\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}

\usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}

\renewcommand{\rmdefault}{ptm}
\renewcommand{\sfdefault}{phv}
\renewcommand{\ttdefault}{pcr}

\usepackage[british,french]{babel}
\usepackage{t1enc}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage[pdftex,bookmarks,colorlinks,a4paper,pdfstartview=FitH,urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}

\title{On Networked Cultural Capital: recognition, accessibility and non-scarcity of power}

\author{Toni Prug, \href{mailto:toni@irational.org}{toni@irational.org}}

\date{ Version 0.24 \\ 13 June 2002 }

\begin{document}
\selectlanguage{british}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
This document argues the need for an action through analysis of the existence of cultural
capital in both local and global activists networks, and advocates its addressing through
organizational structures, in this case, through the use of The Open Organizations
Framework.
\end{abstract}

\tableofcontents
\newpage

\section{Status of this Memo}

This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does not specify an
official standard of any kind, and does not necessarily represent the views of anyone
other than its author.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

\section{Introduction}

The term `cultural capital' was introduced by Pierre Bourdieu in 1970's and quite a lot
has been written about it since.  The context in which i'm using the term here and the
meaning i assign it differs to some extent.  Since i haven't studied in detail the history
of the term, i won't compare the two in detail, but rather give my analysis of the term
from the context in which i experienced it and assign it a meaning accordingly. However,
studying Bourdieu's work, theory that developed from his contribution to this field, it's
critics and its relationship with Marx's theory of capital and value will be certainly be
part of on-going developments of this framework.

\section{Discussion}

The phenomena of cultural capital is everywhere in the world of activism today.  And
probably in all organizations of similar structures reluctant to address it.  In our
experience, it primarily comes from the desire and determination not replicate certain
organizational structures and to work in more a egalitarian, collaborative environment.

However, there are issues that are highly hindering on our way to move forward. The issue
of cultural capital is one of them. I hope that this analysis will help those who share
our observation to distribute the cultural capital and make it accessible to all thus
empowering the organization with the energy that merely needs to be released from the
deadlock of old paradigms.

\section{Recognition}

\subsection{What do i mean by cultural capital and why it matters?} \label{culturalcapital}

This is a complex subject\footnote{paper `Value and Capital in Bourdieu and Marx' by Jon
Beasley-Murray has been immense help in understanding some of these complex and obscured
relationships. Jon thanks at the end of the paper to Massimo de Angelis for `originally
pointing him in this line of enquiry'. Coincidence or not, i met Massimo in April 2002
after the European Social Forum UK mobilisation meeting and told him about this
framework. His instant reaction was first to express support and underline the importance
of such work, and then to challenge my notion of `capital'! Thanks to both of you for
following this important trait so persistently!} one without a shortcut, or at least
without a known shortcut. For Bourdieu, cultural capital is use value (value realised in
use), or accumulated labour. In the context of this framework, i recognize use value being
represented as knowledge of the history, working practices, social conventions, and social
ties of an group, organization, network or a movement. In capitalism, economy is driven
entirely by the exchange value (realised in exchange), unless use value is being
recognized by `agents of cultural accreditation' as Beasley-Murray calls it. He continues
`Bourdieu notes that it is the State and, particularly, its educational system are key
agents in the valorization\footnote{raise or fix the price of (a commodity etc.) by
artificial means, esp. by government action} of cultural capital'.

This is what i see as a key issue: our task is to establish our own networks of groups,
organizatons, collectives (pick whatever name you like) as institutions that will
recognize possibilities of turning our accumulated labour (use value, or cultural capital)
into powerful tools for social change. Here, saying `powerful' i mean \emph{with a lot of
ability to do}, and `tools for social change' i mean {\bf efficient global network for:
communication, collaboration, coordination, knowledge storing-reuse-sharing and
decision-making.}

Howard Slater expresses this well and with contagious passion:\footnote{from transcription
of an `exchange-situation' that took place at the Copenhagen Free University on 18th March
2002. The participants, or `conceptual personae', present were Josephine Berry
(interviewer), Henriette Heise, Jakob Jakobsen and Howard Slater} \emph{I'd say it's not a
matter of taking power as such as becoming acclimatised to being able to create a sense of
power amongst ourselves. Again, that it's seomthing like knowledge, like university, like
institution that needs to be questioned.... A sense of power can be generated.  You can
say ``fuck you I don't need your institution, it's not done any good to anybody''. And so
we can feel a sense of power, as Jakob and Henriette are saying, just through naming an
institution or establishing an institution, because in some respects, for me,
self-institution thing is about recreating a public sphere or it raises the question has
there ever been a public sphere?}

I would like to add to this that we don't have to hang on the sense of power, we can,
indeed, posses the power --- because we posses all the ingredients needed to construct
it. As i will argue later, we actually already have immense power, to be able to recognize
what constitutes it, to learn how to deal with it in the long run and to use it well, is
our biggest challenge.

To recap: cultural capital represents acummulated labour or use value, accumulated through
the knowledge of history, working practices, social conventions, and social ties of an
group, organisation, network or a movement.

