans obtaining and utilizing such a massive amount of information is Culture; everything we need to know to function as a human in a society.

o Cultural knowledge is not taught, it is obtained via “story telling.” The same tool is required to obtain the comprehensive knowledge of a business.

o 90+ percent of this knowledge is tacit but can be recalled via evocative triggers when needed.

o A visual depiction of individual stories takes the form of a bubble-and-arc diagram. Such a diagram is an evocative trigger, recalling to mind the totality of the story depicted.

o Specific diagrams can be integrated into a single “map” of the business.

· Recognizing that this comprehensive understanding, this “Theory,” needs to be comprehensively shared. Everyone in the business, including technical staff like software developers, must share a common, and substantial portion of the Theory while allowing localized groups to have more detailed and specific knowledge about a subset of the Theory.

· Using the integrated map, the “Domain Map” as evocative triggers to recall any portion of the Theory for any group of those who participated in the story telling that developed the Theory.

· Establishing a common model for every element in a system, be it a human being, and inanimate object, or an “Artifact,” executing software on a hardware platform.

· Establishing a common way to describe interactions, for purpose, among elements—a “Script”—that is consistent with the models of those elements.

· Defining a means, a process, for shared storytelling that will establish the comprehensive, and comprehensively shared, Theory.

· Defining a means, a process, for creating Artifacts, both the software incarnation of an element and the “Script” that limns element interactions to achieve an end.

This novel perspective needs to be made concrete and then deployed. Key steps, and specific actions, to make this happen include:

· Completing a book, a workbook, and other materials that fully describe the perspective and the approach.

· Complete articles for publication in magazines, web-sites, even press releases for business sections of newspapers.

· Completing presentations to be delivered at conferences, workshops, meetings that explain the perspective and outline an actual approach for implementing that perspective.

· Completing presentations, “case studies,” both theoretical and, as quickly as possible, actual.

· “Proselytize” the approach, seek meetings and opportunities to present the new perspective to potential audiences and adopters in the various alternative business communities, especially Conscious Capitalism and Certified B-Corps groups.

· Deploy the perspective and approach, companywide, and publish the success story.

Becoming Human

This project is the more important of the two, but has a longer lead time before practical action can ensue.

David Brooks, in a New York Times editorial stated, “In the Age of AI, major in being human.” A sentiment totally on point; with the problem that no such major exists. Part of this project, the part requiring extensive discussion, involves, in part, defining what such a major might look like.

Defining a “major” does not imply anything within the context of currently delivered “education.” Both content and delivery mechanism require (re)definition.

Four, very broad, categories for the discussion present themselves: considerations of the meaning of “intelligence;” augmenting human abilities including intelligence; human intelligence required for effective and meaningful use of technology, and “modern polymath.”

Intelligence. Beginning with the Age of Reason and accelerated by the Industrial Revolution, ”intelligence” came to be equated with reason, logic, analysis, and problem solving; with mathematics and similar formal systems elevated to the primary, if not the only, path to acquiring knowledge.

Ignored and/or discounted are human abilities, and knowledge, that support engaging with the world as a whole, sensitivity to context, relationships, and meaning. The ability to deal with ambiguity and contradiction. Empathy, insight, and genuine understanding. Ian McGilchrist—The Master and His Emissary, The Matter With Things vol I and II— has written extensively (~ 3,500 pages) about this issue.

An adjunct to intelligence is ‘knowledge’. It is important to recognize that 90% or more of what we, as individual human beings, know is tacit. It is not taught in school; it cannot be written down; it cannot be expressed with formalisms. A major portion of this body of knowledge is one’s culture. Culture defined by Tyler, “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, technology, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”

We have an entire education system, kindergarten through Ph.D. that believes it knows all kinds of techniques and processes to impart formal intelligence and knowledge; but knows next to nothing about imparting cultural knowledge or other forms of tacit knowledge. [One aspect of this issue is addressed in the Rethinking Business and IT project.]

Augmenting human abilities. As our understanding of human intelligence, knowledge, and abilities grows it will be necessary to discover ways of augmenting the newly defined areas. An example might be ways to augment individual creativity and artistry. Something akin to etudes, practice exercises, for pianists might be discovered and taught.

