Download here - The Da Vinci Institute

16 MARCH 2017
THE DA VINCI INSTITUTE
INAUGURAL LECTURE: Professor Benjamin Anderson
TITLE: Anarchy and individuality
…the man who has learned to think, and to reason, and to compare, and to
discriminate, and to analyse, who has refined his state, and formed his judgement,
and sharpened his mental vision, will not indeed at once be a lawyer, or a pleader,
or an orator, or a statesman, or a physician…, but he will be placed in that state of
intellect in which he can take up any one of the sciences or callings as I have referred
to … with an ease, a grace, a versatility and a success, to which another is a stranger
(Cardinal John Henry Newman, 1852).
(Listen to Franz Liszt’s Piano Sonata in B minor)
1.
Introduction
…a radical experience…
Franz Liszt (1818-1886) is often referred to as the most radical artist in renovating and
enriching pianistic composition. Born Hungarian he was surrounded by opera as the
characteristic of the social and musical pre-occupations of that period. Amongst
others, he composed 12 pieces of music, which has since been referred to as
symphonic poems of which the critics of the time concluded that these were not
absolute enough to be regarded as classical music. The Piano Sonata in B minor is a
great example of one of these symphonic poems. In composing these, he broke the
rules, borrowed from other disciplines and more importantly, listened to his own need
for musical expression. In doing so, he allowed the piano to imitate a full orchestra.
According to Pierre Boulez (1988), Liszt almost stood back from musical invention in
order to concentrate solely on the power of the hands on the instrument he was
exploring and exploiting.
This paper will attempt to present an argument for anarchy and individuality, as well
as, the relevance thereof to a university context. It will start off by defining ideology,
anarchy and individuality, followed by a discussion on how these constructs could
have relevance to the way we perceive reality and participate in the way society is
organised. It will then discuss how such perspectives could inform the development
of a university. The presentation will conclude by soliciting insights from the audience
on how the underlying principles and ideas of anarchy, individuality, reality and
society could inform a way forward.
2.
Ideology
Ideology can be described as a systematic body of concepts especially about
human life or culture (Merriam Webster Dictionary).
According to Descartes (1596-1650) ideologies develop in order to maintain the
masses in an ignorant slumber, whilst Rousseau (1712-1778) believes social
interdependent ideologies have corrupted people and estranged them from their
nature as being good because of the creation of a civilized yet artificial society.
Bacon (1891) state ideologies are pre-conceptions that could deceive man and
which constitutes an obstacle in the path of true knowledge.
The construct ‘ideology’ (the science of ideas) was first coined by a Frenchman,
Destutt de Tracy, at the time of the French Revolution (1789-1799), as a method to
provide a true foundation for all sciences and to investigate the manner in which
humans’ thoughts are constituted.
However, Marx made us aware of the role of ideology within society. He described
ideology as closely aligned to society’s superstructures (religion, legal and politics). In
1845, Marx and Engels argued ideology to be a deformed and inverted reflection of
reality, an illusion, not equal to knowledge and therefore not true consciousness.
Napoleon responded later to the impractically of ideological thought, saying: …ink
will kill modern society (Napoleon, 1913).
Lukacs (1885-1971) agrees to the idea that ideology is imbedded in the surrounding
social system of the individual, who can therefore not claim not to be part of the social
system.
Geertz (1973) added two more dimensions to ideology, arguing that untaught feelings
and un-examined prejudices of society often forms part of an ideology.
Ideology by definition therefore seems to be complex and multi-layered, with the
potential to scare those who have not developed an ease, a grace, a versatility and
a success, as referred to by Cardinal Newman.
It is against this background that I intend to explore the notion of anarchy.
3.
Anarchy
Anarchy can be defined as a state of disorder due to the absence or non-recognition
of authority (Webster Merriam dictionary).
Synonyms: revolution, rebellion, disorder and chaos.
According to Kropotkin (1911), anarchy is about the absolute freedom of individuals,
the absence of government and no hierarchy. It can therefore be described as a
philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. As
a result, it implies a non-hierarchical and free society.
