102,870
edits
Changes
From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to searchBasic Concepts of Social Sustainability (view source)
Revision as of 20:47, 3 August 2014
, 20:47, 3 August 2014Created page with 'File:lighterstill.jpg ==14 Culture Change== What is proposed in these posts is not a social, political or economic/financial “fix” for any democratic nation. What is pro...'
[[File:lighterstill.jpg]]
==14 Culture Change==
What is proposed in these posts is not a social, political or economic/financial “fix” for
any democratic nation. What is proposed is a slow but deliberate and intentional effort
to change the culture of democratic nations to create social stability and sustainability —
peace!
Culture change occurs spontaneously with individuals — individuals who are convinced
that it is insane for their nations to continue as they have for decades, centuries and
even millennia. “Insanity” is defined as, “Doing the same thing over and over again
expecting different results.” We do not need to examine history very closely to see that
intrusion across national borders, conquering weaker or neutral nations, genocide and
all of the other dimensions of war does not work. Currently, the world is experiencing
ongoing, continual war in more than one region.
My intention for providing these posts is not to convince anyone that war is eminently
destructive or that peace generates cooperation and sharing. My intention is to provide
a learning process for generating culture change that results in sustainable families,
child rearing, communities, business, governments and economies, health care and
education just to mention a few areas where creative and sustainable solutions are
vitally needed.
To change a culture from engrained self-destructive social, political and economicfinancial
practices there must be a relatively easy to understand and implementable
process for reinterpreting “reality” in terms that brings sustainability to societies,
governments and economies. A number of readers have read this material and agree
that it is easy to read, but it is doggoned hard to understand. That’s the definition of
cultural dissonance. We may not like what we are doing that is destroying our way of
life, but we are really uncomfortable with making any changes!
To make that cultural change, most of us must understand how to create a different
outcome. Do you have an intention for your life for the future? For your family? For your
community? For your city, county, state or nation? If not, then for the sake of
participating in the future, please do so. That’s a beginning. If you are really creative you
may even have several good intentions that contribute to the sustainability of your life,
your family and your society.
==15 Social Evolution of a Democratic Society==
To guide the conscious social evolution of a society, we must first be able to reframe
our relationship to it, much like a planetary manager, to gain the perspective of being
“outside” of society. Then we can view it by looking on to it, rather than being “in it”
where everything is too close to gain an objective view of it all.
Earth’s history of civilizations is littered with failures. All societies and all civilizations
have failed. Ours will also. There is one possibility, however, that could very well
change the dismal trajectory of all democratic nations. That possibility lies in having an
ongoing consciousness to observe ourselves making similar mistakes as other societies
in history; then have the presence of mind to ask, “What is necessary to transcend our
existence so that democratic societies endure for centuries and millennia?”
I think the first step is to see our societies as “social organisms” in much the same way
as we perceive the progressive developmental stages of an infant-becoming-an-adult.
The development of a child is to become an adult, to make decisions that support his or
her growth and the development of their innate potential. That means the child assigns
to itself increasing levels of responsibility for the decisions that he or she must make so
that they do grow into a fully responsible and powerful individual.
In this perspective, a self-aware, self-directed, self-organizing and self-adjusting society
has never existed before. What we are asking ourselves to do is much like a child
raising itself to become a fully responsible and fully actualizing adult! We have no
previous successful democratic models to follow. We have no mentors or parental
figures to guide us. The key to this proposition is to become self-aware — self-aware of
“what works” and “what does not work” that leads to, or prevents us from, ongoing
sustainability.
Without such a mentor or model, we will need is a reliable, consistent and universal
guide for the development of sustainable options, choice-making, decision-making and
action/implementation that points toward a sustainable future. This has not existed
before. But, it does today. To create sustainable, self-monitoring and self-adjusting
societies all organizations that support that society must necessarily begin to apply the
three values that have sustained our species for 40,000 – 500,000 years. Profit-making
and a consistently black bottom line will not assure a corporation that it will be in
existence in 50 years. Neither are good intentions and good decisions by foundations
and churches. More is not needed: Sustainable option development and actions.
