Presentation by Nese Tuncer on collaboration

1. Further Concepts in Collaboration
Nese Tuncer
March 28,2012

2. Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
• (generally translated as "community" and
"society")
• sociological categories introduced by
the German sociologist Ferdinand
Tönnies in 1887.

3. Gemeinshaft
• Gemeinschaft (often translated as community) is an association in which
individuals are oriented to the large association for their own self interest.
• Individuals in gemeinschaft are regulated by common beliefs (mores) about the
appropriate behavior and responsibility of members to each other and to the
association at large;
• Associations are defined by "unity of will".
• Tönnies saw the family as the most perfect expression of gemeinschaft; however,
he expected that gemeinschaft could be based on shared place and shared belief
as well as kinship, and he included globally dispersed religious communities as
possible examples of gemeinschaft.
• Gemeinschaft community involves ascribed status. You are given a status by birth.
• Gemeinschaften are characterized by
– a moderate division of labour,
– strong personal relationships, strong families, and
– relatively simple social institutions.
• In such societies there is seldom a need to enforce social controlexternally, due to
a collective sense of loyalty individuals feel for society.

4. Theory of Community
(Gemeinschaft)
• Nature of authority: fatherhood or paternity; authority of
age, authority of force, and authority of wisdom/spirit
• Key social groups/relations: kinship, neighborhood,
friendship, ‘relations of kin and individuals’
• Real foundation of unity and possibility: blood
relationships, physical proximity, intellectual proximity
• Common state of mind (custom and belief) and volk:
mutual possession and enjoyment (collective
ownership and communal consumption),’common
goods - common evils; common friends—common
enemies’

5. Gesellschaft
• Gesellschaft (often translated as society, civil society or association) describes
associations in which, for the individual, the larger association never takes
precedence over the individual's self interest, and these associations lack the same
level of shared beliefs (mores).
• Gesellschaft is maintained through individuals acting in their own self interest. A
modern business is a good example of gesellschaft.
• Gesellschaft society involves achieved status. You reach your status by education
and work, for example, through the attainment of goals, or attendance at University.
• Unlike gemeinschaften, gesellschaften emphasize secondary relationships rather
than familial or community ties, and
• there is generally less individual loyalty to society.
• Social cohesion in gesellschaften typically derives from a more elaborate division of
labor (interdependence). Such societies are considered more susceptible to class
conflict as well as racial and ethnic conflicts.

6. Theory of modern society
(Gesellschaft)
• Artificial being: an artificial construction of the aggregate of human
beings, isolation/separation, common values and fictions
• Exchange, contract, money=power, bourgeois society, zero-sum
game, competition and coalition T
• The form of the general will: convention or tradition? System of
conventional rules, dependence on relations with state vs. church
• Gesellschaft as the final culmination of developed Gemeinschaft:
general trade economy, industry, the world market, capitalists vs.
noncapitalists, hierarchy of control.

7. Gemeinschaft vs Gesellschaft
• In a Gesellschaft everything is clearly
spelled out, so that everyone has clearly
defined rights. If anyone asks us to go
beyond our duties then they must give a
reason, demonstrating why this extra
demand is part of our“job
description.” Only when this is
demonstrated are we obligated to take on
something further.
• In a Gesellschaft it is the performance of a
contractual obligation that matters.
Whether it is done willingly or grudgingly,
with affection or calculatingly, makes no
difference. All that matters is that the
contract is fulfilled to the letter, for example
that the goods are delivered.
• In a Gemeinschaft the opposite is the
case. We feel we cannot say “no” to
virtually any demand. Indeed, it would not
occur to us to assess the demand as a
demand. This kind of calculation does not
enter the picture. Here the burden of proof
is on us to say why we should not respond
positively, and if we feel we cannot, there
will be a great deal of inner struggle. In
a “full” Gemeinschaft this inner struggle
does not occur at all, and we unreflectingly
meet our obligation. As with a close family
member, we are bound to them “come
what may,” “for better or worse,” because
the love involved is unconditional.
• In a Gemeinschaft how things are
done is of interest. It matters, for example,
that food is served in the family setting
with love (though the food may be burned);
it is the care that goes into the act that is
at least as important as the act itself. It
matters that the gift is carefully wrapped,
showing that the giver has taken trouble.

8. Further Theories following Tönnies
Émile Durkheim,
• Durkheim introduced the terms "mechanical" and "organic solidarity" as part of his theory of
the development of societies in The Division of Labour in Society (1893).
• Mechanical solidarity: its cohesion and integration comes from the homogeneity of
individuals—people feel connected through similar work, educational and religious training,
and lifestyle. Mechanical solidarity normally operates in "traditional" and small scale societies.
• Organic solidarity comes from the interdependence that arises from specialization of work
and the complementarities between people—a development which occurs in "modern" and
"industrial" societies. Individuals perform different tasks and often have different values and
interest, the order and very solidarity of society depends on their reliance on each other to
perform their specified tasks. Organic here is referring to the interdependence of the
component parts. Thus, social solidarity is maintained in more complex societies through the
interdependence of its component parts (e.g., farmers produce the food to feed the factory
workers who produce the tractors that allow the farmer to produce the food).
Talcott Parsons
• Parsons developed ‘pattern variables' which are five dichotomies, to draw out the contrasting
values to which individuals orient themselves in social interaction.
• One side of the dichotomies reflects the value patterns dominant in traditional society (
Gemeinschaft), the other reflects the dominant values of modern society (Gesellschaft).
• The variables, listed with the traditional side of the dichotomy first, are: affectivity - affective
neutrality; diffuseness - specificity; particularism - universalism; ascription - achievement;
collectivity orientation - self orientation.

