Notes on Extitutional Theory and Progressive Protocolization

Canvas Foreword

The following content is a discursive “canvassing” exercise intended to: process ideas and prime them for more formal publication; foreground thought processes in the spirit of auto-discourse (see A Primer on Auto-Discourse); garner feedback from peers; establish conceptual provenance for ideonomic archiving purposes.

Link to original

Protocolization

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about the process of protocolization, and how it can be incorporated into organization design and social systems more generally. Seeing as I’ve started drafting a discourse around it${}^1$, I figured it would be useful use this log publication to make an initial pass at drafting these thoughts in a more or less coherent fashion.

Much of it has to to with framing what could be called “progressive protocolization” alongside a couple similar coordination design processes, namely progressive permissionlessness (which, to my knowledge, is a concept attributable to Spencer Graham of Hats Protocol), and progressive decentralization (which unfortunately has become a bit of a trope or rhetorical ploy, but which nonetheless may have its place in the sun).

The basic idea with progressive protocolization is that social formations can start with an arrangement wherein its operations are directed largely according to the discretion of some internal authority, and incrementally restructure this arrangement such that its operations lend themselves to emergent self-direction. Already I am of the notion that, like decentralization and permissionlessless, protocolization is not categorically a good thing, but may be appropriate given certain circumstances.

Extitutional Theory

Also influential here is extitutional theory, which I gather is attributable to Jessy Kate Schingler and Primavera de Filippi. Right now, I understand this concept as describing a lens through which to assess social systems, defined largely in conjunction with an institutional lens, where the former takes a view to the fluid relationships and power dynamics at play in a social system, and the latter focuses more on codified, formal organizational structure and bureaucratic nuance.

That said, I had initially approached this conceptual distinction of institution/extitution differently, before I read Schingler’s introduction piece${}^2$. Specifically, I had assumed the term ‘extitutional’ referred more to the implicit/soft/informal aspects of human coordination and organization, while the term ‘institutional’ referred to the more codified, formal, legalese structure these organizations often adopt. That is, I thought I could use the term ‘extitution’ to refer to form of social organization more defined by convention and protocol, rather than explicitly ratified codes of conduct. I seem to find myself at a position where I can choose to use the term ‘extitutional’ in a manner materially divergent from what I understand to be its intended meaning, and while this divergence does not seem categorically unfavorable, I do think it detracts from what my intentions are, namely to build upon existing thought, as a sort of conceptual bricolage.

Specifically, I was hoping to use the term ‘extitutional’ to describe the soft social tissue which undergirds and connects institutional structures, almost akin to how cytoplasm embeds organelles. This is not to say that this connective fabric is undifferentiated and homogenous, but just that it lacks certain organizational characteristics specific to institutional structures. The intention is to evaluate the landscape of human coordination through a lens of organizational formality, according to some spectrum of structural “hardness”, i.e. whether a particular milieu adopts or ratifies explicit or “hard” rules, or abides by “soft” conventions or protocols.

Micropolitik

One aspect I find enticing about extitutional theory, is that it could lend itself to a certain microsociological/bureaucratic/game-theoretical paradigm or praxis, wherein institutions are superstructures or appendages to a more primordial stratum of social politics, superstructures which can be understood and navigated in Machiavellian terms, however conscientiously. This does tie into a praxis which can be called “conscientious Machiavellianism”, which deserves its own discourse${}^3$ but which can briefly be described as an adoption of a Machiavellian micropolitical epistemology, employed for pro-social purposes (prosocial micropolik?). It is through this particular lens that institutions, as bureaucratic superstructures, can be actuated or weaponized according to a tactical framework of optics, alliances, etc.

In a certain sense, good-faith institutionalization of human coordination can serve to preclude certain anti-social conduct, by leveraging coercion and the promise of force to enforce accountability. That said, it can just as well be co-opted or perverted to build and reinforce power asymmetries against the shared interest of the local milieu. It is in this problem space, of knowing when and how to engineer and manipulate institutional superstructures, that the institutional/extitutional lens and the praxis of conscientious Machiavellianism may be jointly applied.

Another relevant concept in this area, which I just learned about at the General Forum for Ethereal Localism a few days ago, but which I also saw at DWeb Camp last month, is this concept of a “coordination monster” (also attributed to de Filippi, I believe${}^4$), which I understand to be game-theoretical social equilibrium wherein prosocial collaborative behavior outperforms antisocial competitive behavior.

The discourse I am drafting about progressive protocolization I intended to frame in the context of extitutional theory, onchain organizations${}^5$, the synthesis of collectivist and classically liberal values${}^6$, and various ongoing initiatives, such as the OpenCivics grants program.

Footnotes

1. Internal link: DRAFT Progressive Protocolization of Social Systems
2. https://medium.com/berkman-klein-center/an-introduction-to-extitutional-theory-e74b5a49ea53
3. I am working on the following drafts at present:
   1. Internal link: DRAFT A Mirror for Nomads
   2. DRAFT Micropolitics and Organizational Design
4. https://foresight.org/summary/primavera-de-filippi-the-ai-collaboration-monster-vision-weekend-europe-2024/
5. Internal link: What Are Onchain Organizations?
6. Internal link: Prospectus of the Reconciliation of Individual Liberty and Collective Welfare
7. https://opencivics.co/

General Disclaimer

This content does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice, and is intended purely for informational purposes. The publication of this content should not be construed as professional endorsement by Spencer Saar Cavanaugh or Clinamenic LLC of the ideas and opinions contained herein, unless explicitly indicated otherwise. This content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of any other organizations mentioned by or affiliated with the author, unless explicitly indicated otherwise.

Link to original