CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68
OPTIONS FOR FORWARD DEVELOPMENT:
FROM NETWORK TO MESHWORK
Given that respondents indicated a strong preference for a
flat and emergent rather than hierarchical and fixed model of
validation, we recommend that actions 1 – 7 are developed into
an emergent system of influence through the guiding principles
of a meshwork structure. A meshwork is an interweaving
of growing, moving lifelines — lines laid down in a life (Ingold,
2010). Meshworks gain their strength through their knots of
encounter where lifelines become interwoven and entangled.
Thought of as a form of organisational structure, a meshwork
is the co-respondence of lifelines, their resonances with one
another requiring attention and care to their concurrent movements.
The form of a meshwork can be distinguished from that
of a network, the latter often visualised as a fixed array of more
and less powerful nodes interconnected by geometrical lines
which communicate point to point. A meshwork by contrast
grows in relation to its capacity for mutual correspondence and
entanglement. For example, Axisweb and Social Art Network
show meshwork tendencies in their correspondences over
social practice, nurturing a common purpose going beyond
what each can get out of the encounter, adopting an ethos of
care for the larger social environment of which they are a part.
Wheatley and Frieze (2006) explain that taking social
innovations to scale involves a movement from network to
communities of practice to ‘systems of influence’:
When separate, local efforts connect with each
other as networks, then strengthen as communities
of practice, suddenly and surprisingly a new system
emerges at a greater level of scale. This system
of influence possesses qualities and capacities
that were unknown in the individuals. It isn’t that
they were hidden; they simply don’t exist until the
system emerges. They are properties of the system,
not the individual, but once there, individuals
possess them. And the system that emerges always
possesses greater power and influence than is possible
through planned, incremental change.
Voorhoeve (2006) calls a system of influence a meshwork.
A network is made up of likeminded people who deploy reciprocity
to realise individual goals; in a community of practice
knowledge is shared, partially standardized and made available
for broader use; in a meshwork, which can quickly develop
out of a network and community of practice, individual interests
are fulfilled, but commitment to a shared purpose brings
interests into alignment beyond fulfilling individual and often
competitive ends. Individuals “perceive what piece of the
puzzle they are holding” and as a result deploy new capacities
and skills (ibid, 11) This, Voorhoeve argues, scales up influence,
without sacrificing autonomy.
If we were to identify conventional options for how to
apply the recommendations strategically, we might suggest
different organisational models as follows, with their various
advantages and disadvantages
a. Ad hoc development: this continues
in the current vein of decentralized
activity, spread around a number
of organizations and a host of
other stakeholders. (Advantages —
a relatively open creative space with
no pre-determined structure in keeping
with ethos of many social practice
artists: disadvantages — lack of
overview, visibility, critical mass
and support systems.)
b. Devolved agency model: a single unit
or office takes the lead in national
coordination, as a devolved section
under the wing of a larger organization,
i.e. a national public or philanthropic
body. (Advantages — a national
presence with visibility and backup:
disadvantages — possible reduced
independence and creative scope
for artists, smaller commissioners
and participants).
c. Free-standing organisation: a new
national level organization is set up,
as a partnership with major sponsors
and commissioning bodies, and including
for wider stakeholder representation.
(Advantages — focus and creative scope:
disadvantages — possible extended start
up time, insecurity of funding and
similar risks for a small freestanding
organization.)
However, the above options assume that the more influential
a network structure becomes, the more it operates through
centralising powerful nodes. We propose an alternative to this
assumption in the form of a meshwork, which seeks to support
the full involvement of multi stakeholder partnerships without
relying on more powerful supernodes and their favoured interconnections.
This requires deploying the types of imaginary,
leadership, use of resources and principles developed in peerto-peer,
cooperative organisational structures.