10. Asabiyya
• Although the term existed in pre-Islamic era,
Ibn Khaldun’s asabiyyah describes the bond of
cohesion among humans in a group forming
community.
• Asabiyyah is often translated as a "group
feeling" and it determines how well one group
can produce something together.
• It is also the feeling of belonging to something
that is expanding and expansion can only
come about through effective leadership.

11. What factors affect asabiyyah ?
Why a tribe has higher
asabiyyah?
• share common blood
ties
• driven by the shared
need to survive
• have to utilize fewer
resources
• encounter competition
from other tribes
Why a city has lower
asabiyyah?
• not everyone is related
by blood
• job specialization and
diversification
• luxury, wealth, status
and class set people
apart
• government is more
distant and decision
making is delegated to a
few

12. Relevance of asabiyyah
• Idea of small teams, cross-functional and bottom-up self-
governed structures increase asabiyyah.
• On the other hand, luxury, status and classes as well as a
distant government are factors that decrease productivity of
a team.
• The golden rules of Ibn Khaldun to increase asabiyyah of a
team:
– Create a common purpose - gather together and write
down a manifesto. make ensure that evangelists will
spread the word (agile development)
– create an authority - (the team commitment) that directs
energies of people towards a common purpose
• Life cycle of a team can also be explained through asabiyya

13. Understanding Asabiyya for
Conflict Resolution
• Asabiyyah, as group feeling, is not a subject-based concept but a process of
identification with the collective at a strategic time. It is the state of mind that makes
individuals’ identify with a group and subordinate their own personal interests to the
group interest.
• Asabiyyah is not an interest-based theory. It goes beyond the cost-and-benefit
assumption among individuals when they join new social movements and advocate
alternative worldviews.
• Ibn Khaldun’s methodology was based on the ‘mant.iq’, the logic of Aristotle. It
entailed a “complex interactive dynamic of inductive and deductive reasoning”
informed at all times by personal experience and an encyclopedic knowledge of the
differences in time and place in world history.
• Above all, Asabiyyah offers a temporal understanding of social change. When a
dominant Asabiyyah declines, another more compelling may take its place; thus,
civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of Asabiyyah as they
play out. Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the
seeds of its own downfall.
.
http://solonsimmons.wordpress.com

15. [The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for
such notion rests on individualism.
We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our
predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After
our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some
time before we can return any service....
This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality,
gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of
benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man
must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."
August Comte

16. Altruism
• The term first coined in 19th Century by August
Comte, the French founder of positivism,
• The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from
autrui: "other people“), derived from Latin alter:
"other")
• Comte believed that individuals had a moral
obligation to renounce self-interest and live for
others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self
interest

17. Altruism vs. Utilitarianizm
Altruism prescribes
maximizing good
consequences for
everyone except the
actor.
Utilitarianizm
prescribes acts that
maximize good
consequences for all
of society
Arguably, however, since the rest of society will almost always outnumber
the utilitarian, a genuine utilitarian will inevitably end up practicing altruism
or a form of altruism.
"An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent."

18. • Live for others (A. Comte)
• ....the doctrine that each of us has a special
obligation to benefit others. (Charles Dunbar
Broad)
• A duty to relieve the distress and promote the
happiness of our fellows...Altruism is to
maintain quite simply that a man may and
should discount altogether his own pleasure or
happiness as such when he is deciding what
course of action to pursue.“ (W.G. Maclagan)

19. Critisms
• Friedrich Nietzsche held that the idea that to treat others as more important than oneself
is degrading and demeaning to the self. He also believed that the idea that others have a
higher value than oneself hinders the individual's pursuit of self-development, excellence, and
creativity. However, he did assert a "duty" to help those who are weaker than oneself.[7]
• David Kelley, says that "there is no rational ground for asserting that sacrificing yourself in
order to serve others is morally superior to pursuing your own (long-term, rational) self-
interest. Altruism ultimately depends on non-rational 'rationales,' on mysticism in some form..."
Furthermore, he holds that there is a danger of the state enforcing that moral ideal: "If self-
sacrifice is an ideal - if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action - why
not force people to act accordingly?" He believes this can ultimately result in the state forcing
everyone into a collectivist political system.
• Norwegian eco-philosopher Arne Naess argues that environmental action based upon
altruism — or service of the other — stems from a shrunken "egoic" concept of the self. Self-
actualization will result, he argues, in the recovery of an "ecological self", in which actions
formerly seen as altruistic are in reality a form of enlightened self-interest.
• German philosopher Max Scheler distinguishes two different ways in which the strong can
help the weak, one which is an expression of love, "motivated by a powerful feeling of security,
strength, and inner salvation, of the invincible fullness of one’s own life and existence" and
another which is merely "one of the many modern substitutes for love, ... nothing but the urge
to turn away from oneself and to lose oneself in other people’s business."At its worst, Scheler
says, "love for the small, the poor, the weak, and the oppressed is really disguised hatred,
repressed envy, an impulse to detract, etc., directed against the opposite phenomena: wealth,
strength, power, largesse."