==16 The First Paradigm of Democracy==
When the US democracy was formed it was the “state of the art” of democratic political
development. It was radically different from any previous form of democracy that had
existed since the classic democracies of Greece, (507-336 BCE). Now, after 238 years,
most U.S. citizens feel that the democracy that was so revolutionary and radical at the
time is now so remote and distant from them as to be almost irrelevant to their lives
except that its government is too large to ignore. One of the questions Basic Concepts
of Social Sustainability will try to answer is, “Is it possible to design democracies to
evolve in synch with citizens and the public?” Doing so would go a long way to prevent
demonstrations, revolts and revolutions, which are otherwise inevitable.
In the early stages of an evolving democratic society democratic paternalism is an
advantage until the public has become better educated, more informed and is
technologically capable of ongoing “dialogue” with their public executives. If that
paternalism does not yield to more frequent public participation as the public matures,
the paternalist relationship between government and the public begins to take on a
familiar and conflicted adolescent “parent-child” interaction. As with maturing children,
that signals the time for citizens to take on more responsibilities in their own governance
and become more fully, personally acquainted with the realities of democratic
governance in the matters that sustain their communities, states and nation. Such a
REALITY DEMOCRACY requires an “eyes wide open” approach to citizen participation
and public executive decision-making with transparency of the facts supporting the
decisions that take society in a chosen direction.
“Basic Concepts of Social Sustainability” necessarily describes the relationship between
social sustainability and the evolution of democracies. The irony of this relationship
could mean the difference between a democratic society that comes to its fullness and
then withers and dies or one that continues for centuries. The difference will become
apparent if “the government” and the public are of common opinion that “this is as good
as it gets”; or, whether they are of common opinion that their democracy provides the
foundation for democratic social evolution. Which do you think will lead to a sustainable
democratic nation that will overcome the social, political and economic/financial
vagaries and vicissitudes nationally and internationally in the centuries ahead?
==17 The Second Paradigm of Democracy==
The paternalism of the First Paradigm of Democracy was a mix of independence and
the monarchial cultural carryover from the British Crown, and from the monarchial
cultures of immigrants from other countries. While the restraints of monarchial rule
became egregious to these New Americans it had always provided a protective,
paternal and maternal shield to its subjects that protected them from the realities of
intra-national and inter-national social, political and economic/financial issues. That
protective paternalism (“subordinates should be controlled in a fatherly way for their own
good”) is a deeply embedded attitude in the culture of state and federal governments,
and continues to be the attitude projected to citizens and the public in general.
The “father knows best” attitude of government generally sets citizens apart from the
process of governance, even when citizens have become better educated and
informed; and, electronically connected to public issues – but not to their elected and
appointed public executives. Citizens are now far better prepared to take on the realities
of greater responsibilities to participate in option-development, preference-sharing and
choice-making of public social, political and economic/financial issues than at any time
before. Public participation supports the premises of democracy – the opportunity for
self-determination by individual citizens and the public collectively concerning the
myriad public issues of local, state, regional and national governance.
When we examine and discern the intentions of the new democracy of 1776, we find
that in the last 200 years those intentions have been fulfilled: a full set of political rights,
the same as a monarch; freedom from political, social and economic oppression; liberty
to chose how to live one’s life, to choose how to explore their potential as each person
may determine for themselves, and to improve the quality of their life equally as anyone
else. Those intentions for founding this democratic nation have been fulfilled –what will
keep its citizens working for greater progress?
Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”** says much about “the Great
American Experiment” of democracy. Today it is no longer an experiment. It has proven
itself. It has fulfilled its ideals, though our ideals continue to evolve as they become
fulfilled, just as our needs do. What then are our new intentions to keep citizens and
democratic societies striving to achieve more improved quality of life, of growth and
equally, too? What would The Second Paradigm of Democracy look like, at least for the
United States? Just as de Tocqueville witnessed the flourishing of this nation, if he
returned two centuries later, would we be as proud of his descriptions?
==18 Time Out!==
Oooops! I’ve had a couple of comments from readers that 350-450 words per day,
every day is more than they can read, digest and reflect on, and would prefer to have
them half the size and far less often. Fair enough.
Producing posts of this size is not prompted by over 40 years of working on the
development of sustainable democracies, or half a million words in WORD folders and
files relating to social sustainability and democracies. It is prompted by the draw of the
future to provide peaceful, constructive and evolutionary alternatives to what seems
obvious to me that will inevitably occur in the future by 2030… only 16 years away.
You don’t need to have a prodigious memory of history to review the course of nations
and societies for the last 8,000 years to know that very, very few alternatives were
available to the public to motivate their government(s) to improve their performance and
to become more humane. Violence is a theme that has been repeated thousands of
times in hundreds of societies, and almost always by the underprivileged,
unrepresented, propertyless and disenfranchised masses – those who yearn for a better
quality of life, and to grow into their innate potential equally as the 1% does.
The Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring demonstrations and uprisings were the
squeaky wheel that will squeak again in another revolution of the wheel of prosperityrecession-
prosperity-depression cycles. It will continue such until the axle of society
breaks and the wheel becomes cocked to one side and the whole carriage of society
comes to full stop and overturned.
Having had the uncomfortable faculty of prescience since my childhood, what is ahead
will require us as individuals and collectively to seek alternatives to violent repetition. If
there are no alternatives, then there will be violence. As these Posts reveal, there is
now an alternative. My chore is to write and to bring social sustainability forward not
only as a peaceful alternative, but an alternative that developmentally and evolutionarily
brings about greater social stability — peace. My writing and your support are
necessary to bring this alternative to the awareness of citizens in every democratic
nation of the world. For those who pray for peace, do as Professor Abraham Joshua
Heschel said in 1965 when asked why he would be marching in Selma, Alabama with
Martin Luther King, Jr. He replied, “When I march in Selma, my feet are praying.”
==19 REALITY DEMOCRACY==
To make a comparison, the 2 Paradigm of Democracy is to the 1 Paradigm as
democracy was to the monarchy. Seen another way, smart phones are to DOS as the 2
Paradigm is the 1 Paradigm.
We know what the 1 Democratic Paradigm is like – we are living in it. The motivations
and intentions of the founders of the United States democracy have been fulfilled. Yet,
the hunger for self-determination by democratic citizens is still burning within them.
Something seems to be amiss: Many citizens in most democracies are dissatisfied with
the performance of their governments. There seem to be very few options, as viewed by
most citizens. They can either, a) strive to revise the entrenched bureaucracy from
within it; b) use the recall and/or referenda to motivate change from a public citizen
base; c) use some form of public demonstrations or protest; or d) resort to riot, rebellion
or revolution — none of which are effective. The last option retards social progress, and
often entrenches the existent powers.
What the 2 Paradigm of Democracy proposes is to create change rather than being a
victim of change. We know that the three values that have sustained our species for
tens of thousands of years are a reliable and timeless guide for the development of
humane social, political and economic policies. We know, too, that democratic
processes are no longer experimental but have been firmly proven and validated by
over two centuries of experience. It is time now to consciously use those three values to
design an evolved form of democratic process using contemporary technologies,
without violence or demonstrations. To move this nation and the democratic global
community of nations into the 2 paradigm of democracy, leaders of all organizations
must be taught and trained how to reframe their thinking from political processes that
support democracy to social systems that support sustainable democracies.
Accomplishing such a task will require a totally new method of option-development,
problem solving and decision-making — one that reliably supports the existent society
and culture while introducing a way to engage the holism of society, solving problems
that take most social parameters into context. In other words, we will intentionally create
social change using the sustaining values of our species to design social programs with
far greater assurance of the quality of what they produce. “The best way to predict the
future is to create it,” according to Alan Curtis Kay, 1971, at an early Palo Alto Research
Center meeting. (Also attributed to Peter Drucker and Dandridge M. Cole.)
==20 REALITY DEMOCRACY 2==
It was late last night when my phone rang. I’ll paraphrase the conversation --
“Hello, Daniel? This is Brita Jorganson calling from Stockholm.”
“Daniel,” Brita continued, “you did not really answer the question in my mind about
REALITY DEMOCRACY, as you call it.”
Brita got right to the point, “What is REALITY DEMOCRACY, Daniel?”
“To put it succinctly, Brita, REALITY DEMOCRACY takes a lot of its definition and
operation from “REALITY THERAPY,” written by Dr. William Glasser, M.D., who
redefined psychiatry by saying that the historical referents of a patient’s condition are
not relevant to their current treatment and healing. He said that the patient could not be
healed except now in this moment and that the patient is responsible for their behavior
and needs to take an active role in their healing.”
“The parallels, Brita, are these – the patient is the people of a democracy who have
historically relied on the doctor to heal them. The government is the doctor, who
historically has acted as a paternal father figure taking on the responsibilities of the
people, much like a caretaker. This leaves the people feeling left out of the processes of
governance, dependent, and incapable when in fact they are ready to take on more
responsibilities to exercise their rights of self-determination… except that early forms of
democracy do not provide a means for the people to participate in developing options to
public issues, to state their preferences or to make choices. This does not mean that
they actually make the decisions. That is the responsibility of public executives, much
as the doctor makes the final choices and takes actions as needed. As for ultimate
responsibilities, the people are ultimately responsible for what their government does or
does not do. Of course if there are no means to participate, then they are subject to the
dictates of the government without being consulted.”
