Regarding David’s comments in para 1:

When we apply any single category of Fiske’s relational grammar to anything as large as a single tribe, we risk anthropomorphizing the tribe. Relational grammars speak to the micro scale of personal relationships, coordinating interactions, social bonds, cognitive representations of significant others, interpersonal vulnerability/insecurity, self regard, differentiation of self from others, organizing mental representations of perceived inter-relationships, etc. Because tribes, institutions, markets and/or networks are comprised of many personal relationships, all four of Fiske’s forms would apply to all four TIMN forms.

Regarding para 2:

I admit to a conscious bias in all this and no doubt have some unconscious biases as well. I believe every situation is inherently complex, highly interdependent, cyclical and capable of yielding emergent solutions. The network response to situations is the only one sufficiently complex to be sustainable, resilient, and mutually effective when stressed by the complexity. The tribal, institutional and market forms are progressively more responsive to the inherent complexity, but each falls short. Thus tribal responses are the least sustainable and most vulnerable to the adverse impacts of the complexity, most likely to get regarded as expendable by institutions, markets and networks, and most prone to violent conflicts between other tribal responders.

Regarding para 3:

The confusion I’ve created appears to be between the categorizing of the situations themselves and the responses to those situations. I’m only using the Cynefin framework of (chaotic, simple, complicated, complex) to characterize the situations, not the responses to them. Cynefin also characterizes responses to situations differently (novel, best, good, emergent practices).

I’m proposing that tribal responses are the only ones viable amidst chaotic situations. My take on the difference between chaos and disorder in the Cynefin framework regards disorder as outside their framework. No practice can be formulated because there is no basis for even experimenting, improvising or winging it. Chaotic situations allow for tribes to form, to provide safety to their members, to guard against traitors, and to continually experiment with its adaptations to the chaos (novel practice). When situations get simple due to increasing stability, institutions can form and provide complicated infrastructures, governance, etc (best practices). When situations get complicated by diversity, empowered middle class citizens, societal distribution of access, rights, resources, then markets can form and provide complex mechanisms, systems, etc (good practices). When situations get complex due to the predominance of markets, enterprises, commercial innovations, networks can form and function as complex adaptive systems which are living, self organizing, and congruent with P2P precepts (emergent practices).

Para 4:

Given the positional stances that emerged from that group work chart, I’ve concluded it’s a serious oversimplification. My second attempt is the TIMN practice post where tribal responses work the insider/outsider distinction, institutional responses belabor the upper/lower differences, market responses pressure themselves with responsive/arrogant distinction and network responses get refined by recognizing the difference between living and automated systems. The internal dynamics of a tribe handling their insider/outsider issues could easily involve some action, coordination, cooperation and collaboration. Likewise for the other 3 TIMN forms and all four forms of group work.