20. The Unselfish Gene
• We need systems that rely on engagement, communication, and a
sense of common purpose and identity. Most organizations would
be better off helping us to engage and embrace our collaborative,
generous sentiments than assuming that we are driven purely by
self-interest. In fact, systems based on self-interest, such as
material rewards and punishment, often lead to less productivity
than an approach oriented toward our social motivations.
• The challenge we face today is to build new models based on
fresh assumptions about human behavior that can help us design
better systems. The image of humanity this shift requires will allow
us to hold a more benevolent model of who we are as human
beings. No, we are not all Mother Teresa; if we were, we wouldn’t
have heard of her. However, a majority of human beings are more
willing to be cooperative, trustworthy, and generous than the
dominant model has permitted us to assume. If we recognize that,
we can build efficient systems by relying on our better selves
rather than optimizing for our worst. We can do better.
Yochai Benkler

21. Social
Entrepreneurship

22. Enterpreneur
• An entrepreneur is an owner or manager of a business enterprise who
makes money through risk and initiative.
• The term is believed to be coined by Jean-Baptiste Say, a French
economist, is believed to have coined the word "entrepreneur" in the 19th
century - he defined an entrepreneur as "one who undertakes an
enterprise, especially a contractor, acting as intermediatory between
capital and labour"
• Entrepreneur in English is a term applied to a person who is willing to help
launch a new venture or enterprise and accept full responsibility for the
outcome and defined as such by the Irish-French economist Richard
Cantillon.
• The terms social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship were used first
in the literature on social change in the 1960s and 1970s.The terms came
into widespread use in the 1980s and 1990s, promoted by Bill Drayton the
founder of Ashoka: Innovators for the Public

23. Social Entrepreneurship
• A social entrepreneur recognizes a social problem and
uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create and manage a venture
to achieve social change (a social venture).
• While a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit
and return, a social entrepreneur focuses on creating social returns.
• A social entrepreneur is motivated by a desire to help, improve and
transform social, environmental, educational and economic conditions.
• Key traits and characteristics of highly effective social entrepreneurs
include
– ambition and a lack of acceptance of the status quo or accepting the world "as
it is".
– driven by an emotional desire to address some of the big social and economic
conditions in the world, for example, poverty and educational deprivation,
rather than by the desire for profit.
– seeks to develop innovative solutions to global problems that can be copied by
others to enact change
• Social entrepreneurs are most commonly associated with the voluntary
and not-for-profit sectors, but this need not preclude making a profit.

24. Historical Examples
• Although the terms are relatively new, social
entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship can
be found throughout history.
• Florence Nightingale (founder of the first
nursing school and developer of modern
nursing practices),
• Robert Owen(founder of the cooperative
movement), and
• Vinoba Bhave (founder of India's Land Gift
Movement).

25. Suggested Reading
• Benkler, Yochai. The Penguin and the
Leviathan, Yale University Press, 2006.
• Hui,P. et al. Selfishness, Altruism and
Message Spreading in Mobile Social
Networks
• Axelrod, R., The Evolution of
Cooperation, Basic books, 2006.

26. Current practice
• One well-known contemporary social entrepreneur is Muhammad
Yunus, founder and manager of Grameen Bank and its growing
family of social venture businesses, who was awarded a Nobel
Peace Prize in 2006. Yunus was a professor of economics
at Chittagong University where he developed the concepts
of microcredit and microfinance. These loans are given to
entrepreneurs too poor to qualify for traditional bank loans.
• Ashoka: Innovators for the Public, the Skoll Foundation,
the Omidyar Network, the Schwab Foundation for Social
Entrepreneurship, Athgo, Root Cause, the Canadian Social
Entrepreneurship Foundation, NESsT,New Profit Inc., National
Social Entrepreneurship Forum, and Echoing Green among
others, focus on highlighting these hidden change-makers who
are scattered throughout the world.

27. Discussions
• There are continuing arguments over precisely who
counts as a social entrepreneur. Philanthropists, social
activists, environmentalists, and other socially-oriented
practitioners are referred to as social entrepreneurs.
• It is important to set the function of social
entrepreneurship apart from other socially oriented
activities and identify the boundaries within which
social entrepreneurs operate.
• Some have advocated restricting the term to founders
of organizations that primarily rely on earned income –
meaning income earned directly from paying
consumers.