In relation to the Snowden and Kurtz definition of disorder (to be discussed later) it
could be argued that people are free to oppose and/or agree on matters of
individual and/or societal interest, but in a self-governed manner. Which may imply
continuous dissonance and disequilibrium within the system.
Emma Goldman (1910) states anarchism stands for a social order based on a free
grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth, an order that
will guarantee free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life
according to individual desires, tastes and inclinations.
Proudhon (1840), Kropotkin (1910) and Bakunin (1991) can be hailed as the critical
thinkers who created a philosophy about anarchism. The founding fathers did not
think they were creating something new as the core principles of self-directedness,
voluntary association and mutual aid were to be seen as part of their perspective of
humanity.
Anarchist thinkers seem not to relate to a specific school of practice as has been the
case with Marxism. Foucault’s ideas (1986), did not emerge because of discussions
and arguments with a great number of people but from the genius of a single mind.
The following that may have developed because of such mind would be named after
some kind of practice or organising principle. In this regard, anarchists like to
distinguish themselves in what they do.
Anarchy has also tended to be an ethical discourse about rebellious practice. It
means that one’s means must be consonant to one’s ends (Graeber, 2004). One
cannot create freedom through authoritarian means; one must embody the society
one intends to create.
Anarchism is therefore both an idea and a project. How does one develop a new
system within an existing system? By collaborating and undermining those structures
and systems of dominance and autocracy in such a democratic way that the
structures themselves demonstrates they are unnecessary. The need for intellectual
analysis and understanding is critical, more so the voice of the individual mind and
context.
Anarchism is often referred to as a context where consensus underpins the decision
making process and where a wide variety and diversity of theoretical perspectives
and theories are acknowledged, reflected upon and ultimately incorporated, based
on shared commitments - a place where there is no need to convert anyone to your
view but to come up with a solution that everyone can live with and which is not in
violation of anyone’s principles.
Anarchists are sometimes referred to as individuals with unique and incommensurable
views of reality, allowing them to become friends, lovers and workers on common
projects.
Dealing with the real and immediate questions that may emerge from a
transformative project or activity is critical for anarchists.
Anarchy does therefore not relate positively to policy formation, as policy presumes a
state or governing apparatus, which imposes its will on others. According Graeber
(2004) policy is something concocted by some form of elite, which knows better how
their affairs are to be conducted.
So what social theory or idea or construct could contribute towards people being
able to govern their own actions? Could it be the quest for Utopianism? Surely not as
in the name of utopianism the likes of the Stalinists and Maoists tried to carve society
into impossible shapes killing millions of people. They unfortunately mistook their
dreams of a better world, for scientific certainty.
Anarchists need to reject any trace of vanguardism. The intention of intellectuals
should not be to form an elite to determine the future and expect the masses to follow.
Rather follow as a possibility, to carry out an ethnography of people and society, in
an attempt to understand the underlying symbols and values, to get to the way
people’s habits and actions makes sense, of which they may not be aware
themselves yet. And to give these perspectives of reality as gifts for consideration or
further action.
According to Al Brown (Goody, 1999/2000) the most successful species seem to be
those who cooperate the most effectively. In this regard, the following examples of
anarchist societies have been identified:



The Piaroa: Living along the Orinoco river according to Joanna Overing
(Mader, 2012), the Piaroa can be described as an anarchist society – focussing
on individual freedom and autonomy, where no one gives orders to anyone,
where no one should gain control over economic forces to constrain other’s
freedom and where the belief exists that life constitutes two dimensions: the
world of the senses and the world of the thought. They are peaceful and aware
of others, there has been no murder amongst them, as the belief is that anyone
who takes the life of another will go crazy, so all deaths are related to spiritual
murder and have to be avenged by the magical massacre of whole
communities.
The Tiv – according to Paul Bohannan (1953) the Tiv live along the Benue river
in Central Nigeria. Their domestic life consists of hierarchical males who have
many wives and exchange the right to younger women’s fertility, so young men
are treated like children, as unmarried dependents on their fathers’
compounds. There have been minor wars between clans, mostly disputes are
mediated by communal moots and there are no political institutions larger than
the compounds. Economically successful males are defined as witches and
there is a society of witches, seen as the invisible government and in every
generation a movement will arise to expose the culprits and thereby destroy
the structures of authority.
