This is a rough draft of an idea that came out of my notes on Scenius. You can read my raw notes here.
In my studies on Scenius, I’ve found that “great scenes” seem to take two rough shapes, and are often present together, as concentric social circles. A working group that achieves greatness of a kind is often embedded within a social context that values and cultivates greatness of that kind. In my notes, I’ve deemed these two types of social structures Great Groups and Great Contexts. The term context was inspired by Alan Kay’s “The Power of Context”.
A Great Group is a team or organization which accomplishes great feats. Feats which seem impossible to any other group — which push the very limits of what human organization is capable of accomplishing
The Apollo Project
Bell Labs
The Manhattan Project
Xerox PARC
DARPA
Skunk Works
A Great Context is a fertile environment from which Great Groups seem bound to organize, recruit, and emerge. Like a Nebula for stars… an incubator that appears at the fringes of culture, at the very frontier of society, great things seem bound to come out of those who were a part of the context. Often, especially in the case of Art Contexts, Great “Individuals” emerge, as well.
MIT Hacker Culture
1800s Revolutionaries & Jacobin Club
The Homebrew Computer Club
Young Hegelians
Vienna Cafe Culture
Silicon Valley 60s/70s
The Inklings
Great Groups and Great Contexts have different rulesets, different starting conditions, different objectives, and different social structures. I attempt to begin laying out those differences here. Many others have gone about trying to document clubs[1], scenes, or great groups, but this approach of separating them between Contexts and Groups seems somewhat novel.
The best Great Groups seem to be organized around accomplishing great feats. They tend to need social technologies[2] which help them do so. The word “organization” is particularly apt, as these groups tend to need focus across a large project, but also need raw creativity to succeed. Therefore, the central tension to a Great Group is often the balancing of chaotic, bottom-up brilliance[3] with focused, effective organization. Here are some of the tools they often use to strike that balance:
Social Technologies of Great Groups (Organizations):
On the other hand, the best Great Contexts seem to be organized around a shared ethos (values). They tend to be more inclusive, and to focus less on genius, instead caring about passion and “good will”[5]. They tend to have less structure, and tend to be emergent, often explicitly rebuking attempts at authoritarian or top-down organization[6]. They tend to be collaborative and participatory. Therefore, the central tension to a Great Context is often the balance between staying together and falling apart, since there is no structure which inherently keeps them together, except their shared passion + values. They tend to need social tools/technologies which help them sharetheir passion and stay together:
Kevin Kelly’s 4 Factors of Scenius (which seem to describe Great Contexts)
Mutual appreciation — Risky moves are applauded by the group, subtlety is appreciated, and friendly competition goads the shy. Scenius can be thought of as the best of peer pressure.
Rapid exchange of tools and techniques — As soon as something is invented, it is flaunted and then shared. Ideas flow quickly because they are flowing inside a common language and sensibility.
Network effects of success — When a record is broken, a hit happens, or breakthrough erupts, the success is claimed by the entire scene. This empowers the scene to further success.
Local tolerance for the novelties — The local “outside” does not push back too hard against the transgressions of the scene. The renegades and mavericks are protected by this buffer zone.
I think this distinction is helpful to ambitious organizers, to set their goals appropriately. Are you trying to found a great group or facilitate a great context? If it’s the former, you probably want to find the right great context first, and recruit people from there toward a specific aim, or specific feats of excellence which will inspire the group forward! You want to use social technologies like systems engineering, mission-focus, and enlightened authoritarian governance (e.g. pick an exceptional CEO). If, on the other hand, you are trying to facilitate a Great Context, you’ll need to take a more social approach, creating space for all sorts of visionaries to “play a new game” together[7]. This isn’t as well studied, but look to the famous contexts of the past for ideas—host parties, gather friends and friends of friends, host salons, print magazines, create forums!
I believe this topic is still understudied, but hope these rough notes can spark ideas or research from others. I’ll leave you with one last quote from “The Power of Context”
...Bill English, the co-inventor of the mouse, would drop what he was doing to show everything to the visiting junior researchers. Later at PARC, Bill went completely out of his way to help me set up my own research group. Nicholas Negroponte visited Utah and we’ve been co conspirators ever since. Bob Taylor, the director of ARPA-IPTO at that time, set up a yearly ARPA grad student conference to further embed us in the larger research processes and collegial relationships...
I find this level of generosity from a busy researcher very interesting. I think good will, and a “favor economy” are necessary to great contexts. You must have a density of connections who genuinely want each other to succeed, even at some cost to their own work. This is a remarkably positive-sum way of thinking, and it was inevitably rewarded by great feats from the community.
I hope the Progress Studies community can create just such a positive-sum social context.
“The pursuit of Art always sets off plans and goals, but plans and goals don’t always give rise to Art. If “visions not goals” opens the heavens, it is important to find artistic people to conceive the projects” -- Alan Kay, “The Power of Context”
“ARPA/PARC had two main thresholds: self-motivation and ability. They cultivated people who “had to do, paid or not” and “whose doings were likely to be highly interesting and important”. Thus conventional oversight was not only not needed, but was not really possible.” -- Alan Kay, “The Power of Context”
On Great Contexts vs. Great Groups
This is a rough draft of an idea that came out of my notes on Scenius. You can read my raw notes here.
In my studies on Scenius, I’ve found that “great scenes” seem to take two rough shapes, and are often present together, as concentric social circles. A working group that achieves greatness of a kind is often embedded within a social context that values and cultivates greatness of that kind. In my notes, I’ve deemed these two types of social structures Great Groups and Great Contexts. The term context was inspired by Alan Kay’s “The Power of Context”.
