Peer-to-Peer Relationality

By Michel Bauwens:
Anonymity is nothing new in cities. What is more, however contradictory it might
seem, sociability and anonymity go together in the city. Bauwens reflects on th
is through an analysis of peer-to-peer networks, a system for sharing and combin
ing individual efforts on the Internet in a collective task.
If we look at the historical development of relationality; such a review may lea
d us to challenge any simplistic identification of peer to peer relationality wi
th anonymity. To begin with, let us broadly define peer to peer relationality, a
s that type of relationality where individuals can freely aggregate themselves a
round common goals, enabled by the affordances of the new type of internetworked
technologies1.
The proposition that the individual is now seen as always-already part of
various social fields, as a singular composite being, no longer in need of soci
alization, but rather in need of individuation, seems to be one of the main achi
evements of what could be called postmodern thought . Atomistic individualism is re
jected in favor of the view of a relational self, a new balance between individu
al agency and collective communion.
Another important aspect of the condition of postmodernity, and its psycho
logical interpretations, is that of the fragmentation of the individual. Rather t
han seen as an integrated self, the postmodern individual is seen as fragmented,
consisting of many different parallel processes, each with a relative autonomy,
and not necessarily integrated. In classic postmodernism, this is seen as a kin
d of realization or endgame, an uncovering of the truth of the human condition, as
well as the result of the social conditions prevalent under late capitalism . It a
lso creates a certain despair around the human condition, since fragmentation is n
ot always a desirable quality.
However, I believe it behooves us to posit a second phase of postmodernit
y, which is no longer deconstructive of self and society, but reconstructive, an
d to see the emergence of peer to peer relationality as an expression of that re
constructive effort. Peer to peer has indeed to be seen as an object oriented so
ciality, where person-fragments cooperate around the creation of common value. W
hat connects individuals who participate in open and shared knowledge, software
or design projects is the ability to connect their own ends, with some transcend
ental collective goal (building a universal operating system, constructing a uni
versal free encyclopedia, constructing an open source car, etc.). In peer projec
ts, individuals aggregate a particular passionate pursuit into a collective proj
ect.
This is important, because whereas in individualist market visions the in
visible hand indirectly creates public benefit (at least in theory and ideology)
, in peer to peer the intentionality of the collective project is integrated in
the effort itself. Contributors to Wikipedia or Linux do not see the end result
as an indirect result of individual transactions, but as the result of a particu
lar social design which harmonizes individual effort and the collective goal, wi
th the integration of both seen as non-contradictory.
This gives peer to peer relationality a strong collective aspect, which w
as absent in the previous individualist epoch. Nothing precludes the public good
to become a similar peer to peer object, so that it is more than the simple agg
regation of existing partial peer to peer projects, but the object of particular
attention by itself.
Positively interpreted, peer to peer becomes a global cosmic

mash-up, where

by the fragmented individuals of postmodernity recreate unity and identity throu

gh their engagement with collective efforts, which can be geared to civic public
goods. In this interpretation, individuality is preserved, relationality is add
ed, and a collective dimension emerges in a higher unity, where the individual a
nd collective aspects, agency and communion, are no longer opposed to each other
.
Anonymity is really nothing new for the city; it s part and parcel of moder
nity and its reliance on neutral , contractual, exchanges and transactions. The ano
mie of the modern individual, freed from his local and traditional attachments, is
a well known and frequently discussed sociological phenomenon. Though cities ar
e undoubtedly spaces of sociality, there are also spaces of lack of sociality, o
f, typically, not knowing one s neighbors . Much of our lives in the city are indeed
already anonymous.
For a new social system to structurally replace its predecessors, it need
s to transcend and include , on a higher level of integration, the key features of
the previous modalities it is replacing or complementing (even if it does not do
this altogether well). So in our specific discussion, we would expect the perso
nal relations typical of premodernity, and the neutrality/anonymity of the moder
n market society, to be transcended and included into P2P relationality. This mean
s that, in our understanding, P2P allows both anonymity and personalization to o
ccur simultaneously. Indeed, we can see on one level how peer to peer enables st
igmergic2 cooperation between individuals who do not know each other, as in the
Wikipedia cooperation, for example; and allows trust with strangers to occur more
readily, as for example in the Couchsurfing.com scheme, where strangers can shar
e couches with each other, because they trust the larger system and reputational
checks and balances. On another level, any deep cooperation necessitates closer
personal involvement and engagement in peer to peer projects, and many social n
etworks, say Facebook or LinkedIn, are equally predicated on a refusal of anonym
ity. P2P relationality therefore liberates from the constraints of both forced p
ersonalization and anonymity, giving flexible freedom to peers in networks.
But because it empowers and enables relationality to occur, and explodes
the number of possible relations3, i.e. the possibility of fragments finding each
other , it will without any doubt change the face of city life, enabling and empo
wering city dwellers. Without a doubt, this will create problems and challenges
of its own, and eventually reveal the dark sides of hyper-relationality, especia
lly when it may be imposed as a new social norm, a base expectation of standard
behavior, and the related challenges of forced transparency and imposed surveill
ance. And what may occur naturally to newer generations may be considered as qui
te a negative and disturbing behavior by earlier generations.
Most interestingly, P2P relationality will not be confined just to other
humans, but will extend to the Machine Other , i.e. the internet of things, with se
nsor-enabled objects; and most likely in the post-warming age, a revival of rela
tionality with other living beings and the natural environment. Life in the city
, anonymous or not, is bound to become very interesting in the coming decades, a
s the full potential of this relationality is played out.

Notes
1 A narrower definition, used in our work in the P2P Foundation, follows Alan P
age Fiske s relational typology, and identifies peer to peer relationality with no
n-reciprocal generalized exchange, where the individual exchanges only with a comm
onality, a totality, not with other individuals from whom reciprocity is require
d. Alan Page Fiske calls this communal shareholding and it is the type of relation
ship prevalent in peer production environments. For details, see http://p2pfound

ation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
2

See http://p2pfoundation.net/Stigmergy

3
In particular Metcalfe s Law and Reed s Law on Group Forming Networks, see http
://p2pfoundation.net/Metcalfe%27s_Law