By Aaron Campbell · November 19, 2005
When most people hear the term peer-to-peer, the first thing that comes to mind is file sharing. Indeed, P2P has come to be synonymous with both the legal and illegal activities of people sharing copies of music, movies, and software. Programs like Limewire, Kazaa, Gnutella, and Bit Torrent, along with many others, are examples of P2P applications.
In order to best understand the P2P concept, I think it is helpful to start by looking at its polar opposite: the structured, hierarchical, command and control model of human interaction. In internet terms, this represents the client-server model, where communication and transaction is mediated through a central server.
FTP, or file transfer protocol, or uploading and downloading from the central server is the classic form of communication in this model. The server is the central node in this architecture, housing the majority of the bandwidth and computing power. Depending on how it is configured, it controls how the clients interact.
In a P2P model, however, there is no centralized server, but rather an ad hoc network of peers. Each node in the network functions as both client and server simultaneously, resulting in a ever changing, organic system of participants. It is largely unsusecptible to manipulation and control for this very reason: there is no central locus of power. Interestingly, one of the original and most infamous file sharing applications, Napster, was brought down by legal attacks from the RIAA because of its centralized file list to which clients had to connect to find what they were looking for.
Although what I’m presenting here is all greatly simplified, I believe an analogy can be made between these two models of network architecture and the ways in which we structure our social institutions, which both reflects the way we look at the world and interact with others, and to a certain extent: determines it.
The client/server model is analogous to institutions of heirarchy and control, what we might arguably call an industrial capitalist model of human organization. Hierarchy is fixed and power falls in the hands of a relative few, while those at the bottom of the structure serve the interest of those at the top. Cooperation is structured into the system through formal rules of engagement.
By contrast, P2P is, in essence, as Michel Bauwens (2005) so eloquently puts it: it is the “participation of equipotent members” (peers). It is a fluid network of unique participants, not a fixed hierarchy. It’s based on free cooperation, that is, no formal rules. The world, then, becomes what we make of it through our unfettered cooperative participation – not from a pre-defined structure superimposed on us by those who hold fixed positions of power.
By contrasting P2P with the client/server model, I am not strictly advocating P2P over the client/server model, but rather trying to raise awareness that there are alternatives, and the P2P model is one of them. Actually, as Bauwens explains (2005), P2P is not anti-hierarchical or anti-authority, but it is against fixed-hierarchies and authoritarianism. The hierarchy that arises in P2P is natural and flexible, based on quality of contribution and communal consensus. Both models can co-exist.
Now, we can take the analogy one step further and apply it to an educational context, namely, that the client/server model – or industrial capitalist production model – is STILL what we see in structure of the majority of educational institutions today.
It is this production model that has been shaping young minds for well over a century and thus, society at large.
Now ask yourself, do we live in a society of peace and equality? Do we live in a society of wisdom and awareness? I answer, no, to those questions. And I believe that the way we have been practicing formal education, has played a significant role in the type of society in which we have been living. The way a society structures its institutions reflects the values of that society, and in turn conditions new generations.
I also believe that the P2P model of human interaction encourages a process-oriented, learner-centered, reflective, informal approach to education, that gives learners more freedom, encouraging them to take more self-direction, pushing them gently toward greater autonomy. Authoritarian models are dangerous when students are not there by choice, but instead are there because they “have to be”.
Years of conditioning in such institutions can engender authoritarian mindsets, which look to positions and degrees as measures of success, rather than the quality of personal experience and one’s level of satisfaction with it. The authoritarian model, if implemented in a widespread manner, breeds competetion, and therefore winners and losers. On a national and global scale, this ultimately contributes to inequality, injustice, oppression, and war.
Do you want peace? Let’s start practicing it in the institution of education. P2P is, in my understanding, a way to educate that leads toward greater peace, understanding, and global dialogue.
• • •
• • •