For those wanting to play catch up, the big idea here is that - in the West - spirituality has become commodified, creating a “Wellness Industry”; and we need to change it.
To dismantle it, reform it, or build anew, we need to frame it as an industry and generate alternatives to the established Paradigm.
Part 0 explained the lineages of today’s Wellness Industry | Part 1 explained the mental model of different Paradigms | Part 2 explored the “New Age” Paradigm | Part 3 explored the “Wellness” Paradigm | Part 4 explored Folk Revival (part I) | Part 5 explored Folk Revival (part II) | Part 6 explored Interwoven (part I)
This week, sink into the comfiest armchair you can possibly imagine, dip that first toe in the cozy bathtub, or sprawl out under that gloriously autumnal tree, as we continue unpacking the Interwoven Paradigm.
Before we begin, a refresher from way back when on some key concepts:
A Commons is a dynamic relationship between a shared Resource, a community who steward it, and the rules for its self-governance. Stewardship is a collective, long-term effort to preserve or enhance the wealth we have for our descendants.
A peer to peer (P2P) relationship is a non-coercive, non-hierarchic way of relating to others. It is a more equitable way of collaboratively creating wvalue. An example is Commoning; the participatory and inclusive self-governance of a Commons.
Co-operatives (Co-Ops) may refer to either an organisation or a legal structure, which is collectively owned by members, and whose surplus resources are re-distributed for mutual benefit.
We can understand “Interwoven’s” ecosystem as an emerging, post-capitalist economy – one characterised by openness, reciprocity, and stewardship.
To get there, I feel there’s two big institutional shifts, layered upon the social conditions of Folk Revival. When these shifts are embraced as the norm in the Industry, we will reach the revolution needed to make Interwoven the prevailing Paradigm.
First, a shift from extracting economic value, towards generating social value.
Where Wellness and neo-liberal capitalism is centred on maximising “economic value” (from exploiting labour or extracting resources), “social value” is at the heart of Interwoven. Currently, profit is seen through the capitalist lens as a private resource.
A broader view understands that profit can be a social resource. How any “surplus” is used, distributed, and who it benefits comes to the fore. Continuing the foundation laid by Folk Revival, we see a focus on generative, co-operative relationships that redistribute value to society and communities. This is currently observable in trends like open-book accounting, organisations redistributing profits, or re-investing them to create more impact.
When we reach this point, we can eclipse and dismantle the Wellness Industry as we know it ✊🏼
Rather than producing what the market demands, Interwoven organisations are animated by meeting societal needs as part of the ecosystem (more on that later).
Secondly, we will need and institutional shift from individual ownership to collective ownership. We saw the beginning of this in the first Breakthrough of Folk Revival - the popularisation of purpose driven organisations. These were created to address the shortcomings of existing institutions, but did not have the momentum to replace them.
In order to sustain the Paradigm change from “Folk Revival” to the equitable, generative, for-purpose orientation of “Interwoven”, we must further broaden our understanding of how organisations are created and run.
Just like climate justice, we must suggest viable alternatives to what we have now. The co-ops and communities of Folk Revival were the trailblazers that would allow the shift to revolutionary, peer-to-peer, self-governed organisations of all sorts, which can sustain the Interwoven ecosystem.
Interwoven takes collective ownership from the societal (local) context, and follows it to its natural conclusion. In this Paradigm, radical organisations are replacing, rebuilding, or re-imagining the Industry - and by extension, society. Not just locally, but globally. Generations of steward-ownership, co-ops, communities, non-profits, and self-employed people - changemakers all.
In truth, I have not been able to find well-documented examples in the Wellness Industry, especially as this is an emerging Paradigm. However, I know for certain there are plenty of local organisations and examples to find that would find a home here. Instead, I have used examples of other organisations in different Industries, which I hope will make the same point.
🐝 Co-Ops
As the Paradigm matures, I expect we’ll see the rise of Co-Ops as the dominant organisation type. Co-Ops are communally owned and self-governed, with every member sharing in the wealth created. They’re oriented towards a Commons, and there is social control over wealth. This means that any surplus is reinvested back into the Co-Op or community it serves.
In the global ecosystem of Interwoven, Co-Ops share these characteristics :
Oriented towards a common good [AKA, purpose driven\
Multi-constituent stakeholders [people in and outside the co-op (not just members) are considered stakeholders and impacted by the work]
Actively consuming, creating, and stewarding Commons
Organise global, produce local
There are different kinds of Co-Ops emerging, each presenting an alternative to existing structures in our Industry (and economy).