Highland Madagascar, according to Graeber (2004) comes from a harsh
colonial past, but has since established the Merina Bourgeoisie an organising
structure which allows the rural people to govern themselves. Decisions are

made by consensus by informal associations. Leadership is looked on with
suspicion, whilst no orders are given by one adult to another adult, they also
live very peacefully alongside each other.
Christiana (Denmark) - (1971) – is a self-regulated community of 850 individuals,
accountable for independent operations of all services to their members.
Agreement amongst all are required for any decisions to be affected and
implemented.
In view of the discussion on anarchy, it seems that freedom of individual
movement, of character and of thinking, provides an important baseline for
self-directedness, voluntary engagement and the provision of mutual aid.
I will now present some core ideas related to individuality.
4.
Individuality
Individuality could be described as a habit or principle of being independent and selfreliant, which started to develop during 1825 according to Brown (2016).
Individuality can also be defined as a social theory that advocates the liberty, rights
and independent actions of the individual (Dictionary.com)
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary individuality is the notion that all rights,
values and duties originate in individuals.
One can also describe individuality as the quality or character of a particular person
or things that distinguishes them from others of the same kind (Dictionary.com)
Such individuals tend to be original, unique, demonstrate some peculiarities, be
distinctly different from the crowd and often take a singular approach to doing things.
It also seems that individuality may encourage creativity and disregard group
conventions and boundaries as determined by others.
Individuals are often people who do not view the world as what can and what can’t
be done, as they view the world different, which allows them to be more innovative
in findings solutions for everyday problems and challenges. As such, they are able to
weight risk and benefits related to their actions from within themselves. It seems that
often-influential people are those with unique views and perspectives on realities
surrounding them. They are therefore not being swayed by fear or doubt by others.
Examples of individuality:


Travis Kalanick (Founder of Uber) – disrupting a staid, closed and uncompetitive
global transport industry
Stefan Simchowitz (Founder of Flipping the Art World) – disrupting the art
market. He does not try to fit in and he stands out amongst a crowd. His
worldview is clear, clever and controversial.







Mark Zuckerberg (Founder of Facebook) - designing and developing online
communication experiences
Bill Gates (Founder of Microsoft) - designing computer solutions and
connecting people
Steve Jobs (Co-founder of Apple) - designing customer centric experiences
and TMT solutions
Miles Munroe (Bahaian Minister) - discouraging reliance on governments for
jobs and describing such need as lazy thinking. Unemployment he calls lazy
thinking, and suggest that individuals create wealth by using their unique
talents by refining their gift and becoming valuable in a network of professional
people
Warren E Buffet (Founder of Berkshire Hathaway) – creating investment
management solutions
Carlo Cipolla (Economist who developed the theory: Four quadrants of
stupidity) - people who make themselves and others better off are defined as
intelligent. People who enrich themselves by impoverishing others are defined
as bandits. People who endure losses to help others are defined as helpless,
whilst people who make both themselves and others worse off are defined as
stupid.
Joseph Schumpeter (1957) – developing a theory of Creative Destruction
which has become the essential fact about capitalism and which is based on
individual contributions. True capitalism is about completely changing the way
things are done and creating new types of workplaces that will revolutionise
the way industries operate.
In view of the discussion on anarchy and individuality, we will now explore some
constructs, which underpins and defines reality and society.
5.
Reality
When Kurtz and Snowden (2003) positioned the idea of the Cynefin framework,
people seemed to be sceptical of the theoretical rigour and the practical relevance
of their sense-making framework for decision making within social contexts (Davies,
2010, Firestone, 2011, Graves, 2010).
The framework constitutes different realties: the known reality where people
categorise information in an attempt to develop a process and to take control,
referred to as the simple reality: the knowable reality referred to as complicated,
where people analyse information to develop an understanding of the interrelationships amongst different systems – both of these could be defined as
contributing towards ORDER.
