Steve Bridger gave us a great presentation around and about the subject of Generosity which left us with plenty to think about, personally, publicly and professionally. And Jesus’ social network, but that’s another story…

After a whistle stop tour ranging from big brands to personal sharing, religion to altruism, giving to taking, he left us with six things to think about:

1. Start with people
2. We are what we share
3. Is the social web making weak ties stronger than blood ties?
4. Successful brands are exceptionally generous
5. Create experiences that mirror people’s aspirations
6. Do we need new metrics for generosity?

There was a lot of discussion about society and culture, sharing in general and our expectations of selves and other. Maslow’s hierachy of needs came up along with some clarity about the term ‘survival of the fittest‘ (whereby it could be said that the Capitalist hegemony related the term ‘fittest’ to a blindly competitive theme rather than ‘that which is most suitable to its context’, which gives it a very different feel:

What’s more, although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word “fittest” seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Forget Rambo, think Einstein or Gandhi.
(New Scientist article: Evolution myths)

We thought about why we give to charity, the implications of dis-intermediatory bodies like Kiva, Freecycle, Swop, School of Everything etc., whether big corporations actually can give, why, and what that means.

People explored how ‘brands’ could be generous, what impact that might have on ‘competition’ and ‘control’, and what it was that people were being generous with, and why.

• What are the implications for the world when my ‘generous’ act of sharing a photo means a professional photographer doesn’t get any money for producing a better one?
• Is ‘mega-corp multinational’ really being generous when it shares some of its codebase with a developer community, or simply sensible (and resourcing cheap innovation)?
• If we have a ‘competition commission’, are they the good guys or the bad guys?
• Can our market model exist side by side with a culture of ‘we are what we share’?
• If someone does what could be seen as a generous act for selfish reasons, does that make it less generous in outcome?

It seems we’re not alone in pondering this subject. On a corporate note, an interesting article appeared about this very subject:

Has it ever been important for corporations to ditch the greed and embrace generosity? It’s something that countless individuals have already started doing, of course: giving is the new taking, and sharing is the new giving. And yes, we do realize that this month’s Trend Briefing is massive, but in this business climate, can you really afford not to spend some time figuring out how to get a little closer to your customers?…

GENERATION G | “Captures the growing importance of ‘generosity’ as a leading societal and business mindset. As consumers are disgusted with greed and its current dire consequences for the economy—and while that same upheaval has them longing more than ever for institutions that care—the need for more generosity beautifully coincides with the ongoing (and pre-recession) emergence of an online-fueled culture of individuals who share, give, engage, create and collaborate in large numbers.

In fact, for many, sharing a passion and receiving recognition have replaced ‘taking’ as the new status symbol. Businesses should follow this societal/behavioral shift, however much it may oppose their decades-old devotion to me, myself and I.”
(Trendwatch article on Generation G)

The resounding note for me was that it is easiest and most rational to share within the boundaries of our ‘communities’ (however they are described), and sharing between them would involve some form of exchange. As ever, the issue of trust came up, and how we define our boundaries (which reflect our intentions, which define what we can and can’t share).

As ever, thanks to The Pervasive Media Studio, for their kind loan of the excellent space, and all attendees who came and had a good think together.