\subsection{Starting points: releasing our abundant power}

\begin{itemize}

\item 
first i argue that cultural capital ~(\ref{culturalcapital}) does not weaken by
multiplying, being distributed and accessible to all, and therefore should be dealt with
in such fashion;  
\item
parallel, i argue that cultural capital is not scarce, and therefore the power that comes
from possessing it isn't scarce either;
\item
a step further i argue that attributes of cultural capital in activist networks today have
changed parallel with the communications tools e.g. technologies we use;
\item
that by changing our paradigm about it we can make much better use of it; we can become
much more powerful as individuals, groups, organizations, as networks and as a movement at
large.

\end{itemize}

To clarify, when i speak of power here, i speak of \emph{ability to do}, and start from
the premise that being able to do more e.g. being more powerful is a good thing, and thus
should be shared and encouraged. To our experience, the usual way to deal with the issue
of power in activist networks has been often marked by not dealing with it at all. Which,
we believe, makes us all less powerful and more prone to hidden power structures, in the
long run creating mistrust and inducing a lot of damage to individuals, groups and
networks.

\subsection{Conflict and scarcity}
 
Conflict is defined as being possible only around scarcity.  The common held belief is
that any capital outside of the labour process of creating surplus value can not be but
scarce, limited and therefore not able to multiply without losing its value.  That's not
what we are talking about here, and not all forms of capital are the same.  Cultural
capital has a potential to create more value by being distributed and accesible to all.

\section{Concentrated cultural capital}

When there are no written working practices, and no transparent communication and decision
making within the organization, only those people that have been involved for a long time
have the knowledge of those practices and ties e.g. they know, or rather they are, the
culture of the group.  The transfer of culture to new people can only happen in personal
contact or through `try and fail' --- new volunteer can try doing it his way, fail and be
flamed for it by others or succeed by careful observing, if he/she is lucky that
particular kind of practice can be observed.

In those situations, when cultural capital can not be transfered otherwise but via(by)
its holders, we can speak of \emph{Concentrated Cultural Capital}.

In open, volunteer based organizations like Indymedia and ATTAC unless concentration of
such non-economic capital (as Bourdieu called it) is addressed, hidden power structures
arise and hinder democratic processes almost by default --- by creating a hierarchy of
powerful individuals whose accountability becomes unnecessary burden and an issue.  This
often has little to do with intentions, but arises by itself when not addressed.

\subsection{Internal problems resulting from concentration of cultural capital} 

The situation can be worse if there are no structures through which the distribution of
cultural capital can be challenged.  In those situations claims by the organization to
represent certain values and pursue goals like those of `more democracy' and `for world
based on cooperation' mean very little, if anything.  The concept we offer is simple and by
all means not new, but often forgotten: we ought to be able to achieve such goals, or any
others, within our organizations first.  If we are to be believed that we have a potential
of doing the same in the wider society.

If and when the accusations are made that certain individuals hold and misuse the cultural
capital that they acquired while working in the organization, the whole organizations
suffers, since those people are often in a situation from which they can not easily
retreat nor defend.  By default, because they have been involved a lot and because of
their cultural capital acquired through that involvement, they are able to do things,
propose more, influence people's opinions on issues, and therefore are perceived, quite
rightly, as the power holders and an authority.\footnote{authority as \emph{an influence
exerted on opinion because of recognized knowledge or expertise}, not as often assumed,
authority as \emph{power, or right to enforce obedience}} Or, in other words, people able
to do more --- and thus influence the organization more.

\subsection{Solution through processes for distribution and sharing} 

There is no easy way out from this situation. We propose putting a processes in place that
will take care about the future distribution and sharing of the cultural capital.
However, it takes time to do so, and in the meantime all involved need to understand
issues and complexities involved.  Only then can we expect enough patience needed to make
the whole organization more able (powerful) to do what its mission/role/goal is, instead
of loosing more capable people, and all because of inability to grasp the problem and
implement the solution.  This is the case that i've have seen happening over and over and
this analysis, and the Framework of Open Organizations, are as well an attempt to provide
a solution to it.

\section{Networked Cultural Capital}

Our cultural capital has undergone a major change by becoming like the electronic networks
through which it's distributed.  Nowadays, its value grows rapidly with each new holder
that embraces it e.g. with each new node\footnote{whether we can speak of exponential
growth i can't tell right now and i don't think it matters}.  The more people possess it,
the more powerful we, as individuals, groups, organizations, and as the movement
become. The More powerful we are, more likely we are to achieve what we set out to do.

That is what happens when the cultural capital gets mapped onto the communication networks
(both social and technical networks) and when values like transparency, sharing,
collaboration get embraced in environments suitable to them.  Today, because of all that,
we can speak of a new form of cultural capital, one that belongs to --- and is created by
--- many, the \emph{Networked Cultural Capital}.

\section{Proposed Solution in short}

The framework of Open Organizations recognizes cultural capital as vast potential for
additional power (ability to do), it suggests how to make it accesible to all and it
prevents its concentration to a large degree, at the same time embracing it's new,
changed, networked nature.

\newpage
\input{inc-context_history}

\end{document}