Social change: How we got here, how we get there

    Today I'm presenting two extraordinary lectures with overlapping themes. Both involve theories of co-evolution specifically in development of our social relations, our technological advances, and our place in the natural world . The first is a 25-minute commentary by David Harvey. The second, much longer one is from Jeremy Rifkin filmed at the Ross Institute.

"We have masses of capital and masses of labor, unemployed, side by side in a world full of social need. How stupid is that?"

    
    In this film Mr. Harvey comments on the importance of bringing together a mental conception of the world that includes understanding our relations to each other, the technology we use and the natural world order. He suggests we consider how these correlate and form an evolutionary theory of social change. Mr. Harvey, a scholar of economic history, notes that Marx understood these connections, and if we want to imagine a way out of the current crisis we need to investigate this "dialectical configuration".

    Don't be put off by his academic rhetoric. You'll hear some very important concepts brilliantly woven together.

"Nature changes in its own way. We have to cope with that, even as we see that the natural things that seem to be occurring are partly a consequence of what we do."
 

     For a much more granular look at human history and the progression of consciousness and social organization, listen to Rifkin's lecture. He lays out this chronology in terms of how humanity has evolved socially in ever increasing levels of awareness. For example, during the time of foragers, hunters, and centralized agriculture, theologic consciousness formed the bonds of family through religious affiliation. When a greater convergence of communication came about through the invention of the printing press, an idealogical consciousness emerged. This in turn brought about a fictional domain known as the nation state. Presumably, the connection with a larger social identity known as my country, my nation, is more powerful than the limits of family. However, the key ingredient to Rifkin's talk is empathy and he asks if we are capable of evolving to a level of biosphere consciousness within the next 25 years. In other words, can we care about ourselves and each other enough to extend that empathy to the earth.

"When energy and communication revolutions come together they change consciousness, they change temporal/spatial orientation, they change dwelling habitats."

    

I occasionally find Mr. Rifkin hyperbolic, or over extended in his reasoning, but I cannot argue with how he characterizes how we got here and the ways in which it may still be possible to get "there".

A nod to my inspiration

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the sources from where I've pulled together much of my thinking from the previous post. First up, for a very interesting view of collective evolution and where we ought to be setting our sights please refer to this Jeremy Rifkin book. However, I sometimes think he overreaches in his conclusions with statements that leave me scratching my head, longing for more specificity of vision. Statements like: The informal economy, which includes household production, barter, and at the extreme end, black market and criminal economic activity, is also likely to diminish as traditional economies transition into high-tech societies.

From an environmentalist and consultant point of view, refer to Paul Gilding's book. I find him to be a great pragmatist and he does not mince words about how much need there is for constraints on human behavior in the realm of capitalism and the difficulty in accomplishing policy change within the current political context.

Biosphere consciousness, social capital, and taming the market tiger

Why do I get out of bed in the morning?—to avoid becoming someone I don’t want to be, someone conscious, but not awake, someone who moves about, but isn’t strong, someone who grows distant from other people, but who wants more than anything to remain vitally engaged. So to increase my awake, strong, vitally engaged self I’m jumping back into the blog glögg and going for a swim. As I had hoped my summer hiatus, which turned into summer, fall, and most of winter, proved to be fruitful thanks to relentless cross-pollination of excellent, non-fiction reading.  I can hardly be an expert on everything that interests me. So I am encouraged when there are so many authors who dare to describe and prescribe conditions for our society’s improvement and healing. What follows is a compilation of the key points from these writers.

How will humans evolve when our choices within a market economy are driven by the very forces that serve to destroy us? While we ride the tide of ever escalating and sophisticated technology, how can we manage social changes brought in its wake?

The answer is essentially a recognition that we can no longer maintain the growth of capital at the expense of social capital. Any enterprise in the 21^st century that wants to capture the social conscience will have to do so while grounded in “biosphere consciousness.” As described by Jeremy Rifkin this organizing principle follows the natural rhythms of life, and the laws of energy. It powers every living thing in existence; photosynthesis, solar power, geo-thermal power, etc. Equally as important is the goal of social capital—empathic engagement with one’s fellow human beings. It represents accumulated trust between people and helps create the narratives that bind us together. Slowly we are learning how to treat each other and share what we have so that our culture reflects who we want to be.

Much of what has spurred the development of these ideas is the massive dysfunction of the organizations and systems in which we currently live.

Anticipated re-orgs:

·         A long string of stalemates has eroded trust in our government. People will withdraw their support or force a reorganization.

·         Intelligent technology will substitute for various forms of human labor in the commercial arena, while social capital in the collaborative community will increase.

·         Education reform: In many ways we are teaching ourselves how to live in what Rifkin calls a distributed, collaborative, open-source economy.

Our culture and its leadership have no choice but to drive the changes we seek. Transformation initiated by government can happen, but only under pressure from its citizens.

                How can the system self-correct unless we intervene?

                There is an undeniable need to impose limits on human behavior. Capitalism as we know it will re-align favorably with environmental conservation initiatives when it is proven that they deliver measurable financial reward. The market and its regulatory context must reward businesses for their performance. Rather than making business the demon, it must be reformed from within so that values of its well-being are not at odds with maintaining the health of our physical world. From decades of having witnessed the carnage of oil spills, we have learned that pleas for intelligent environmental protection have fallen on disbelieving ears, and it is insulting to imagine that the cost of repair can ever equal the loss of our one and only world. As Paul Gilding puts it, we must cage the market tiger.  

Please stay tuned for next week’s installment where we find how personal economy gets involved.