I paused a moment, to gather my thoughts when Brita interjected, “Is that all? I mean,
that is not all there is to it, is there?”
“No, but that is a beginning. The second essential aspect of REALITY DEMOCRACY is
that it is immediate. Just as the dialogue between the patient and doctor is immediate,
in a REALITY DEMOCRACY the “dialogue” between the public and their public
executives is ongoing and immediate in "real time," not as it is now.
“In a REALITY DEMOCRACY citizens use the Internet to offer their options for action,
their preferences, opinions and their preferred choices for action. Of course this would
mean that there would have to be some independent, unaffiliated and non-aligned
organization that would facilitate this connection.
“In a REALITY DEMOCRACY citizen participation is more immediate and more direct
without changing any aspect of existent democratic processes. The real benefit is that
citizens have a means to exercise their species-prerogative and political rights of selfdetermination,
which helps to avoid demonstrations, riots and other forms of political
violence.”
There was silence on the other end of the phone. I thought that she had either gotten
bored or disgusted when she took a deep sigh.
“So, is this a part of the ‘Second Paradigm of Democracy’ that you write about? (“Yes.”)
And then I can speculate that this is a peaceful form of political and social evolution?
(“Yes.”) Of course, Daniel, you can expect that many people in politics will embrace
these concepts, but many will vehemently reject them. Correct?”
“Yes, certainly,” I continued. “As citizens or public executives, we can never really
escape our humanity, our fear of the untested and the need to bolster our flagging egos.
These two factors are a part of any immature personality and frequently seek authority,
control and power to make them feel more secure and sure. The situation of evolving
democracies is difficult, even existentially ironic. For democratic societies to develop,
mature and evolve, as children do to become responsible adults, in the case of
democratic societies the child must not only develop and mature, but do so alone
without a parental model to guide them. The only thing democracies can use to guide
their maturity, social evolution and decision-making are the three values that have
sustained our species for so many thousands of years.
“Contemporarily, social change takes place very rapidly, leaving the democratic process
behind, and leaving the needs of the public seemingly abandoned. That is why the
public needs to be involved on a real time basis, so that public issues are addressed
quickly and responsibly. It will help take the guess work out of public policy
development. The public and public executives cannot do this separately. They must be
engaged together in the processes of democratic policy development in real-time mode.
“Does this answer your questions, Brita?”
“Yes, it does. However, it raises many more questions, which I am sure you probably
have already considered. Thank you for your time. I’ll be following your posts to see
what else you come up with. I apologize for it being so late. Good night.”
==21 Problem Solving for Social Evolution==
Now that we have the tools to create positive, conscious evolutionary social change,
rather than being the victims of social change, we also need to know something about
the process of “problem” solving and decision-making. It begins by having a different
mind-set about “problems.” Rather than seeing problems as situations that need to be
“fixed,” they are really opportunities for creating solutions. As an aside, fixing problems
locks us into the existent paradigm. Paradigms represent a stage or plateau of social
evolution with an arc of existence: a beginning, a rise in effectiveness and an eventual
loss of functionality. The First Paradigm of Democracy in the United States is now well
into its final development and is largely no longer effective to resolve social, political or
economic and financial problems. A new democratic paradigm is needed, and it must be
created rather than developed as a “fix” to the old paradigm. Creating change as this
must occur peacefully, without violence to be effective.
Fortunately, the three values that have sustained our species offer a totally new method
of option-development, choice-making and decision-making concerning social issues. It
begins with our intention: To create a sustainable future by fulfilling human needs that
develop from those values.** Those three values offer the capability to create a
systemic integration of the three pillars of society: social, political, and economicfinancial
systems. This allows social action planners and everyone to see quite clearly
what a conscious plan for evolutionary social change would look like.
Planning as this was previously not possible because planners could not agree upon
the values that were important for everyone. Designing institutions and organizations for
the three pillars of society using the three core values ensures that individual citizens
and the public collectively can progress as they determine: As everyone progresses,
society progresses. As individuals, families, society, politics and economics embrace
the three core values, whole societies will become stable and sustainable.
