Du hast eigentlich recht. Knapper und umfassender.
I moved 11 posts to a new topic: TransforMap and MMM
Yesterday, when philosophising about the general TransforMap stack, the following came to my mind:
TransforMap is a techno-social architecture to visualize the commons transition.
this ir really good!
To encompass the larger scope of TransforMap, I suggest:
Transformap is a techno-social architecture to visualize the societal transformations
With two minor alternatives:
Transformap is a techno-social architecture to visualize the undergoing societal transformations
Transformap is a techno-social architecture to visualize the societal transformations in place
“the societal transformations” -> I clearly see your point, @gandhiano , but also the neoliberal transformation is a societal transformation, we need an attribute for the societal transformation.
Yes, and in my perspective the points associated to the neoliberal transformation should also be visible on the map. Not in the hegemonic, but under our narratives.
Ihr habt schon auch den E-Mail-Betreff von @dreusser s Nachricht von vor vier Tagen im Sinn, oder?
I don’t like that. Commons is very clear. This term is very broad.
We need a very broad term, since 14mmm did not depart from the commons movement alone, but from a broader set of movements, which we wanted to reach to not have yet another map that only a part of the alternatives out there use. Even though myself would see many of the initiatives we related to, like CSAs or food cooperatives, as contributing to commoning processes, it is not obvious that the people in these initiatives identify themselves as being part of the commons transition (the singular here makes it even more problematic).
I think strategically and politically it is more appropriate for TransforMap to use a more agnostic term - this was in fact why we excluded last year also degrowth, transition, etc. from our OSM layer/name and opted for the prefix “Transfor” (from transformation, @almereyda certainly knows where this discussion can be traced back). I find changing now the term of our focus is not only counterproductive (since it took very long to reach a consensuns), but also risks putting our project back in a bubble of a part of the movement (which was precisely what we wanted to overcome), because many will not see themselves as part of the commons, but of something else (transition, food sovereignty, degrowth, …), even if it that for us means the commons transition.
"since 14mmm did not depart from the commons movement alone"
Thanks, @gandhiano . This is very strong point and I confess: in terms of public perception I think you are right.
Why do I like the coinage of a “commons transition” nevertheless? Because I tend to see the commons as a paradigm, a worldview, a matrix so to say to structurally enable transition/ solidarity /degrowth / Entschleunigung / p2p / openess and what so ever. What I means is not “commons” as in “the commons movement” (yes, my thinking evolves ;-))
Commons as opposed to proprietarian/ dichotomical/ mecanistic/ top-down etc, as an approach, a relatational term and methodology.
But as I said at the beginning. Gualter formulates a concern that needs to be taken into account!
Ich finde den Ansatz reizvoll, vor den Beschreibungen den Namen stehen zu lassen.
Damit müsste dann klar sein, dass sich nicht alle Beteiligten diesen Hut automatisch aufsetzen müssen …
vor welchen Beschreibungen?
Meinst Du unsere Namen, die vor einzelnen TransforMap Beschreibungen stehen bleiben?
I very much like
However, I think there is more than just a commons transition going on and that TransforMap is not only focusing on commoning (even if I personally am very much focusing on it ).
I would suggest the following:
TransforMap is a techno-social (or socio-technical which I like more) architecture to vizualize local alternatives to the mainstream [economics]
- depending on the context “economics” could go. But without context, I think this is needed.
- I think “local” is important. We map things that have a locality.
- Talking about mainstream is convenient as we don’t have to define it further. This is a term used in the sustainability transition or Transformationsforschung scientific literature. Out of the mainstream are the niches. There are multiple, not always fitting to our normative frame (however still relatively vague), but the architecture we proposed is open and we don’t know about everything right? And for the sake of simplicity I find it compelling enough.
having read @alabaeye 's proposal:
I agree with the socio-technical, but would not use the term LOCAL (as many networks etc aren’t; nor use “economics” as the whole thing in essence is about culture.
New, slightly different suggestion from the original one:
"TransforMap is a socio-technical platform to visualize the commons transition."
and if we cannot agree on the “commons transition” which I understand, why not:
“TransforMap is a socio-technical platform to visualize the cultural and economic paradigm shift.”
I don’t understand. We are doing spatial mapping. The networks we map are by essence network of places that have a locality. I see the adjective ‘local’ being at the core of what we’re doing, of our rational. Then why using spatial maps?
We’re showin the diversity of alternatives that are where the people live. We’re showing points of interest that have geo coordinates. So we need to reflect that and I think the adjective ‘local’ is of importance then.
I find that quite vague and unspeficied for so many words. If economics is a problem, we can talk about “alternatives to the mainstream”. “The mainstream” describes what is common; the norm including culture as well as economic practices/policies. The current norm being now: the neoliberal order and its “there is no alternatives” motto.
That could go as follows:
TransforMap is a socio-technical architecture (or infrastructure) to vizualize local alternatives to the mainstream
You may want to try to replace
TransforMap for a moment. But I suspect this language is way too overshooting.