Excerpted from a student research paper by Sissel Hegvik:

“The tradition of community volunteering has been strong since pre-industrial times, though in a variety of forms. The idea is that a community helps one another in solving a common task, where this cannot be done as quickly or efficiently by the single individual. (Bhroin 2011, 2nd par). It became organised through the different seasons in the farming cycle. Farmers and other country people got together to help each farm with readying the fields, sowing, tending to farm houses and harvesting. These were all tasks that were both time-sensitive and labour-demanding. And so the community gathered to help, which is the meaning of the word ‘dugnad’ (Språkrådet 2011). Related customs to the Norwegian dugnad is the Irish ‘Meitheal’ (Bhroin 2011, 1st par), the Finnish ‘Talkoot’, or the Cherokeean ‘Gdagni’ (Wikipedia 2011).

In the absence of a strong governing organs, the dugnad idea appealed to the everyman feeling in Norwegians, and it still does. You cannot sit still and wait for assistance or guidance, you need to take actions for yourself. Norway is a far-stretched country with a geography complicating travelling over long distances, so the small village in the valley or by the coast has to make due with what tools they have. In a socio-political perspective, Norwegians embraces the dugnad for its socio-democratic ideals of equality and especially the collective ideal (anon., Lorentzen 2011, 4th par). Today, the dugnad takes on different forms. The traditional farming-dugnad is still relevant both in the country-side and in the cities. Neighbours, farmers and others rely on each other when faced with heavy work, and the social aspect of getting to know your community is just as important. It is a matter of giving and receiving

Online, p2p relationality is the effort single computer-techonology competent individuals sign on to one common task. This be the making of a wiki, filesharing, interpreting massive amounts of data, or the continuous developement of general internet technology. Functionally defined, “peers make a portion of their resources, such as processing power, disk storage or network bandwidth, directly available to other network participants, without the need for central coordination by servers or stable hosts” (Wikipedia 2011, requoted). P2p relationality can be seen as a response to capitalism and market rule, a democratic way of working without the demand-and-supply dimension. None is responsible for running, developing or limiting the Internet, yet everyone is. Provide, and your product, finesse or knowledge wil stay there, provided, for anyone to make use of. In a capitalistic view, what would the situation be if time and effort spent online was to be rewarded? What would the pay be? Who would grant it? How would it be measured up to product given?

A considerable difference between dugnad and p2p relationality is the time aspect. P2p is asynchronous in function, independent of time and space. Dugnad and community work is by a large extent dependent upon the infrastructure of the task; time, space and location to deliver a proper result. Especially considering tasks that are time-sensitive and/or labour-demanding. Requirements of specific knowledge is present especially in the value of contributing, but absent in the way that noone would state the actual requirements of knowledge for participation. All level of skill is allowed.

Peer to peer relationality has been one of the most celebrated ways of cooperation towards common goals within internet technology. But is it really a new kind of engineering? A society irl (in real life) could for example be measured on how close you are to your neighbour, in terms of how successful the social aspect of the society is. And it has been an important one. Any labour you don’t know how to do or manage over, call your neighbour and she will help or contribute. P2p relationality can be defined broadly as online volunteer work, for the good of the Internet society. From the physical world’s manual work, they are now enabled to meet and work and develop through networked technology.

Postmodernity predicts a psychological fragmentation of the individual (Bauwens 2011). Rather than seeing the prediction as a pessimistic result, an individual lacking consistency, this can be a desirable application for the individual within community. A fragmented identity and self will result in several more opportunities to connect with a peer, than in a society where autonomy is the desirable qualty. Bauwens suggests that p2p relationality should be considered through a second phase of post-modernity, a reconstructive phase. He puts emphasis on the ability of peers to “connect their own ends” and cocludes beautifully that in peer projects, “individuals aggregate a particular passionate pursuit into a collective project.” (Bauwens 2011). Within this the self has required several qualities; the ability to advertise herself and own identity through participation, a finesse of how and when to connect with others, and engage towards that common goal.

If the general post-modern thought has defined a new individual, no longer in need of socialization (Bauwens 2011), then p2p relationality must be an exception to that. The social aspect of the concept lies within the word peer to peer, a person and his like, on even ground, working towards a common goal. It may not be social in the meaning of meeting one another or talking or working face to face, but it shares a common goal. It becomes a social goal, where there would be no goal what so ever had it not been for the common effort. All these characteristics are shared with community volunteering and the Norwegian traditional dugnad. Peers unite in the absence of a governing forces, to renew and get tasks done. Just as important as the job itself comes the social aspect, of contributing through a “particular passionate pursuit” reaching towards the goal.

Identity becomes the core motivation of the involved, both online and offline. The involved individual participates by her view of herself as an active citizen, a contributor to society. She involves herself according to own preferences of interests, knowledge, competence, but also via relationships and background. P2p relationality represents a shift from pessimistic individualist perspectives on the technological future to drive human beings further apart to a positive view on the individual with a strong collective identity. Technology allows us to personalize ourselves as never before, and the reward of this individualization is both personal and collective in a society that appreciates this personalization as specific competence.”