In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct and separate piece of software.
When a programmer ‘forks’ a program, they take a copy of some already-written code and treat it as an entirely separate project. They might rename it, and any changes made will only be reflected within that particular ‘branch’.
Forking can be indicative of a schism, or a deep conflict, within a project. But in the same breath, it can also be a cry of independence from an overbearing, corporate backer. Indeed, forking can sometimes ensure free software remains just that. Free.
The concept of schismogenesis was developed by the anthropologist Gregory Bateson in the 1930s, to account for certain forms of social behavior between groups among the Iatmul people of the Sepik River. Bateson first published the concept in 1935, but elaborated on schismogenesis in his classic 1936 ethnography Naven: A Survey of the Problems suggested by a Composite Picture of the Culture of a New Guinea Tribe drawn from Three Points of View, reissued with a new Epilogue in 1958. The word "naven" refers to an honorific ceremony among the Iatmul (still practiced) whereby certain categories of kin celebrate first-time cultural achievements. In a schematic summary, Bateson focused on how groups of women and groups of men (especially the honorees mothers' brothers) seemingly inverted their everyday, gendered-norms for dress, behavior, and emotional expression. For the most part, these groups of people belonged to different patrilineages who not only did not regularly renew their marriage alliances, but also interacted through the mode he called schismogenesis. Men and women, too, interacted in this mode. And thus the naven ritual served to correct schismogenesis, enabling the society to endure.
In his 1936 book Naven, Bateson defined schismogenesis as "a process of differentiation in the norms of individual behaviour resulting from cumulative interaction between individuals" (p. 175). He continued:
"It is at once apparent that many systems of relationship, either between individuals or groups of individuals, contain a tendency towards progressive change. If, for example, one of the patterns of cultural behaviour, considered appropriate in individual A, is culturally labelled as an assertive pattern, while B is expected to reply to this with what is culturally regarded as submission, it is likely that this submission will encourage a further assertion, and that this assertion will demand still further submission. We have thus a potentially progressive state of affairs, and unless other factors are present to restrain the excesses of assertive and submissive behaviour, A must necessarily become more and more assertive, while B will become more and more submissive; and this progressive change will occur whether A and B are separate individuals or members of complementary groups" (p. 176).
"Progressive changes of this sort we may describe as complementary schismogenesis. But there is another pattern of relationships between individuals or groups of individuals which equally contains the germs of progressive change. If, for example, we find boasting as the cultural pattern of behaviour in one group, and that the other group replies to this with boasting, a competitive situation may develop in which boasting leads to more boasting, and so on. This type of progressive change we may call symmetrical schismogenesis" (pp. 176-177).
Somewhat analogous to Émile Durkheim's concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity (see functionalism), Bateson understood the symmetrical form of schismogenic behavior among Iatmul men to be one of a competitive relationship between categorical equals (e.g., rivalry). Thus one man, or a group of men, boast, and another man/group must offer an equal or better boast, prompting the first group to respond accordingly, and so forth. Complementary schismogenesis among the Iatmul was seen by Bateson between mainly men and women, or between categorical unequals (e.g., dominance and submission). Men would act dominant, leading women to act submissive, to which men responded with more dominance, and so forth. In both types of schismogenesis, the everyday emotional norms or ethos of Iatmul men and women prevented a halt to schismogenesis. The crux of the matter for Bateson was that, left unchecked, either form of schismogensis would cause Iatmul society simply to break apart. Thus some social or cultural mechanism was needed by society to maintain social integration. That mechanism among the Iatmul was the naven rite. Bateson's specific contribution was to suggest that certain concrete ritual behaviors either inhibited or stimulated the schismogenic relationship in its various forms.
...
Bateson, in Steps to an Ecology of Mind describes the two forms of schismogenesis and proposes that both forms are self-destructive to the parties involved. He goes on to suggest that researchers look into methods that one or both parties may employ to stop a schismogenesis before it reaches its destructive stage.
The first type of schismogenesis is best characterized by a class struggle, but is defined more broadly to include a range of other possible social phenomena. Given two groups of people, the interaction between them is such that a behavior X from one side elicits a behavior Y from the other side, The two behaviors complement one another, exemplified in the dominant-submissive behaviors of a class struggle. Furthermore, the behaviors may exaggerate one another, leading to a severe rift and possible conflict. Conflict can be reduced by narrowing information asymmetries between the two groups.[citation needed]
The second type of schismogenesis is best shown by an arms race. The behaviors of the parties involved elicit similar or symmetrical behaviors from the other parties. In the case of the United States and the Soviet Union, each party continually sought to amass more nuclear weapons than the other party, a clearly fruitless but seemingly necessary endeavor on both sides.
A form of symmetrical schismogenesis exists in common sporting events, such as baseball, where the rules are the same for both teams.
The theory of schismogenesis is based on cybernetic systems theory. Consider a positive feedback loop in which A is acting on B acting on A acting on B and so on, each loop amplifying the action on the other, resulting in progressive disorder and increasing entropy. The entire system, A and B, will inevitable collapse, unless the loops are broken, i.e., a new way of communicating and exchanging "information" between A and B is created. The theory of schismogenesis was put forward by the anthropologist Gregory Bateson (1904-1980),author of Naven 1958, Steps to an Ecology of Mind 1972, and Mind and Nature 1979. Bateson asserts that institutions within societies and societies themselves act similarly, as a series of positive feedback loops. Two types can be easily observed, symmetrical and complementary(asymmetrical). The result of both forms of schismogenesis can be disastrous, unless the ways the institutions or societies relate to one another are significantly re-structured, into negative feedback loops. Competitive rivals, each mirroring the actions of the other, now re-define and re-direct their relations with each other, perhaps becoming collaborators?
The Arms Race between the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia, 1945-2005. As one country sought to defend itself, the other would respond in kind, calling for a responseby the first country, and so on, escalating the arms build-up.
...
... In the United States (2007), 1% of the population controls 29% of the wealth, while 50% of the populations has access to 13% of the nations wealth ...
Comment: This economic inequality has increased to the present.
Prof. Rodney Frey, Schismogenesis
People may fork CEStoicism's entailment net and nomic as a form of exit. Instead of forking, people may use their voice and established processes to change CEStoicism from within. If CEStocisim gains attention, we hope there will be both a) many forks to explore in parallel the many possible combinations of possible coherent ideas in this space, and b) many people who raise their voice within existing forks for either their stability or change.
Perhaps forking forms complexity similar to how biological systems form complexity. Maybe more forks happen during times of risk, and less forks happen during times of stability (See the development-reproduction trade-off).
Please Note: This site meshes with the long pre-existing Principia Cybernetica website (PCw). Parts of this site links to parts of PCw. Because PCw was created long ago and by other people, we used web annotations to add links from parts of PWc to this site and to add notes to PCw pages. To be able to see those links and notes, create a free Hypothes.is↗ account, log in and search for "user:CEStoicism".
