BMW Foundation Responsible Leaders retreats tend to create conditions for co-evolving mutualism.

Words are world-makers. Concepts, even more so, especially those positioned on the verge of being expressed, ready to inform new directions of work in the world. Concepts can be viewed as transformative patterns in motion, continuously seeking new forms of expression that expand the boundaries of meaning while responding to the urgencies of the times.

Take for example – reciprocity and co-evolving mutualism – two key concepts often associated with fostering bio-cultural-spatial justice. While interconnected, they diverge significantly in how they approach relationships, interdependence, and evolution. Examining these differences through ecological, social, and philosophical lenses reveals why evolving from reciprocity to co-evolving mutualism is an evolutionary trend, offering the transformative traction needed for the next quarter-century.

Reciprocity

Reciprocity is commonly understood as a process of mutual exchange of benefits or actions, where entities give and receive in a balanced way. It is often seen as foundational element of ethical relationships in human societies. As Marcel Mauss observes in The Gift, ‘the obligation to give, receive, and repay’ forms the basis of social bonds. This perspective highlights reciprocity as a structured, transactional dynamic focusing on balanced exchange.

However, reciprocity has its limitations. In Justice and the Politics of Difference, Iris Marion Young critiques simplistic notions of reciprocity that enforce symmetry in relationships. She argues that true social justice requires acknowledging asymmetry and embracing difference. Relationships are rarely equal, and reciprocity, when narrowly interpreted, may fail to account for unequal positions and diverse needs.

In the relationship between human and ecological systems Vandana Shiva emphasises reciprocity as essential to advance ecological and social justice. She frames it as an ethic of respect for the Earth: ‘We must give back as much as we take.’ Yet given the scale of human impact on living systems today, merely giving back is insufficient. Reciprocity alone, lacks the regenerative capacity to bring more life, more vitality, and more viability – vitality over time – to ecosystems.

Systems thinker Gregory Bateson underscores this limitation, describing reciprocity as a mechanism for maintaining balance within systems: ‘What survives is the pattern that connects’. While reciprocity functions as a balancing feedback loop, it does not inherently lead to transformation. This is where the concept of co-evolving mutualism becomes vital.

The age of Modesty Hexagram 15 - Modesty (謙, Qiān).
Modesty highlights the importance of balancing one's position with others. It reflects the idea of giving and receiving in measured ways, ensuring fairness and harmony. Through modest actions, relationships thrive, emphasising the virtue of self-restraint in the mutual flow of exchange.

Co-Evolving Mutualism

Co-evolving mutualism moves beyond reciprocity by emphasising transformation, interdependence, and the dynamic co-creation of shared futures. It highlights the ways people and systems shape and evolve with one another over time. Co-evolving mutualism is not a pre-existing balance but a dynamic unfolding. It involves a collaborative process where entities influence each other's development, leading to emerging patterns and shared evolution.

Donna Haraway, in Staying with the Trouble, challenges linear and transactional notions of reciprocity. She advocates for ‘sympoiesis’," or making-with, as a form of co-evolving mutualism. She writes: ‘We become with each other or not at all’, emphasizing the collaborative and emergent nature of relationships that create new possibilities. She advocates for a mutualistic worldview, where humans and non-humans ‘make kin’ through nurturing shared futures. Similarly, Lynn Margulis’ theory of symbiogenesis positions co-evolving mutualism as central to evolution, demonstrating how life evolves through interdependent relationships that create new possibilities.

One of the quests of contemporary city shapers is how to bridge the historic urban planning gender gap avoiding a zero sum thinking perspective.

The contemporary evolving relationship between women and cities exemplifies co-evolving mutualism. Women and cities are systemically implicated in each other’s construction through a continuous process of self-organisation and reorganisation, increasing complexity, and fostering life-affirming interactions. This mutualistic approach avoids the pitfalls of zero-sum thinking—where women’s gains are perceived as others’ losses—and instead emphasises the collaborative creation of anticipatory urban futures.

Nuances between Reciprocity and Co-evolving Mutualism

Nature of Interaction:
- Reciprocity: Centred on balanced exchange or repayment (e.g., tit-for-tat or giving back in kind).
- Co-evolving Mutualism: Involves dynamic, interdependent growth where entities adapt and transform each other.
Focus:
- Reciprocity: Seeks equilibrium and balance.
- Co-evolving Mutualism: Drives emergence, creativity, and shared futures.
Relational Depth:
- Reciprocity: Seen as an important foundation for ethical and ecological relationships, but it often involves a direct exchange that can maintain existing structures.
- Co-evolving Mutualism: Goes deeper, emphasising how relationships transform and create new possibilities through shared growth and adaptation.
Temporal Perspective:
- Reciprocity: Tends to focus on present or immediate exchanges.
- Co-evolving Mutualism: Envisions relationships as unfolding across time, with mutual influences creating emergent futures.
Power Dynamics:
- Reciprocity: Risks reinforcing power imbalances if symmetry is assumed where asymmetry exists.
- Co-evolving Mutualism: Acknowledges asymmetry and focuses on evolving relationships that benefit all life.
Timeframe:
- Reciprocity: Often short-term or transactional.
- Co-evolving Mutualism: Long-term, unfolding over time as relationships deepen and evolve.
Complexity:
- Reciprocity: Linear and predictable.
- Co-evolving Mutualism: Nonlinear, complex, and adaptive.

Meta-schemes installation by Brazilian visual performance artist Helio Oiticica constituting a new-concrete-architecture of exchanges.

An Architecture of Exchanges for Enabling Co-Evolving Mutualism

By centring the able-bodied, working man as the ‘neutral’ urban user, modern planning has created environments better suited for men than for women, girls, people with disabilities, and sexual, gender, and ethnic minorities.

Yet, addressing this historic imbalance requires more than a simple reversal of perspectives. The risk lies in swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, replicating the same exclusionary dynamics under a different guise. Instead of using an old map to explore new territory, I propose an architecture of exchange—one in which women and men work together to redistribute power, balance representation, and reshape planning frameworks, ensuring cities serve everyone.

This initiative will take shape in 2025 through a series of curated conversations and exploratory walkabouts, bringing together panels of women and men to engage in gender-sensitive placemaking. Deeply rooted in the bio-cultural-spatial uniqueness of place, these dialogues will cultivate urban futures shaped by co-evolving mutualism enabling the emergence of new possibilities while fostering transformative relationships and adaptive evolution.