A Great Group is a team or organization which accomplishes great feats. Feats which seem impossible to any other group — which push the very limits of what human organization is capable of accomplishing
The Apollo Project
Bell Labs
The Manhattan Project
Xerox PARC
DARPA
Skunk Works
A Great Context is a fertile environment from which Great Groups seem bound to organize, recruit, and emerge. Like a Nebula for stars… an incubator that appears at the fringes of culture, at the very frontier of society, great things seem bound to come out of those who were a part of the context. Often, especially in the case of Art Contexts, Great “Individuals” emerge, as well.
MIT Hacker Culture
1800s Revolutionaries & Jacobin Club
The Homebrew Computer Club
Young Hegelians
Vienna Cafe Culture
Silicon Valley 60s/70s
The Inklings
Great Groups and Great Contexts have different rulesets, different starting conditions, different objectives, and different social structures. I attempt to begin laying out those differences here. Many others have gone about trying to document clubs[1], scenes, or great groups, but this approach of separating them between Contexts and Groups seems somewhat novel.
The best Great Groups seem to be organized around accomplishing great feats. They tend to need social technologies[2] which help them do so. The word “organization” is particularly apt, as these groups tend to need focus across a large project, but also need raw creativity to succeed. Therefore, the central tension to a Great Group is often the balancing of chaotic, bottom-up brilliance[3] with focused, effective organization. Here are some of the tools they often use to strike that balance:
Social Technologies of Great Groups (Organizations):
Systems Engineering
Systems Management
Communication of Roadblocks
Absolute mission-focus, dedication to the mission
“Enlightened” authoritarian social structures, to act “like a nervous system”
Investing in “people not projects”[4]
On the other hand, the best Great Contexts seem to be organized around a shared ethos (values). They tend to be more inclusive, and to focus less on genius, instead caring about passion and “good will”[5]. They tend to have less structure, and tend to be emergent, often explicitly rebuking attempts at authoritarian or top-down organization[6]. They tend to be collaborative and participatory. Therefore, the central tension to a Great Context is often the balance between staying together and falling apart, since there is no structure which inherently keeps them together, except their shared passion + values. They tend to need social tools/technologies which help them share their passion and stay together:
Social Technologies of Great Contexts:
Writing / Forums / Magazines
Shared Spaces + “Spots”
Clubs / Meetups / Salons (and therefore, social organizers)
Participatory, almost anarchic “governance”, lack of rules
Good will and “favor economy”
Activity of shared passion
Kevin Kelly’s 4 Factors of Scenius (which seem to describe Great Contexts)
Mutual appreciation — Risky moves are applauded by the group, subtlety is appreciated, and friendly competition goads the shy. Scenius can be thought of as the best of peer pressure.
Rapid exchange of tools and techniques — As soon as something is invented, it is flaunted and then shared. Ideas flow quickly because they are flowing inside a common language and sensibility.
Network effects of success — When a record is broken, a hit happens, or breakthrough erupts, the success is claimed by the entire scene. This empowers the scene to further success.
Local tolerance for the novelties — The local “outside” does not push back too hard against the transgressions of the scene. The renegades and mavericks are protected by this buffer zone.
I think this distinction is helpful to ambitious organizers, to set their goals appropriately. Are you trying to found a great group or facilitate a great context? If it’s the former, you probably want to find the right great context first, and recruit people from there toward a specific aim, or specific feats of excellence which will inspire the group forward! You want to use social technologies like systems engineering, mission-focus, and enlightened authoritarian governance (e.g. pick an exceptional CEO). If, on the other hand, you are trying to facilitate a Great Context, you’ll need to take a more social approach, creating space for all sorts of visionaries to “play a new game” together[7]. This isn’t as well studied, but look to the famous contexts of the past for ideas—host parties, gather friends and friends of friends, host salons, print magazines, create forums!
I believe this topic is still understudied, but hope these rough notes can spark ideas or research from others. I’ll leave you with one last quote from “The Power of Context”
I find this level of generosity from a busy researcher very interesting. I think good will, and a “favor economy” are necessary to great contexts. You must have a density of connections who genuinely want each other to succeed, even at some cost to their own work. This is a remarkably positive-sum way of thinking, and it was inevitably rewarded by great feats from the community.
I hope the Progress Studies community can create just such a positive-sum social context.
https://www.notion.so/Other-People-On-Scenius-3d89271d49054b708e2b1ab448de256e
https://medium.com/@samo.burja/social-technology-84c0372fe25b
“The pursuit of Art always sets off plans and goals, but plans and goals don’t always give rise to Art. If “visions not goals” opens the heavens, it is important to find artistic people to conceive the projects” -- Alan Kay, “The Power of Context”
“ARPA/PARC had two main thresholds: self-motivation and ability. They cultivated people who “had to do, paid or not” and “whose doings were likely to be highly interesting and important”. Thus conventional oversight was not only not needed, but was not really possible.” -- Alan Kay, “The Power of Context”
“When I think of ARPA/PARC, I think first of good will, even before brilliant people.” -- Alan Kay, “The Power of Context”
“The precepts of this revolutionary Hacker Ethic were not so much debated and discussed as silently agreed upon”—Stephen Levy, Hackers
https://twitter.com/__drewface/status/1462695931912933378?s=20&t=8pFXBMPSwYplmM3vj8k9zA