This seems to be confusing culture with spectacle. I'd suggest culture requires a conforming belief on basic values or something of the like.

Grant's tactics seem to be interesting events conducive to creating an audience But, creating an audience isn't the same as creating a community. While there certainly are events with enough scale to be considered culture (Phish, 9/11, University), maybe these are better called subcultures. The difference is the level of participation and transaction costs. I understand that your point is that just reading it is participation enough; I just don't think it is if you're going to call it culture. People need a common experience they can share and not something one-sided.

Now, having said that, and with no way of knowing if this is going to be your reveal, I am a fan of using social engineering to create community. That's one of the tenets of urban revitalization. But again, not culture in my opinion.

This seems to be confusing culture with spectacle. I'd suggest culture requires a conforming belief on basic values or something of the like.

Grant's tactics seem to be interesting events conducive to creating an audience But, creating an audience isn't the same as creating a community. While there certainly are events with enough scale to be considered culture (Phish, 9/11, University), maybe these are better called subcultures. The difference is the level of participation and transaction costs. I understand that your point is that just reading it is participation enough; I just don't think it is if you're going to call it culture. People need a common experience they can share and not something one-sided.

Now, having said that, and with no way of knowing if this is going to be your reveal, I am a fan of using social engineering to create community. That's one of the tenets of urban revitalization. But again, not culture in my opinion.

Please clarify your first “this”. I don't see why spectacle can't be a part of culture, but open to hearing thoughts.

I'll agree there is a difference between an audience and a community (the difference being an audience merely listens, but in a community at least some % creates and interacts).

At the same time, why can't culture merely be something that resonates, that is meaningful, that we value with our attention?

Not all culturematics need to result in creating a community (and that's not Grant's point, but my extension); but perhaps the best ones can, as a way of self-organization, similar to open space technology.

No, that's not my reveal :)

Please clarify your first “this”. I don't see why spectacle can't be a part of culture, but open to hearing thoughts.

I'll agree there is a difference between an audience and a community (the difference being an audience merely listens, but in a community at least some % creates and interacts).

At the same time, why can't culture merely be something that resonates, that is meaningful, that we value with our attention?

Not all culturematics need to result in creating a community (and that's not Grant's point, but my extension); but perhaps the best ones can, as a way of self-organization, similar to open space technology.

No, that's not my reveal :)

Spectacle is certainly a part of culture, but not culture itself. The spectacle is engineered to attract and retain attention for a finite period of time. The audience that spectates may be bound by enjoyment or other attraction, but they don't have to share a common belief other than “this is worth spectating”. With culture, it's different. Culture isn't designed to be temporary. It's very fixed and hard to change. Even in business, culture is fairly static. The graveyard of failed M&A has a lot of “culture fit” tombstones.

Your second question is really a great one: Why can't this be culture? That's got serious ramifications and I'm not sure where I fall on this one. On one hand, culture is used to create a we/them environment and therefore tends to trend towards exclusion. On the other, culture motivates and motivated people get things done. Clearly there is good culture and bad culture but what we can't predict about culture is its longevity. I think that's what scares me about engineering it.

I'm afraid the 5GW stuff is a bit lost on me. I consider myself a fairly open-minded and progressive thinker, but that stuff just escapes me. Maybe it's all the years of engineering outcomes.

Spectacle is certainly a part of culture, but not culture itself. The spectacle is engineered to attract and retain attention for a finite period of time. The audience that spectates may be bound by enjoyment or other attraction, but they don't have to share a common belief other than “this is worth spectating”. With culture, it's different. Culture isn't designed to be temporary. It's very fixed and hard to change. Even in business, culture is fairly static. The graveyard of failed M&A has a lot of “culture fit” tombstones.

Your second question is really a great one: Why can't this be culture? That's got serious ramifications and I'm not sure where I fall on this one. On one hand, culture is used to create a we/them environment and therefore tends to trend towards exclusion. On the other, culture motivates and motivated people get things done. Clearly there is good culture and bad culture but what we can't predict about culture is its longevity. I think that's what scares me about engineering it.

I'm afraid the 5GW stuff is a bit lost on me. I consider myself a fairly open-minded and progressive thinker, but that stuff just escapes me. Maybe it's all the years of engineering outcomes.

If I took out the line “culturematics to create culture”, how would your thoughts on the rest of the post change?

Part of me doesn't care about the definition of culture, but only about the mechanics of creating a culturematic and what we can learn about how the resonance they create can scale to form communities. If it resonates, and a community forms around it, and it impacts people, then does it matter whether it's truly “culture”?.

