Social.coop Principles

A proposed principle . . Disallow all kinds of supremacy and adopt a core list of topics as common ground . . remove access to the on-instance spaces that we collectively govern and use, for any participant who displays a persistent stance of supremacy on any dimension, treating the ‘other’ position/practice/person/group with disdain or malice . . as absurd, deluded, un-natural, of no value, a waste of time, pathetic, to be obliterated, etc.

What I’m proposing is not so much a principle, as a small bundle of (principled) practices. As articulated below, the principle engages the coop values of self-responsibility, equality, solidarity, honesty, openness and caring for others plus Principle 5 (and maybe 7).

The notion of ‘supremacy’ is taken from politics of colour (white supremacy) but here is applied equally to any other mode of systematic dominance, privilege, disregard or disdain. It applies for example to male . . cisgender . . neurotypical . . Western . . global-Northern . . heterosexual . . Christian/Islamic . . professional class . . majority-ethnic . . sectarian (anarcho/Marxian/social-democratic etc) . . etc supremacy. Applies equally to inverse forms of supremacy - for example, intersectional supremacy (most-marginalised are superior, least-marginalised are disdained). Pecking orders of every kind are not to be supported. Disdain of every kind is not to be supported.

In all dimensions, a transverse engagement - the opposite of a supremacist stance - is expected and cultivated. This is when a person with one (committed, valued or intractable) life-location, in any particular dimension of difference, acknowledges and cultivates common ground and (importantly) common action with persons in another location, while acknowledging and respecting real-life limits on that (or this) person being able to shift location (or wanting to).

This use of ‘transverse’ (‘transversal’ = the materialist opposite of ‘universal’) comes from women’s cross-community politics (Cynthia Cockburn and colleagues) in situations of conflict between religious, ethnic or territorial communities, where action-alliances - for the mutual practical benefit or safety of women or easing the suffering of women - are held, across women in conflicting communities regardless of differing (perhaps clashing) perceptions and practices that they may be implicated in, in their life in their home community . . their spiritual belief, food culture, dress culture, marriage practices, marital status, sexual preference, body culture, etc etc.

The practice of transverse communicating, collaborating, learning and federating is first-cousin to a ‘good faith’ principle, but calls for more work, closer attention, greater empathy and actual collaboration. It is a (principled) practice, as distinct from a principle.

This combination of regulatory and collaborative practice can only operate in conjunction with an ‘A-list’ of core topics of practical interest for the community (to be proposed and agreed) which is understood to constitute recognised common ground, for which the media spaces (Mastodon, Loomio, wiki, chatroom) are specifically maintained. An ‘A-list’ identifies the things we’re here collectively to explore, discuss, collaborate on, advocate, develop in practice, give mutual aid on, better understand, generate solidarity around, share news of, federate around, generate respect for, make friendships around, gossip about, etc. The above in italics is a list of tacit principles. It seems to me they all are subsumed in the orientation of transverse engagement. Many specific principles and values that people might advocate - eg coop values and practice, orientation to solidarity economy, open-value accounting for work in the coop, solarpunk values, curating & stewarding of commons, whatever - may simply be preferences for things to make up an A-list? Over time, as experience on the instance accumulates - or the world out there changes shape - the topics on an A-list can of course be modulated via proposals.

Just to be explicit . . I’m seeing social.coop as a collective with solidarity around explicit common purposes, not as a ‘common carrier’ for just any kind of conversation, which just so happens to be managed by a coop of consumers. It's almost a kind of co-producers' coop, in a field of cultural production? Well, to be precise, I'm seeing it as a cultural commons.

The principle proposed here amounts to
- (a) selecting an (as-yet undefined) A-list of core topics of practical interest, which members are informed of and subscribe to when joining social.coop; coupled with . .
- (b) a supremacist-excluding regulatory practice; maintaining a space for cultivating . .
- (c) attentive, skilful transverse communicating, collaborating, learning and federating, in and around the A-list.

Note that this principle probably does not directly engage the coop values of self-help, democracy, equity *and *social responsibility, or five of the seven coop principles which are more directly economic in nature. Perhaps these would need to be established within an A-list, as domains of shared practical concern?