Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
aa
--and then all the people cheered again, and one man, who was more excited
than the rest, flung his hat high into the air, and shouted (as well as I could
make out) "Who roar for the Sub-Warden?" Everybody roared, but whether it
was for the Sub-Warden, or not, did not clearly appear: some were shouting
"Bread!" and some "Taxes!", but no one seemed to know what it was they
really wanted. Lewis Carol’s Sylvie and Bruno
"Who controls the past," Ingsoc told its cadres, "controls the future: who
controls the present, controls the past."
The question is, what do you care about and what does it mean we keep and
what does it mean we need to change. In the great conservative novel, Lampadusa's
The Leopard, Tancred, with serious reflection says, ``If we want things to stay the
same, things will have to change'' OK, which things change, which should stay the
same? That is the political question today. John Maynard Keynes once said, “It
take 90% of human effort to keep things from getting worse.”, and the people
doing that 90% usually don't want their part to change much, and we should recall
the cautionary in the message of the paradoxical aphorisms: plus ça change, plus
c'est la même chose. Change is more an illusion than we suppose, and human
beings remain recognizably similar through the centuries and across civilizations.
This recognition that the future is more like the past than we have been sold,
has led some thoughtful people to the kind of post modernism which puts together
pieces of the past in a collage of symbolically suggestive ways. Our task is to find
coherence in this rummaging through the past. Architects like John Carl Warnecke
have made conservation and restoration a good part of future design in the context
of sensitivity to the whole designed and built environment and its coherence.
The world economy and environment will require either more war, or a new
culture of economics which is more fair and friendly to the environment. We know
that we cannot bring 4/5’s of humanity to the US level of energy and space
consumption. Nor can the US maintain that level of consumption under anything
like current assumptions.. GardenWorld is attuned to the need for an economy that
is both human and environmentally friendly – and recognizes that it will be very
difficult to get there. But very attractive, as goal and task.
Our goernments are also creature of habit and status and fear. Governance is
difficult. All change hurts some people while helping others. Change mostly hurts
those who are running things the way they are. Some change is brought about by
direct human action but most of the is the unintended consequences of actions
taken, often long ago. The founding fathers, in order to prevent tyranny, created a
system of checks and balances that basically meant government did not work very
well and was hard to control, and especially hard to take over and dominate. But
the founding fathers did not anticipate the rise and then dominance of the
corporations. Nor did they imagine having to deal with large systems problems of
water depletion, failure of economics to employ most people for their own benefit,
the dominance – and failure – of energy flows, in short, to manage complexity and
demographics. Can we do it without fascism?
Societies that allow evolution have an advantage. Old empires are always in
trouble the leaders that dominate either want to continue to dominate –which
means keeping things the way they are – or, in the sighting of trouble to bail out –
which means they won’t try to manage change. They do not enter into the spirit of
the new but unacknowledged problems, but chose self-protection.
The problem is made more difficult because of our history. Kings, from say
the 16 century, rewarded merchants and professionals with title to land. The ability
of the Kings to take back that title was blocked by political moves, and its broader
ownership by large landholders turned was into a law of nature by philosophers
like Locke, who said property came before kings. Over time those property holders
got rid of Kings and were able to buy parliaments. Kings and democracies tend to
have an interest in the welfare of everybody. But oligopolies have narrow interests
and are prepared to manage society for their own interests alone. This is of course
shortsighted but understandable. Yet it leaves the rest of us in a difficult situation.
In this situation governance is very difficult because anyone who tries to
take on the real problems will find themselves without a financial base to enter
politics. Moreover anyone already in government who tries to take on the real
problems will find themselves isolated. There are a lot of decent people in
Congress right now, but we rarely hear their voices except in committee hearings
on C-span.Their sane discourse is ignored by the press in favor of confict and the
drama of ruined careers..
I’ve been watching local politics. The goal of the political establishment is
to have a few hundred small issues and no large ones. Large issues bring too many
people to the Council meetings. The real problem is that if the local environment is
made better – building, education, health, living – more people will come and
swamp the system and increase costs faster than local economic growth. This is
what local politics is struggling with. To me it implies that we must get involved at
the local level and help out. “We are here to help the government.”