Apologies on introducing 5GW, only meant to reference the OST thoughts contained in that post; that post I linked to just happened to be the quickest point of reference to OST.

If I took out the line “culturematics to create culture”, how would your thoughts on the rest of the post change?

Part of me doesn't care about the definition of culture, but only about the mechanics of creating a culturematic and what we can learn about how the resonance they create can scale to form communities. If it resonates, and a community forms around it, and it impacts people, does it matter whether it's truly “culture”?

Apologies on introducing 5GW, only meant to reference the OST thoughts contained in that post; that post I linked to just happened to be the quickest point of reference to OST.

How we define culture isn't necessarily what's important, but expecting the same benefit from what we normally call culture from something that isn't culture is a problem. (Gawd that was confusing, sorry).

To start, what is the benefit of creating something culture-like? I'd say that the benefit is an associative state of mind which inspires movement an individual wouldn't normally do over a long period of time.

It's a long-term unifier. A license to struggle. And I think that's fundamentally different than a community and why we can't expect communities to form around these quasi-cultures.

Consider 2008's culturematic de l'annee: Obama. There was definitely an Obama community. There were grassroots efforts to form physical groups united around a common interest. There was struggle. By my definition, that should be a culture. But it's not because it was temporal. It was spectacle. Now, granted, I'm sure lots of Obama folk met each other and are still pals but the culture doesn't exist like it used to – at least if you measure peak to trough.

I think the problem is that it was definition culturematic culture. Engineering these sorts of things doesn't seem to produce the benefits we want because what we often want is long-term change. Now, if you want short-term movement, the culturematic probably works. Million man march? South Beach diet? Freedom fries?

So then the question becomes, outside of cataclysmic events, what does inspire long-term change?

How we define culture isn't necessarily what's important, but expecting the same benefit from what we normally call culture from something that isn't culture is a problem. (Gawd that was confusing, sorry).

To start, what is the benefit of creating something culture-like? I'd say that the benefit is an associative state of mind which inspires movement an individual wouldn't normally do over a long period of time.

It's a long-term unifier. A license to struggle. And I think that's fundamentally different than a community and why we can't expect communities to form around these quasi-cultures.

Consider 2008's culturematic de l'annee: Obama. There was definitely an Obama community. There were grassroots efforts to form physical groups united around a common interest. There was struggle. By my definition, that should be a culture. But it's not because it was temporal. It was spectacle. Now, granted, I'm sure lots of Obama folk met each other and are still pals but the culture doesn't exist like it used to – at least if you measure peak to trough.

I think the problem is that it was definition culturematic culture. Engineering these sorts of things doesn't seem to produce the benefits we want because what we often want is long-term change. Now, if you want short-term movement, the culturematic probably works. Million man march? South Beach diet? Freedom fries?

So then the question becomes, outside of cataclysmic events, what does inspire long-term change?

“So then the question becomes, outside of cataclysmic events, what does inspire long-term change?”

That's a question I'll leave you to answer yourself.

Communities can have an impact, can resonate, can bring people together in the short-run for short-term impact. We don't always want or need long-term change. The most powerful long-term changes can come from short-term changes, smaller scopes, more discrete intents that snowballed into something larger and more profound along the way.

“So then the question becomes, outside of cataclysmic events, what does inspire long-term change?”

That's a question I'll leave you to answer yourself.

Communities can have an impact, can resonate, can bring people together in the short-run for short-term impact. We don't always want or need long-term change. Powerful long-term changes can come from short-term changes, smaller scopes, more discrete intents that snowballed into something larger and more profound along the way.

Agreed. Thanks for raising this topic. It's not anything I've seriously thought about before. I think it's interesting though to look at community as a part of the spectrum of culture. Many times, we think of the opposite.

Agreed. Thanks for raising this topic. It's not anything I've seriously thought about before. I think it's interesting though to look at community as a part of the spectrum of culture. Many times, we think of the opposite.

Agreed. Thanks for raising this topic. It’s not anything I’ve seriously thought about before. I think it’s interesting though to look at community as a part of the spectrum of culture. Many times, we think of the opposite.

[...] unexpected and indirect method and medium. Will people care? Will this commercially sponsored culturematic resonate with people unfamiliar with or uninterested in de Botton? Will other writers and companies [...]

[...] up the idea of culturematics from Grant McCracken, a concept I’ve applied in thinking about communities, the power of “doing cool (meaningful) stuff”", and creating relevant, shareable events [...]