Of course, technology might be seen as a means for augmenting human abilities. Douglas Englebart, at the dawn of the computing era, wrote extensively about this and founded an institute, still extant, to research and promote his ideas. Steve Jobs saw the computer as a “bicycle for the mind.” alluding to how the bicycle directly empowered humans by extending their ability to travel farther and faster.

Alas, such efforts are mostly ignored. Computer advocates are hell-bent on replacing humans. AI has to denigrate human intelligence to the point that the vestigial dregs can be replicated by a computer and then proclaim the superiority of the artificial over the actual.

Human use of technology. This is best illustrated with an example from AI. What are the human intelligence skills required to: curate appropriate training sets; craft effective and meaningful prompts; and, interpret, interpolate, and correct outputs? How to we encourage and support development of these skills?

Computers are not the only form of technology in need of augmented human skills to manage and control. The internet and social media comes to mind immediately. How do we “inoculate” kids against all the ills perpetrated by social media?

Modern Polymath. Becoming a literal polymath, knowing all that there is to know, is no longer practical. (Maybe with fully augmented humans???) Nevertheless, there is a real need for humans, for employees, to possess a significantly broader knowledge base along with the skills to effectively communicate and develop integrative skills across that knowledge base.

Decades back, the business press spoke of “T” shaped individuals. A breadth of knowledge complemented with one area of depth. This was soon replaced with the notion of a “π” shaped individual, breadth bar with two depth descenders. The most current metaphor is, “broken comb.” A breadth bar with thickness denoting an integrated understanding, with multiple (dozens) of descenders of varied depth denoting specialized or detailed knowledge.

Once defined and delineated, what kind of environment is necessary to transmit, support absorption of the knowledge and skills. Two possibilities, a physical bottega (studio) and a corporate, in-house dojo. Such an environment was described in a paper I wrote years back:

• a “storefront” where goods and services are produced and delivered to paying customers

• a workshop simultaneously engaged in the craft, in building the tools and discovering the techniques that advance and support the craft, and teaching that craft to apprentices

• a place noisy with multiple projects and activities; walls and benches covered with works in progress and exemplars of the craft

• a place filled with the tools of the craft (add computers and digital displays to the easels, brushes, hammers, chisels, carving, forges, kilns, model making, etc. tools found in a typical bottega); with room for lounging and eating facilities as well

• an intellectual center that is a “must visit” for masters, scientists, and thinkers visiting the area, overseen (deliberately avoiding the term managed) by local masters and journeymen

• an environment and atmosphere that is very self-consciously multi- and inter-disciplinary; that mixes theory and prac- tice almost without differentiation

• a place full of music, especially “after hours”

• a place to share food and drink (and perhaps sleep)

• a fountain of innovation and creativity

Now imagine a computer science education based on this model. All learning would be based on bottega projects—software projects executed in teams—each project bristling with a set of required skills and knowledge that when learned (at various depths and degrees) educate the student. In the bottega there would be few if any “lectures”—instead there would be brief ex- positions, explorations, reading, readings, and web searches— with a preference for hands-on learning or learning in a context, typically for a purpose, for a particular audience.

Two important concerns. The Bottega must be physical gathering/learning space; and tuition can be charged, but there must be opportunities for apprentices to earn wages that will offset a lot of that cost. The idea is for them to have skin in the game, but not graduate with staggering debt.

My software development apprenticeship program was based on the above. Apprentices were paid from commissions with businesses to develop software; e.g., Fix and adapt a Water Rights database and access program for the New Mexico State Engineer’s Office. This program was a spectacular success—cancelled abruptly and illegally by a university president who, a year later was sent to federal prison for 4 years for corruption.

The Dojo aspect would be recreating as close as possible approximation of the above withing a corporate organization, ala the Dojo movement started by Dion Stewart and Joel Tosi.

Action steps for this project:

· develop and publish the “curriculum”

· complete presentations, articles, and seminars to promote the idea

· Found an initial Bottega

o Develop a kind of franchise model to spur replication in multiple locales

· Establish an in-house Bottega, the alternative businesses discussed previously would be natural targets

· Tout success stories