David Sirota recently wrote
It's also terrific that we can have truly national conversations about
presidential campaigns and difficult issues like race. Then again, it's not
great that our best-known commodities in this culture are fast-foods,
gas-guzzling SUVs, and subpar Will Smith movies. It's also bad that we
more often end up having national conversations about celebrity
breakups -- and that when we do talk politics, Washington, D.C., is
considered more important than what happens in our own state capitols
and city councils. Indeed, in making anywhere into everywhere,
homogenization has swallowed up not only our downtowns, restaurants
and radio stations, but even our understanding of American democracy.
(fn
We will see lots of initiatives to create incentives for green building. The
deal will be that business will move into this realm if incentives make profits
guaranteed. The problem with this model is that it will maintain elite moneyed
people in the center of the activity, and they will leave marginalized whatever and
whoever does not fit. Believe me, the level playing field we need to move toward
GardenWorld will be subverted by corruption and cronyism. The bureaucratization
of GardenWorld by existing institutions is a real threat to the fuller participation
GardenWorld aims for. This is made harder when we realize that the governments
at all levels must play a positive role in conferences, plannings, skills training,
health and land use regulations. We probably need a faster permit process for green
buildings and planning, but we must avoid slower certainly avoid slower
permitting for green focused building.. in my county, the Greens resist experiments
in water processing because it might make it easier for development.
Working our way out of our mess is taking a long time, because the power
and wealth in this society are benefitting by current free market and democracy
ideology. And rhetorical tricks. "Democracy and free markets" really mans
corporate control of markets and media control of elections and issues. For
example, “average wages are rising” without noting that his means large increases
for a few and for most, wages are still falling. Because of the large increases at the
top, most are losing out. Another, “rising productivity’ sounds like we are
producing more for everyone. But “Productivity” is defined as output per man
hour, and hence if we produce the same with fewer people (the downsizing option
for pulling money out of a firm), we still get the positive sounding “rising
productivity.” (But it IS good! Says the Wall Street Journal acolyte, never grasping
what is at stake, the well-being of fellow humans – “oh it will all shake out and
everyone will benefit”… and so on).
What is needed is a greater distribution of resources and authority. Right now the
center controls almost everything, whileGardenWorld requiresw an
experimentalattitude at local levels. GardenWorld initiatives also will run into
skills shortages. We have not got the skilled workforce for sophisticated building
restoration and retrofitting, nor for advanced agriculture. The danger is that we will
push in money to overcome these shortages, and this will support money based
organizations. We need six month training programs that are on attractive
campuses to create many of the skills GardenWorld will need, from plant tending,
the crafts involved with retrofitting buildings for effeciency,and speaking Spanish
to new and willing workers.
Gordon Brown in England as new prime minister has taken a major initiative
that could be of great advantage in easing the shift toward a GardenWorld
framework for social decisions. Again I quote at length because of the value of
what is said and who is saying it.
In an earlier chapter I describd using Erik Erikson’s model of the human life
cycle as a design template for judging new social innovations. I wrote
That is, healthy development requires parents, schools, work, and society.
We can add these to Erikson’s diagram, running down the right side.
• Our society needs to provide the conditions were ordinary human beings
can, in their 20’s and 30’s be good parents,
• Our society needs to provide educated and humane teachers and the settings
for education of their students.
• Our society needs to provide work which provides for dignity and creativity
at work and the resources for intimacy outside it.
• Our society needs to provide an interesting milieu that allows each person to
bring together the threads of their life into a meaningful and attractive
pattern.
• Society is a complex mosaic of interdependent generations.
My local county government is surging with needs for new jais and the fact
that jails are billed with people 70% drug dependent and 20% mentally ill, but the
county has not talked to the schools about a joint program and joint metrics to cope
with the obvious independencies.
We know so much now, how to green spaces, fold buildings outward into
garden spaces, grow vegetables in cities, grow crops on roofs and cool streets with
trees, change building codes, use new technologies. This is not the place to lay out
the options. They are emerging fast and many many experiments are underway.
The point is to understand that, if this were the vision of where we want to get to -
and I believe it already is for many people - then the eighty percent solution and a
better future become practical realizable guides to political decisions.
How hard will it be?
