17 Comments

User's avatar
David Ronfeldt's avatar

Good list of working hypotheses. I’m in accord. Nonetheless, most are about top-down and bottom-up dynamics. I’d like to see more about lateral dynamics. Your 4, 5, and 7 hypotheses are lateral to a degree, but it may be time to suggest larger visions as well. Here’s my suggestion:

We currently live in an advanced modern society that has a triform design — meaning it has three major realms: civil society, government, and a market economy, variously arranged and each relying on its own distinctive form of organization. This triform design emerged centuries ago, superseding earlier simpler designs. It still holds sway today.

Indeed, nearly all of today’s ideological isms — capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, progressivism, and populism, as well as trendier anarcho-capitalism, neo-libertarianism, neo-monarchism, accelerationism, national conservatism, techno-humanism, techno-colonialism, cosmo-localism, etc. — are triform in nature. They address how civil-society, government, and/or our market economy should be shaped, and how their actors are supposed to think and behave. All of today’s politicians are, at best, triformists, no matter whether they lean right, left or whatver.

But triform societies are now nearing their end. Because of growing social complexities and complications, our triform systems have nearly exhausted their capabilities to address and resolve all they need to.

We need a new design. My working hypothesis is that it will be quadriform — a distinct fourth realm will emerge and take shape in the decades ahead, alongside the existing three (civil society, government, market economy). Particular kinds of actors and activities — ones the current three realms no longer handle well — will pioneer and move into it as its organizational elements become evident.

My best guesstimate is that this next new realm will consist largely of health, education, welfare, and environmental actors and activities — matters that are about care, broadly defined, rather than about identity, power, or profit. None of these matters are being addressed effectively by either our public or private sectors, and they’re too huge to toss back to civil-society sectors. Time is coming when it may make sense for these care-centric actors and activities to move (and be moved) into this new realm, which will be as distinct and independent in design as the current three realms are from each other. My sense is that, unlike the earlier three, it will be a largely pro-commons realm built around collaborative network principles and designs that we’ve not yet developed enough — but I’m open to alternative hypotheses too.

If so, then the challenge that lies ahead is to inspire and shape an evolution from triform to quadriform designs in ways that may improve the capabilities and benefits of all four realms.

Expand full comment
Bill Hamilton's avatar

Hey Dan Thanks for the post. I’ve been thinking about this issue for a while now from a more class based viewpoint. I guess my view is that wealth inequality is the driver of much of the community disfunction these days.

There are so many reasons a culture that encourages, or puts up with, large wealth disparities also is not good at community solidarity. From extreme individualism to consumerism people are hyper competitive and not trusting of their neighbors or those that they see as more entitled or better off.

I believe a class based movement to mitigate extreme wealth inequality must also include some very important community building principles or ethos in order to succeed. There must also be a democratic building component. This is by its nature bottom up. Similar to a union movement but on a more civic wide basis.

I came up with a fancy acronym of ABC&D Americans Building Community & Democracy as a start. Now to fill in the blanks. Ha ha. I have subscribed to you and your organization. I believe we have a lot of common interests. Let’s collaborate!

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts