rework Brand page around Ladder of Love

[chadwhitacre]

Closes #430 and contributes to #319.

The Ladder of Love is:

            ------               ___
           /      \ ___      ___/   \______
        --/-  ___  /    \/  /  /    /      \
       /     /           \__     //_        \
      /                     \   / ___       |
      |           ___       \/+--/         /
       \__           \       \            /
          \__                 |          /
         \     /____      /  /       |   /
          _____/         ___       \/  /\
               \__      /      /    |    |
                  \____/   \______/____/
                    | \____/       |
                    |     love     |
                    |--------------|
                    |              |
                    |   openness   |
                    |--------------|
                    |              |
                    | transparency |
                    |--------------|
                    |              |
                    |   consent    |
                    |--------------|
                    |              |
____________________|____safety____|___________________________________________________

That's meant to be a cloud. :-) ☁️

See http://inside.gratipay.com/big-picture/brand/ for current "Brand Values" text.

Here's the new text as of e612418:

Brand Values: Ladder of Love

Our core brand values are safety, consent, transparency, openness, and love. We see each as dependent on the prior value to form a "ladder of love":

• love—freely serving one another
• openness—sharing control with one another
• transparency—sharing information with one another
• consent—not acting on another without their permission
• safety—physical and emotional security

We see gratitude and generosity, referenced in our mission, as the economic expression of love.

Gratipay has been called "sweetly idealistic" (Elizabeth Weiss, The New Yorker) and it's been accused of "unabashed optimism" (@traverseda, on GitHub). Yes.

[chadwhitacre]

You'll see that 5d0a3fa tweaks the definition of love from the "interdependent union of wills" of #319 and #430, to "interdependent fellowship." Why? I'm hoping that "fellowship" is a less technical-sounding term than "union of wills" that actually gets closer to what we want: "The companionship of individuals in a congenial atmosphere and on equal terms" (Free Dictionary), or "A company of people that share the same interest or aim. A feeling of friendship, relatedness or connection between people" (Wiktionary).

As to "interdependent," I like the word because a) it ties together the civilizational scale (cf. Marx's original usage) with the interpersonal scale (via care ethics), and b) it points to a golden mean between the extremes of individualism and collectivism:

Some people advocate freedom or independence as the ultimate good; others do the same with devotion to one's family, community, or society. Interdependence can be a common ground between these aspirations.

[chadwhitacre]

I added "with one another" to love, openness, and transparency, to contrast with the emphasis on the individual in consent and safety.

[chadwhitacre]

Here's how I see the previous values fitting into the ladder of love:

• honesty—somewhere between transparency and openness
• kindness—subsumed under love
• collaboration—subsumed under openness
• openness—included directly
• direct, interpersonal communication—somewhere between openness and love
• discussion and deliberation—somewhere between openness and love
• safety—included directly
• consent—included directly

[chadwhitacre]

The change in 52da8a6 to love as "freely serving one another" came from a conversation with a friend who has successfully used a corporate value of "service" to encode Aquinas' conception of love: "amare est velle alicui bonum" (ST I-II.26.4 corpus; translation)—"To love is to will good for another." Aquinas, in turn, is quoting Aristotle: "ἔστω δὴ τὸ φιλεῖν τὸ βούλεσθαί τινι ἃ οἴεται ἀγαθά" (Rhetoric II.4; translation)—"Now, let it be that to love is to will for someone that which you take to be good." Service emphasizes the completion of will in action. I don't merely wish good for the others I'm working alongside, I actively intend it—and, as I'm able, I follow through on my intention.

What are you trying to get done? How can I help you?

[chadwhitacre]

At first blush, IEP's entry is more relevant than SEP's.

[chadwhitacre]

Another intriguing angle: bell hooks, Feminism is for Everybody:

A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving....There can be no love without justice.—from the chapter "To Love Again: The Heart of Feminism"

P.S. I learned about this from Shanley.

Also: All About Love.

[traverseda]

I'd, personally, be inclined to steer a bit away from feminist politics. Not necessarily because they're wrong, but because they tend to steer towards controversy. Controversy seems to be a big part of their branding strategy. Take a look at this article, The Toxoplasma Of Rage.