The result of such politics is to keep the county focused on a few hundred
small issues , each of which can be finessed, but to avoid the larger issues that
would bring thousands to the Board meetings in protest. The leadership to step out
on larger issues doesn’t easily emerge in this circumstance. Jurgen Habermas, the
German thinker most comprehensive in discussing modern conditions is suggesting
a deeper problem:
First is getting the idea of GardenWorld in play which creates the conditions
for local politicians, the local press, and volunteer organizations to know where
they are going. Not a world of NO” but of many yeses. I think it is a case of the
people already yearning for it, but it has no name. Sustainability and greening
characterize what it is without naming it. GardenWorld is an attempt to name
where merging activities should point to allowing for full lives along the way, lots
of inventiveness, new relationships, business vitality, participation, and play. I
remember Erich Fromm once saying, “Hope is like a tiger waiting. Do not hope for
what already is, or what never can be. And do not worry if it doesn’t happen in
your lifetime .”v[v]
We need new leadership. I’d love to see business execs after say age fifty-
five leave big business and take on public well being. I’d like to see political
candidates who saw the opportunity to push the system – and lose the next
election. What is wrong with that if it pushes the ideas forward?
We need to understand who will resist. Change always has losers and
winners. It is important to recognize this and not divide between us and them, but
to make reasonable compensation. The rich who are afraid of losing land value
because of “taking” for the public good must understand that the enhanced value of
their property in the last decades is because of public spending. The property rarely
went up in value because of actual Improvement, but because of generally rising
prices based on social investment.
We need to understand that what is necessary is radical, but not that radical.
The values are already in place, and what is missing is the visual imagery and hope
to get there. GardenWorld is mostly an evolutionary strategy, pregnant and the
current situation. But not entirely. To the merry-go-round I described in chapter
one makes this change hard. In some ways and requires the replacing of cash
competition with design competition. If we see that GardenWorld is encouraging
for business vitality and the entrepreneurial use of new technologies to create a
greater delight it would be some compensation for the loss of extreme incomes and
wealth.
First let’s realize that we can’t get there - that is, though the 80% solution to
GardenWorld - we can only move through a series of successful approximations.
The economical and environmental challenges are not precisely understood. So
what we need is not a specific plan oer a period of years, but an increase in
flexibility. New climate, new technologies, new demographics, new styles, new
arts, new ideas – we are a restless species. Our response should not be a fixed
linear progression, but the achievement of a flexibility capable of responding to
changing conditions without hurting people. Our current response to potential
climate change and poverty do not show the requisite flexibility that would allow
for innovation, analysis and creativity. GardenWorld is a permeable container for
exploratory and innovative effort and the image of an attractive direction for our
betterment. GardenWorld is not yet accepted as a key evocative public symbol,
despite how powerful it is to most people personally. GardenWorld, by articulating
the evocative and essential attractiveness in its imagery should help.
This leaves open the question of how we get there. That is, from current
circumstances, to GardenWorld, through and well beyond the agenda that would
gather about eighty percent of the voters.
GardenWorld will not work if it is seen as romantic and purely local effort. The
world is a mess and we need multilateral international institutions that help prevent
the worst globalization threats: war, poverty and subversion of local economies to
elite or corporate interests. Corporations can play a role despite their desire to own
the process and precipitate out the profits. For example, IBM
In response to a request from the IBM Center for The Business of Government, I
prepared this essay in 2005 to stimulate a discussion on what the “next
government” of the United States might look like. The discussion focuses on the
following five imperatives for the performance of American government in the
21st century:
Other than the obious relevance of IBM’s initiative to the problems of the
st
21 century, what strikes me is the GardenWorld quality of this analysis, above all
organic rather than hierarchical, interested in solutions, rather than control.
I’ve argued that understanding the folks who seem to be “them”, not “us”
are more like us than we may be comfortable with. If we rank issues such as
· Healthy economy
· Good education
· People owning homes
· Attractive cityscapes
· Good healthcare
· Cooperative foreign policy
There is fairly high agreement that these are good goals, and means are not
too controversial. It requires revenue. If tax policy was shifted to drop the curves
of the major concentrations, there would be enough revenue, and these activities
create jobs.
We still get very high agreement. As we add qualifiers like vital economy,
public education, affordable health differences start to emerge, but these are
negotiable.If we start adding issues like
· Abortion
· Non-profit vouchers k-16 Education
· Affirmative action
· Defeat of Islam
· Christian nation
Real differences that can be hard to reconcile emerge quickly. But even here,
as details are added, differences in some cases get stronger, and in some cases get
weaker. Think of the new evangelical interest in the environment. We can expect
continual shiftings – in both positive (hope) and negative (fear) directions. Many of
the underlying differences are based on fear of how the others would achieve those
goals to our disadvantage through……
· Big bureaucracy
· Big business
· Big police state
· Somebody else’s belief system
The “right” thinks the progressives will be lazy and contemptuous and do it
with big bureaucracy. The “left” fears that the conservatives will do it from gated
communities and trust funds while incomes for most will go down, and more
police will enforce social conformity and “property rights”.
