Thinking About Technocracy

Where to from here?

Why not have charettes for society…a social charrette?

with 3 comments

Who would be invited to a social charrette in a technocracy?  One thinks of blue ribbon panels and legislative hearings, but those are not public deliberations in most cases…they are public hearings.  A charrette is a publicly deliberative process.  It has rules and structures that are pliant and disruptive influences are addressed by a combination of rhetoric and interest, not “leadership,” which is a term I find increasingly dubious. 

Web 3.0 will have us powerful new tools for social charrettes.  We ought to take advantage of them in some sort of intentional way.

Advertisements

Written by ryanlanham

January 6, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Posted in Who rules?

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Why not have charettes for society…a social charrette? « Thinking About Technocracy "Who would be invited to a social charrette in a technocracy? One thinks of blue ribbon panels and legislative hearings, but those are not public deliberations in most cases…they are public hearings. A charrette is a publicly deliberative process. It has rules and structures that are pliant and disruptive influences are addressed by a combination of rhetoric and interest, not “leadership,” which is a term I find increasingly dubious. " (tags: activism design decision-making meeting local organization design-pattern) […]

  2. There is something in the construct of a charette that draws collaboration with less fear that participants are giving something away for free. Why is that so when you can sit in endless meetings watching people play chicken with their ideas and refusing to trust them to the collective discussion?

    Kate Lanham

    January 11, 2009 at 1:29 am

  3. This little thought piece had a lot of interest and hits. I was surprised. It was literally a 90 second jot.

    As you know, I am all about collaborative processes–particularly where science and engineering are concerned. Charettes work well because they are, like appreciative inquiry processes, basically non-threatening. No one has particular authority. Dignity-based management proposed by some folks in Harvard’s NGO community is another example that’s had some recent press.

    Typically Europe is further along in implementing good collaborative management processes and designs. There are exceptions.

    To a large extent this all links to a discussion of what is a post-bureaucratic approach to governance. That will be a long discussion for humanity though the need is urgent.

    Ryan Lanham

    January 11, 2009 at 11:39 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: