Chris Matthews’ latest book is Life’s A Campaign. “A recipe for sadness,” Jon Stewart called it in an interview that Matthews called the worst of his life:
In Systems of Survival (1992), Jane Jacobs described two ethical systems: guardian (= government) and commercial. Each system consists of rules of conduct (e.g., “be honest” is a commercial value but not a guardian one). Matthews’s book says you should use guardian principles in everyday life; Stewart said that’s a mistake — commercial principles work better. Jacobs said there is a tendency to think that the principles that work well in your system work everywhere. Maybe this is why Matthews seemed stunned by Stewart’s objections.
To Jacobs’ two systems, Chris Phoenix, a nanotechnology expert, has added a third: the “ information system“. It is about appropriate behavior — what is seen as appropriate behavior — in the world of open source software and similar goods. Phoenix argues persuasively that a different set of values applies. This is why I asked Aaron Swartz what’s wrong with Wikipedia: It’s not so obvious what the appropriate values are.
Long before open source software there were books: books share expertise. Long before books — at the dawn of humanity, I believe — there were hobbies: hobbyists share their expertise. The ethical system that Phoenix describes is much older and more important than he says. Phoenix acted within that system when he posted his essay on the Web; Jacobs did, too, when she wrote a book. Just as I do by blogging.
Personally, I think that guardian encompasses Chris Phoenix’s “information” system under the category “make rich use of leisure” and “treasure honor”. I have been arguing with him about this, off and on, for years though. It seems to me that only the “richest”, in some sense that I don’t fully understand, of history’s guardian groups demand that one “make rich use of leisure”, and in the 20th century all high status Guardian classes abandoned it, which is why “information” looks like something new. Really though, who could be more “information”, or more “guardian” than Eric Raymond, for instance?
I don’t think that the Matthews/Steward debate is one of guardian vs. commercial principles. Matthews is certainly not saying to ‘rely on force’, the core guardian precept. He’s also not saying to be fatalistic, shun trading, be obedient and disciplined, revere tradition, etc.
For a true devotee of guardian virtues, look to Robert Green.
I think that ultimately his difference with Stewart is that Matthews admires and wants to be like Bill Clinton and thinks his readers should want to be like Clinton, while Stewart wants to be himself and thinks his readers should want to be themselves. Personally, as TV hosts, both are solidly within the information system, which, as I have said, makes them a part of the guardian system just like the priests of ancient times.
The surprising feature of the interview I think is that Stewart was honest (commercial virtue) rather than loyal (guardian virtue). He told Matthews his actual reaction to the book. Which I suspect is rare in such interviews.
I think that what hobbyists and open-source participants consider good behavior is quite different than what policeman consider good behavior — so I don’t think that what Phoenix calls the “information system” (terrible name — I’d call it the hobbyist system) falls under the guardian system. Policeman don’t make a big deal of giving stuff away.
Even though Stewart was on the attack, he was also on the defense. He appeared almost shaken. Out of his element. Instead of allowing Chris Matthew to respond, he continually made some outrageous comment (your book is fascist) to get the crowd laughing.
Shouldn’t the guardian and commercial virtue engage in a more fruitful debate?
I would love to read Jane Jacobs on the matter. Did she just advocate a separation and protection of the various ethical systems? or did she also encourage some sort of debate between the ethical systems?
Jacobs specifically criticized books that treated business as if it were war. She felt each system had its place; using the values of a system in a different place, as Matthews is advocating, led to trouble.
Guns for toys?
Anyway, churches make a big deal of giving stuff away. The government makes a big deal of giving stuff away. Nobles give stuff to both the poor and to each other.
You have to focus on the whole list. Jacobs includes “give largess” on the guardian list for a good reason.
I don’t think any government program resembles open-source software. Nor any church program. Nor any police program. Nor anything that Henry III gave any of his subjects. The larger point is that the people who participate in open-source software programs act quite differently than government officials.
I would suggest law and academia as examples of “government programs” at least as much like one another and like open source as any one government program is like another.