George Lakoff has been a popular thinker among the progressives for trying
to name differences, but to me the liberal family vs. strong paternalism meme doe
not get at the actionable ideas, hopes and fears, that the vast majority of the
population actually embody and find evocative. GardenWorld is an effort to try to
name evocatively a hope that already exists but is inarticulate. The content is
simply to use our wealth to create a better life, with much higher participation in
both the production and consumption of the things of that good life, using health
and education as major enablers for the capacity to participate with skill and
vitality..
But given that the corporations contributed 75% of the money to run this
campaign, what to do? The resistance from that side is like a Chinese wall. A
Silicon Valley discussion group member posted
My feeling is that corporate leadership for the most part, already agrees that
the economy is skewed and unproductive. Some are willing or eager to ride this
out, taking profit from the system. But others, whose future they see being
weakened, would be amenable to a higher productivity agenda, with greater
environmental and social responsibility. Not productivity in man hours, but in real
output of products and services, total wages and profits). Bush has been anti-
entrepreneurial. He supports old line business and has no instinct for opportunity,
for the elegance of technology, for the hum of making things work well. This
approach to the economy is to freeze it in its current manifestations.
Most political talk in the us is about how we are the society of freedom and
open markets, but a realistic look says we are running under two systems:
representative democracy, and finance capital capitalism is a complex system
which has gone through and evolution from trade capitalism in about the 15th
century to industrial capitalism in the 19th and finance capitalism in the last few
decades. Capitalism seems to be central to the definition and functioning of our
society, despite the rhetoric about free markets, and I am asking, with the idea of
reversing the worst trends, such as income concentration, to change a bit the
dynamics of capitalism. But we need to be clear that “capitalists” and the political
process they mostly control, is part of the system but not the whole system. The
“inevitability of capitalism”, as in Fukuyma’s The End of History, is not an
adequate picture of reality.
Capitalism is distinct from markets. Markets are free for all participants to
make deals, Capitalism, which the current rhetorical environment spun out by
business-media equates with free markets, is really quite different. It is a
mechanism of control, especially of its participation in markets.
One of the great historians, Braudel made clear that capitalism is a small part
of an economy. It is those who control large amounts of cash. Few do. Not the
professionals who work for them, nor he people on salary. Owning stock is not
being an entrepreneur – it is a bet on making your money while driving up the
value of shares already owned by others and making the cash results available to
those who know how to use it. Capital, organized as corporations, seeks what is
really profitable, and lets the rest go to small business and local markets.
Capitalism is basically in the wholesale business and lets retail go to the small
business sector where profit is smaller (in percent and gross numbers).
I go into this to show that the way capitalism functions and its place in the
system is more open to new regulations and norms, and less able to resist, than we
have been led to assume.vii[vii]
In Sweden a number of years ago I went to an art gallery that had an exhibit
of art from the ”C” society. In the entrance way was a large sign that said, more or
less
“We all know what the “A” society is, and the “B” society is made of those who
work for them. The “C” society is the people who are left out, unemployed,
criminals, marginalized. This exhibit is artifacts of the “C” society”.
In fact, the “B” society, the professionals and employed, are what we mean by
“society”. It is most of us. But we let public policy be made by the “A” society, not
the “B”. In the last few years the growing awareness of falling middle class
incomes as the B’s join the C’s, is creating the opportunity – and eventually the
necessity – to revisit all this. The media is pressing us to think that the “A” society
is much bigger in percentage than it is, and riding along the rest of us more than it
is.. If we look at it as those with major capital accumulation that can be used for
rapid investment it is only a very small percentage of all of us. Those who own a
house for example that is now worth a million, don’t fit in the “A” team because
what they have is not liquid except through borrowing, and the likely target for the
borrowed money is not true capitalist investment, but buying stock in somebody
else’s venture, or, more likely, to help solidify the position of their children in the
“B” society.
The only excuse for rich people is if they have good taste,
otherwise they are too expensive. So, imagine,
vi[vi] http://www.businessofgovernment.org/pdfs/KettlKelmanReport.pdf