The complex reality is where people probe, by amongst other, asking questions and
allowing for the emergence of a new reality, for which no clear pathway of how to
engage with such emerging reality will exist. The chaotic reality is the fourth domain
where people re-act on what they experience, there is no relationship between cause
and effect at a systems level and they act, sense and respond in novel ways – both
these could be defined as contributing towards UNORDER.
Disorder is the fifth domain, which fluctuates in size/presence, depending the
movement of energy, within any of the four other domains. Any disequilibrium, which
may develop because of an imbalance amongst the five domains, will require a
recalibration of energy flow between the ordered and unordered realities.
In this sense, the Cynefin framework serves the purpose of articulating greater
possibilities, by synthesizing the energies of seemingly opposing realities.
It also provides a context from which a more provocative and multi-layered ecology
of knowledge could be developed, a context from which the co-creation of new
concepts could be launched, informed by ideas from what is known and what is not
known yet (including what society may know but for which they may have not been
able to found the appropriate conceptual pathways to appreciate its existence). In
this regard I want to remind myself of what Nikola Tesla said in (1937) about new ways
of looking at energy and communication: “I have devoted much of my time to a small
apparatus by which energy in considerable amounts can now be flushed through
interstellar space to any distance without the slightest dispersion (New York Times,
Sunday 11 July 1937). Could he have referred to what is known now as Bluetooth and
Internet?
It also reminds one of what Francis Bacon (1947) said about the “cultivation of
knowledge versus the invention of knowledge” and what Simone de Beauvior (1972)
referred to as a “dialectic of ambiguity” to assist in creating knowledge within the
chaos of being and the chaos of existence.
In practical terms, this could imply that if I am confronted with a reality I could decide
to map my way through all the challenges by focussing on only one domain or involve
a combination of aspects from all domains into a multi-layered response. One in
which I will not assume to have all the facts at hand, or be trap into the mesmerizing
world of relationships or get stuck in a never ending cycle of probing or even continue
to add energy into the system, but a response which will be fit to take the challenge
upfront, appreciating the interplay between all the different realities and the energy
required to give and take at the appropriate time. In doing so one might become
part of the flow without the anxiety to out-produce or out-perform anyone.
If we are therefore interested in creating a university context which desires to
accommodate people, as represented from all five reality domains we will be
required to open up our minds to experiences and possibilities representative of the
energy mix typical of the ordered, un-ordered and dis-ordered realties.
In the next section I will explore how society, as a subset of reality, has developed and
how it tends to organise itself over time.
6.
Society
Society has changed the way in which it organises itself before: when it changed
direction from a predominantly oral and tribal society to a written and institutional
one, and when the Gutenberg press changed society to a market society. We are
now in era where electronic media are shifting society again, this time to a digital and
networked society (Jarche, 2014).
According to Ronfeldt (1996) there seems to have been a progression from tribes, to
institutions, to markets and lately to networks. According to Jarche (2014), we also
developed a core communication system within each of these: oral related to tribes,
written related to institutions, print related to markets, and digital related to networks.
Similarly we adopted or developed managerial leadership practices within each of
these societal forms: novel practices as tribes, best practices as institutions, good
practices as markets and emergent practices as networks which made societies focus
on action as tribes, coordination as institutions, collaboration as markets and
cooperation as networks (Institute for the Future, 2011).
In this context, the tribal village and the networked society seem to be moving closer
to each other in respect of displaying certain human behaviours. There was little
privacy in the village as there are in the networked society. So what can be retrieved
from the past and what reversals should be avoided in going forward? In this regard
Jarche (2014) argues that the need for an intelligent citizenry and workers actively
involved in all aspects of democratic enterprises are critical, as collaboration in
hierarchies, with gatekeepers and control mechanisms, will not transform society into
a well-functioning self-directed networked system. We therefore need to learn to work
cooperatively within complexity.
It is within this context that reference has already been made to the role and impact
of self-forming and self-directed associations as key building blocks for future work
(Lemire, Downes and Paquet, 2008).
