Reframing Sumptuary Cultures: A Protocol Flexibility versus Cultural Adaptability Perspective

This is a work-in-progress response to the Sumptuary cultures as economic regulation protocols post. I’ve developed a 2x2 to explore the interplay between protocol flexibility and cultural adaptability. I also examine cross-quadrant dynamics and the implications of these transitions for economic regulation.

Vertical Axis - Protocol Flexibility

Weak protocols are characterized by their adaptability, allowing for a wide range of interpretation and implementation within a set of flexible guidelines. These protocols are often enforced through social norms, cultural traditions, and informal agreements, rather than through rigid rules or legal structures. In contrast, strong protocols are highly formalized and prescriptive, leaving little room for deviation or individual discretion. These protocols are typically enforced through explicit rules, contracts, and legal mechanisms, and are designed to ensure consistency and predictability in their application.

Horizontal Axis - Degree of Cultural Adaptability

Flexible cultural adaptability refers to the ability of a culture to adapt and evolve in response to changing circumstances, new information, and emerging challenges. Cultures with high adaptability are characterized by a willingness to experiment, learn from failures, and continuously update their beliefs and practices. In contrast, rigid cultural adaptability describes cultures that are resistant to change, often clinging to established norms, values, and ways of doing things even in the face of mounting evidence that they may no longer be effective or relevant. These cultures may be constrained by deeply entrenched interests, ideologies, or power structures that make it difficult for them to adapt to new realities.

Adaptive-Experimental - Weak Protocols + Flexible Cultural Adaptability

This quadrant may challenge the emphasis on hard, cryptographically enforced protocols as the primary means of achieving effective economic regulation. Weak protocols and flexible cultural adaptability can facilitate the emergence of bottom-up, self-regulating economic orders that are highly responsive to changing circumstances. However, the success of this approach likely mirrors that of the procedure-bound quadrant, which I will discuss in a moment, as it depends on the cultivation of a culture that values experimentation, learning, and adaptation. While the adaptive-experimental approach may foster innovation and resilience, it could also lead to instability or unpredictability if taken to an extreme, underscoring the need for a balanced approach.

Tradition-Constrained - Weak Protocols + Rigid Cultural Adaptability

This quadrant highlights the risk of ossification and resistance to change that can emerge when economic systems are heavily constrained by established norms and customs. Such a scenario can result in a lack of responsiveness to evolving circumstances and a potential for economic stagnation, ultimately undermining the system’s resilience and adaptability. In the context of hard, cryptographically enforced protocols, the rigidity inherent in tradition-constrained systems may be amplified, as preserving the status quo takes precedence over innovation.

Structured-Evolving - Strong Protocols + Flexible Cultural Adaptability

Strong protocols can provide a stable foundation for economic regulation while still allowing for adaptation and innovation. This quadrant highlights the potential for a balanced approach that combines the benefits of clear, well-defined protocols with the flexibility and responsiveness of cultural adaptability. However, it also hints at the potential tensions and trade-offs involved in striking this balance, as the rigidity of strong protocols may sometimes come into conflict with the need for rapid adaptation and experimentation. The “hardness” of cryptographically-enforced protocols may need to be tempered by a recognition of the importance of maintaining cultural adaptability.

Procedure-Bound - Strong Protocols + Rigid Cultural Adaptability

This quadrant reflects the potential downsides of hard, possibly cryptographically-enforced protocols. While such protocols can provide a strong foundation for economic regulation, the procedure-bound quadrant highlights the risks of ossification and brittleness that can arise when these protocols are combined with rigid cultural adaptability. The strict adherence to formal rules and procedures, coupled with a lack of flexibility and openness to change, can lead to a system that is unable to adapt to new circumstances or respond to unexpected challenges. The procedure-bound quadrant thus serves as a cautionary counterpoint to hard, cryptographic enforcement, suggesting that the success of any attempt to create more resilient forms of economic regulation depends not only on the design of the underlying protocols but also on the cultivation of a culture that values adaptability, experimentation, and continuous learning.

Cross-Quadrant Dynamics

Human systems are likely to have elements of multiple quadrants simultaneously. A move towards stronger protocols and more rigid cultural adaptability can lead to greater stability and predictability, but at the cost of innovation and responsiveness. Conversely, a move towards weaker protocols and more flexible cultural adaptability can unleash creativity and experimentation, but at the risk of instability and fragmentation.

As adaptive-experimental systems mature and scale, they may naturally develop more formalized protocols and structures to manage complexity and ensure consistency. This shift can be triggered by the need for greater coordination, the emergence of new stakeholders, or the desire to codify best practices.

Over time, even structured-evolving systems may drift towards the procedure-bound quadrant if cultural adaptability is not actively maintained. This shift can be triggered by a variety of factors, such as the entrenchment of powerful interests, the ossification of bureaucratic structures, or the fear of change in the face of uncertainty.

In some cases, procedure-bound systems may devolve into tradition-constrained systems if the underlying protocols weaken or lose legitimacy. This can happen if the formal rules and procedures become divorced from the realities on the ground, or if they are perceived as serving the interests of a narrow elite rather than the broader community.

Finally, tradition-constrained systems can sometimes break out of their rigidity and move towards a more adaptive-experimental approach if there is a significant shock or disruption to the status quo.

Finding a balance between structure and flexibility, between continuity and change, that is appropriate for the specific context and challenges facing the system will require ongoing monitoring, adjustment, and adaptation, as well as a willingness to learn from both successes and failures. This perspective aligns with the OOLA (Observe, Orient, Learn, Apply) loop, which emphasizes the importance of continuous open learning and adaptation in the face of complex and changing circumstances. By understanding the dynamics of cross-quadrant movement and applying the principles of the OOLA loop, I suspect we can develop more nuanced and effective strategies for economic regulation.

I think the main struggle I have in following your thinking on strong/weak protocols is lack of good sets of examples for your theoretical refinements. In this 2x2, what are archetypal examples for the 4 quadrants? Usually takes me 3 examples to understand the intension (with an s) of a category.

1 Like