Open Co-ops thrive with an ecology of membership 🕸
Open Co-Ops are closest to what we currently see as a “business”. They’re a self-governed collection of Commoners (individuals or organisations) who pool resources, allocate them fairly, and earn livelihoods (potentially outside of existing markets).
Importantly, as mentioned in #2 above, they seek to include not just members, but those throughout the ecosystem. Enspiral is an example of this; a collective of members and organisations sustaining the network.
Platform Co-Ops offer an alternative to the gig economy 🚲
They rely on a digital platform to match workers with customers. Imagine if AirBnB was collectively owned and self-governed by the people who used it. Currently, they’re being used by freelancers, researchers, and small business owners.
Two examples: Equal Care is a UK-based platform Co-Op, where caregivers and receivers choose one another for support work. Ampled is a streaming service owned by its artists, workers, and community.
As we’ve seen, Interwoven will need a groundswell of support from grassroots organisations, communities, Co-Ops, and self-employed people who want to create a new ecosystem.
But, if we fail to create alternatives for traditional “companies”, progress will be much slower.
Enter steward ownership, which most recently made global news with Patagonia’s announcement that it would transition to a steward-ownership model. This is an enormous step for the recognition of the model, and has made the world pay attention.
I nerded out so hard when I heard the news. Purpose (one of the foremost organisations in this space who had a big influence on my thinking) recently wrote an in-depth article explaining what this means for Patagonia. If anyone from Purpose is reading this, love your work 🙏🏼
The concept of Steward Ownership is one way to support a transition to this Paradigm. I suggest that it become the accepted form of ownership in an organisation.
It can protect Co-Ops from selling or privatising, and is revolutionising our understanding of what a “company” is.
By separating the economic and voting rights of an organisation, Steward Ownership legally orients an organisation towards its Purpose. Ant profits must be re-distributed toward this purpose. In effect, Purpose cannot be sacrificed for personal wealth accumulation.
Conventionally, absentee owners (shareholders, private equity firms, parent companies) would control an organisation from afar to maximise their profits. Control of Steward Owned organisations can never be bought or sold.
Instead, they select Stewards from inside the organisation (or the community it serves) to self-govern the organisation.
Stewards ensure the organisation is oriented towards benefitting society, first. To enable this, organisations are often structured as foundations or trust-owned companies (illustrated here). This makes it easier to re-distribute Profit internally (or to stakeholders), repay investors, or donate it.
There's great examples across geographies and industries; and I was pleased to discover plenty in my (former) home of the Netherlands. There’s also a tremendous amount of open-source content to learn from, with blogs like “Balanced” by Sharetribe documenting their progress, and Purpose's thorough Workbook for Steward Ownership.
***
Interwoven is the final Paradigm we will discuss over the coming weeks. In our thrilling conclusion, Part III will describe the tools of power and Breakthroughs. For now, thanks for reading, and feel free to share with someone you care about!
Short takes 🎬
In a move of perfect fortuitous timing, I'll be in Rome for an academic conference on the Shelleys 😭😭 I'm thrilled to be joining for 2 days of nerding out on the impact of their work, and cannot wait to be immersed amongst academics from all over the world.
If you're in Rome and want to join - or if you're not and want to see what you're missing - it might not be too late! You can find the full agenda online.
If my phone case doesn’t get any love here, I don’t know where it will.
What I'm crushing on ❤️🔥
Still, the neighbourhood of Pigento we’re residing in in Rome at the moment. This article introduces you to Rome’s “most progressive neighbourhood”, and gives you a crash course in the newly elected (neo-fascist) Meloni administration.
The most recent newsletter from Snowden, unpacking the power of the CIA. It’s a grotesque, nauseating reality that needs be read; but which you take no pleasure from.
What I'm wrangling 🧶
Even after three episodes of “House of the Dragon” I am not invested. Like, at all. I had high hopes, since I was THE BIGGEST “Game of Thrones” nerd (to the point where every day between S7 ending and S8 starting, I would be scouring the internet for any whiff of a hint of news). It feels tacky, for lack of a better word. The wig-work alone is abysmal. The VFX look ho-hum, compared to the quality of GoT. They had Sapochnik, Djawadi, so many others, and it just didn’t work for me.
I digress - I’m not into it, and I’m disappointed in so many ways.
Contrarily, after one episode of “Rings of Power”, I’m here for the quality of cinematography, acting, set design, sound engineering, all of it. The story is pulling me in, but I’m not entirely sold on it, yet.
If you had asked me a month ago, I would’ve guessed it would’ve landed the other way. I was delaying watching RoP (do people call it that?) and was eager for HoTD. Who knew. That’s it, that’s the whole thing. No epiphanies here.