According to Jarche (2014), people need to connect knowledge flows in an attempt
to establish and sustain the development of professional social networks. In this
regard, knowledge will become a negotiated agreement amongst connected
people, sometime outside existing arrangements and presentation of copy right and
intellectual property rights.
Lets be practical: If we prefer to abide by what the structured and hierarchical
workplace requires from us, which is to be goal orientated and work collaboratively,
then we will be able to establish a practice where a specialist will be appointed to
manage the output of a piece of work, referred to as a project with an accountable
project manager. If, however, we intend to move towards a less formal structure and
less hierarchical workplace, and allow more opportunities to work with other people,
then we will be able to establish communities of practice, which should enhance
individual contributions and accountability significantly. If ultimately we intend to
move towards an informal and networked work space which focusses on cooperative
engagements, the development of professional social networks will be inevitable,
resulting in knowledge workers developing amongst other the following four skills sets
as proposed by the Future Work Skills Report 2020 (IFTF, 2011):




Sense- making – developing routines of critical thinking to process knowledge
and to create something new
Social intelligence – sharing and interacting with others, searching and finding
fellow knowledge seekers
Media literacy – seeking knowledge from various networks, using different
media tools and negotiating agreements with connected people
Cognitive load management – reviewing the notion that knowledge is a stock,
by sharing and off-loading some of our own knowledge to our network and
hence becoming a participating member of a networked society.
Participating in such journey may, according to Jarche (2014), start by sharing
complex knowledge because of strong social ties, then moving to the testing of new
ideas in a trusted space because of mixed social ties and ultimately participating in
a diversity of ideas and opinions with weak social ties.
In view of the above one will therefore need to clarify one’s own focus and play with
reality and society, and appreciate how such will ultimately inform our level of
engagement with and need to transform social contexts with specific reference to
being a university.
If I for example prefer to focus my energy on analysing what is happening within and
around my, at the university (known reality), yet I am required to participate
cooperatively as being part of a network of profession individuals (diversity of ideas
and opinions). I may be anxious and not be eager to exchange or share my knowing
because of fear of losing control or being used or even being stolen from, by others.
This could have major implications for my participation at work if I also intend to be
strongly aligned to specific societal superstructures (religion, legal, political). In that
sense, I could become confused and angered by the imposition of diverse social
engagements on me by the university which may not be aligned to my societal
superstructure. But because I need to work as part of the socio-economic structure
which has developed around me, I may continue at the university as if everything is
OK, whilst it is NOT OK. Such dynamic will pose a real challenge to people working at
such institution in going forward.
I could also for example prefer to focus my energy on probing what is happening
within and around my work space at the university (complex reality) yet I may be
required to participate in a coordinating manner as part of the institution’s working
culture (best practices). In this context, I may also be eager to exchange ideas and
participate in the creation of novel solutions (chaotic realty) with students and other
co-workers, not realising the connection and inter-play of some societal
superstructure (religion, legal, political) by members of the university. So because in
this scenario I am having the future skills of sense-making and social intelligence, I
may fairly soon appreciate that I will find difficulty in having a meaningful
engagement at work and will therefore move on, because I am a member of a
professional network, appreciating that the reliance of social ties are not the only
important aspect of being successful at work.
7.
University
In 2003 Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi commented as follows on the role of human capital
development: “(Human capital development) directly impacts on the ability of a
(developing) country to create an enabling environment for growth, poverty
alleviation and sustainable development”. Since then it has become an imperative
for all South Africans to improve their productivity and efficiency, to become more
competitive, to improve their business understanding and service delivery and to
address the challenges related to social development and poverty eradication.
In view thereof, one could indeed ask: What is therefore the role of a university within
the South African society?
Universities should consider if they are ready and prepared to become an integral
part of the developmental change, required from the newly created socio-political
dispensation in South Africa. They also need to ask themselves whether they are
interested to embrace what has been defined by this society, as a way forward. Only
then will they be able to make a meaningful and sustainable contribution towards the
development of this country and the continent at large.
