SOCIETAL EVOLUTION AND RONFELDT's TIMN

A systemic crisis is usually a catalyst for transformational societal change, and it's likely that the current crisis of global capitalism is large enough to play this role.  However, if change is coming, where is it bringing us?  David Ronfeldt, a global guerrilla guru, has an interesting take on this from an organizational perspective.  He calls the model TIMN.  It's composed of four organizational forms:

• Tribes
• Institutions 
• Markets 
• Networks 

Societies, within this framework, began with tribal structures (99.9% of our history as human beings was spent in tribal structures) and expanded into institutional structures (nation-state bureaucracies) and finally into markets. Previous forms weren't abandoned, instead, they were enhanced by the addition of a new form.  Ronfeldt argues that the tri-form structure of tribes, institutions and markets are now nearly universal. Here's his description of the evolutionary process: 

At first, when a new form arises, it has subversive effects on the old order, before it has additive effects that lead to a new order. Bad actors may prove initially more adept than good actors at using a new form... As each form takes hold, energizing a distinct set of values and norms for actors operating in that form, it generates a new realm of activity — for example, the state, the market. As a new realm gains legitimacy and expands the space it occupies within a social system, it puts new limits on the scope of existing realms. At the same time, through feedback and other interactions, the rise of a new form/realm also modifies the nature of the existing ones.

The implications of this model, and I'm giving it short shrift given its richness, is that this crisis will show us the value of networked organizational forms.  For example: innovation/tinkering networks, resilient communities, and cyberdemocracy efforts.  The objective of a successful society should be to incorporate the value of networked forms into the existing TIM (tribal, institutional, and market) framework that already exists.  Ronfeldt again:

Societies that can elevate the bright over the dark side of each form and achieve a new combination become more powerful and capable of complex tasks than societies that do not. Societies that first succeed at making a new combination gain advantages over competitors and attain a paramount influence over the nature of international conflict and cooperation.

This model is very useful for analysis of our current situation.  However, there are a couple twists that may make its application problematic.  Here's a critique:

• If the crisis is too severe, it can force society backwards into tribal or TI (tribal plus institutional) structures.  Neo-feudalism and totalitarian states.
• This model assumes that countries, defined as discrete bordered geographies, are the only container within which these organizational forms exist.   It's possible that the elevation of markets to a global level, beyond the nation-state or country container, has left nation-states vulnerable to predation.  In that globalized system, market participants (who define themselves solely within context) prey on organizationally weak nation-states (T plus I).
• Global markets are supercharging tribal, institutional (corporate), and networked organizational types.  As a result, they are likely to prey upon nation-states too.