I'd coach the feminist ideals in language that isn't obviously feminist.

As an example, a quick google for "Shanley" has articles like this near the top results, questioning whether Shanley is a parody of the more controversial aspects of the modern social justice movement.

It would be better just to stay away from directly referencing that memeplex. It transfers via controversy.

[chadwhitacre]

@traverseda! Long time, no see! :-)

Yeah, Gittip/Gratipay has had its share of feminist-related controversy (see #319 ff.), which makes the connection all the more intriguing to me. I don't envision surfacing feminism by name on the Brand page, but I am intrigued to see what hooks herself has to say about love. My hunch is that there's convergence to be found.

[traverseda]

I am pretty familiar with the gittip incident.

My hunch is that there isn't a convergence, but good luck.

There's a difference between how a movement presents itself, and how it behaves. Look at concepts like "motte and bailey doctrine".

I'd also recommend not trying to service that market directly. As was demonstrated by the whole gittip thing, they have some very specific requirements. A lot of those requirements go counter to what I'd consider to make a good product. The site was significantly more usable, in my opinion, before that incident. Transparency is a virtue, most of the time.

Thankfully, everything is open source. So it's not hard to make competing products to serve specific requirements. You can't please everyone.

Anyway, just my two cents. Don't try to specifically converge with communities that go on regular witch hunts or are otherwise fueled by controversy, instead just focus on making the best, kindest, project you can.

[kaguillera]

Yeah, Gittip/Gratipay has had its share of feminist-related controversy (see #319 ff.), which makes the connection all the more intriguing to me.

👉 🐻

[chadwhitacre]

👉 🐻

lol

(For context: @kaguillera and I co-work together, usually a couple times a week, and, in person, offline, he acts as a force for non-bear-poking within Gratipay—counterbalancing yours truly.)

[chadwhitacre]

Love: something we can all agree on! ;-)

[chadwhitacre]

I'm getting closer to landing this.

[chadwhitacre]

Bringing over @tshepang's -1 from #107:

I feel like we would lose nothing if we stop using the word love in our marketing material. Does anyone feel the same? The word is ambigous... what does love mean in the use of Gratipay? To me, admiring someone does not imply that I love them, as in the way I would love a friend, a romantic partner, or a descendant. I guess there are other kinds of love, but it's such an overused word that I feel it should be avoided if possible, unless we agree on exactly on what it means, and Gratipay should not be the place to provide such an explanation. Let's choose more precise words, like admire or enjoy.

Following is an example from About:

Gratipay (formerly Gittip) is a way to make small weekly cash payments to people you love and teams you respect.

That line feels like it would be at least as effective (and less mushy) if it was:

Gratipay (formerly Gittip) is a way to make small weekly cash payments to people and teams you respect.

I see love is used a lot in the Mission Explanation, with things like Economy of love. Am sure better words exist, like Economy of kindness, for example. Maybe even talk about a job you enjoy instead of one you love?

Anyways, the Mission itself could be something like:

Our mission is to enable an economy of gratitude and generosity.

I don't see that as less effective than:

Our mission is to enable an economy of gratitude, generosity, and love.

---

So, this word is:

• too ambiguous
• too mushy, which can be off-putting

[chadwhitacre]

I see mushiness as part of the Gratipay brand, to be honest—we are "sweetly idealistic," full of "unabashed optimism." And I agree that the word love is ambiguous, but I see this as a strength. What other word could suggest a possible point of convergence—however faint and tenuous—for personalities as disparate as Glenn Beck and bell hooks? Wow!

[chadwhitacre]

I feel like we would lose nothing if we stop using the word love in our marketing material.

We might perhaps draw a distinction between marketing materials and internal materials, though of course those boundaries are blurred for us. Still, the mission page on Inside Gratipay is addressed to a different audience than our About page. I don't know if this is a practical distinction to employ, but it seems like it might be helpful?

[chadwhitacre]

Still, the mission page on Inside Gratipay is addressed to a different audience than our About page.

Namely, collaborators instead of users.

[chadwhitacre]

Rebased on master at 260c459. Previous head was e612418.

[chadwhitacre]

Last call ...

[chadwhitacre]

Rebased on master. Previous head was 83f4e91.