University professionals should consider, in view of the above, in much clearer terms
what their contributions are towards the facilitation of innovative learning approaches
(be it action orientated, coordinating, collaborative, cooperative) and thinking
patterns (be it sense-making, social intelligence, media literacy, cognitive load
management), in an attempt to improve human development and growth, at a rate,
that would change the socio-economic and political landscape of South Africa to
benefit all its people. Only then will universities be able to claim their part, in creating
an enabling environment (working with the known, knowable, complex and chaotic
realities as one) for all South Africans.
They also need to be clear in their understanding of developments regarding current
work related (public and private) thought processes, techniques and practices (be it
tribal, institutional, market orientated or a network of professionals) and how they are
able to adjust and re-define their products and services, to meet both the current and
future societal needs. Will they cooperatively work as individuals within a professional
network or will they continue to focus on best practices as part of an institutional
history? Will they probe and re-act to design novel solutions? Or will they analyse and
categorise in an attempt to hold on to the existing order?
If university professors wish to become meaningful contributors to the above they also
need to re-look their own conceptual capacity and determine whether their
understandings (be it aspects related to anarchy, individuality and liberalism, to
mention but a few) and ideologies (related to reality and society) are able to
contribute towards an improved understanding of those critical dimensions
underpinning the sustainable development of the South African and African society
at large.
At the core however, is the consideration of the potential impact of prevailing
seemingly unknown, complex and chaotic knowledge systems, grounding those
communities whom we “educate”. Are professors and administrators in any way
aware or interested in including such knowledge into the education journey?
Being clear in understanding the meaning of innovation as it relates to all of the
above, and the integral role it could play in the creation of new knowledge, as
opposed to keeping to a pre-determined and fixed order of things (e.g. curriculum),
seems to be under-estimated by many educators in our community. This could
partially be because of a long and respected tradition of “route learning” on behalf
of the student and “specialisation” on behalf of the teacher. If universities however,
intend to embrace the notion of serving the needs of prospective knowledge workers
within a diverse and free society, an appreciation of the constructs related to
ideology, anarchy, individuality and liberalism, needs to be considered and if possible
developed, especially for those educators and administrators alike, who are
interested in facilitating alignment and improved understanding of realty as it is
reflected by the way society is re-organising itself. In this regard one also need to ask
to what extent universities are advocating a mix of both pedagogical and
androgogical engagements in the design, development and delivery of education
services?
Whatever direction, the facilitation of a holistic learning experience should be an
imperative, ensuring that we “deal with reality as close as reality as possible”. This
assumes that educators will constantly adjust and re-direct themselves because of
insight gained from both “outside-in” and “inside-out” experiences, understanding the
impact thereof on self- esteem, social capital formation and ultimately the
environment.
Are we working across and beyond so-called disciplines, involving relevant specialists,
non-specialists, stakeholders, communities and other participants; are we as
professionals working with others, using different conceptual frameworks and do we
as participants release ourselves at times from our original roles, by transcending
disciplinary boundaries?
Are universities developing and delivering educational solutions and services for
communities or are we part of a broader more diverse and chaotic society consisting
of individuals with potential, facilitating the development of sustainable solutions with
and ideally by the people?
In conclusion: To what extend are we interested in designing a university, which will
reflect the characteristics of a radically composed symphonic poem.
A creation which challenges the individual mind to open up in all its possibilities and
power to create real social wealth by providing mutual aid and to become self-
directed, yet aware and attuned to the reality that we exist because of each other
(anarchy).
A space that will be original, unique and distinctly different from the other, in how it
approaches development matters of both individual and societal interest, weights
risks and benefits from within themselves and being intelligent in making better to both
themselves and others (individuality).
A place which will be bold in anchoring the tension created between order, unorder
and disorder, by synthesising the energies of seemingly opposing realities (reality).
A home (habitat) that exits across tribes, institutions and markets to form a networked
society where you will work cooperatively as part of a professional network, involving
self-directed associations who will negotiate agreements outside the parameters of
copy right and intellectual property rights. Where sense making, social intelligence,
media literacy and cognitive load management will be an integral part of being alive.
Where your focus will be clear, where you will play and where reciprocity will be
reflected in all engagements.
Thank you!