Embracing the thee values of sustainability generates sustainable options by asking, a)
“Does this option improve the quality of life of those who are affected by this option?”; b)
“Does this option encourage and allow those affected to grow into their potential,
equally as most any other person?” The process of assuring sustainability may seem
tedious, but it far surpasses the time taken to repeat the “trial-and-error” method of
gaining experience, which also locks planners into a cycle of “fixing” problems
repeatedly, rather than creating long term solutions.
==22 Emerging and Developing Democracies==
Yesterday’s Post #21, “Problem Solving for Social Evolution,” provides an introduction
to social planners of emerging and developing democracies. Using this problem solving
technique, based on the three values of social sustainability, will consciously shorten
the time needed to develop mature and stable democracies.
After a democratic government has been put into place it is time for social planners to
formulate an intention for the long term development of their new democratic society,
government and economic/financial sectors. Because social sustainability provides the
longest lived vision for any democratic society, social planning must take into account
the development of sustainable families, who will eventually provide society with middle
class entrepreneurs and social leaders. Planning a sustainable society, government and
economy is primarily concerned about embedding the three core values into all
organizations so that the nation has a future that is continuing, without internal
interruptions. Call it sustainable progress, because that is what it is.
In the early stages of developing a democratic government and society, it is vitally
important that social and political planners clearly state their intentions for developing
such a society and government. In the first place, it is immediately understood that the
political and social rights of citizens must be firmly grounded in the constitution. This will
provide the essential foundation for the development of a society that is moving toward
stability and social sustainability.
That may sound as though the establishment of individual political rights is “taken for
granted.” It isn’t, but planners must ask, “Then what? What will we develop once those
political rights are established in our democracy? What is the continuing intention for our
nation and societies? Is it to grow and mature so that we can eliminate internal social,
political and economic dissension?” Answering that will require using the three core
values of social sustainability to design social, political and economic/financial
organizations that contribute to the stability and sustainability of that nation.
“It is by the decisions of individuals that our species will be improved or decline. It is by
the decisions of organizations that our societies, nations and civilization will be
sustained or fail.” Please see the illustration in Post #5. This shows the relationship of
organizations to societies, as the cause of societal sustainability or failure.
==23 Schematic for Validating Social Sustainability==
For this Post, let us take on the persona of a child, a pre-teen. We begin with something
every child knows: DISAPPOINTMENT! We have all been disappointed in some way.
What causes disappointment? Why would we become disappointed? The primary
reason we become disappointed is because our EXPECTATIONS are not fulfilled.
When expectations are fulfilled, we are happy.
On a piece of paper please make 4 columns. The right column would be titled, “Criteria
of Fulfillment.” This is measurable. Our emotional feelings of disappointment or happy
reflect the outcome. No iPhone under the Christmas tree or Hanukah menorah and we
have tears and sobbing. What prompted those tears or happy smiles depend on
whether our expectations were fulfilled... or not.
As you might guess, the third column is titled, “Expectations.” This sets out the
specifications for fulfillment. This is what gives the fourth column the capability of being
measured.
The second column is entitled “Beliefs.” It is our belief that because we do not have an
iPhone and we have asked for one, and we are of the proper age to have an iPhone,
and all of our peers have one, that we should get one for Christmas/Hanukah/birthday
or whatever occasion. Little do we know is that we have assumed that because every
peer has an iPhone that if we ask for one, we will get one for this special occasion. But!
we have not discussed this assumption with our parents. Ahhhh, assumptions are the
fountainhead of much grief and anguish. So assumptions are undisclosed, assumed
beliefs.
Our beliefs are something that are usually shared with most everyone, with few
exceptions, so that we also accept our assumptions hold the same weight. But that is
surely not always true. Our beliefs emanate from our values, at least how we interpret
those values. Because this special occasion is something that is shared by most of our
peers, our parents and our community, we KNOW the values of this special occasion
involve generosity, sharing, giving, receiving, fulfillment of cherished wishes and desires
and even sometimes our needs. Please write “Values” in the first column. Values drive
everything to the right of the Values Column.
When we insert the values of social sustainability, (quality of life, growth and equality)
into the first column, then everything to the right is validated (cross-checked) by those
values as being socially sustainable or not. Easy peasy, huh?
==24 Uncovering Assumptions==
As you may might conclude, using the Schematic is not easily explained in one page
Posts. But you will get a brief understanding of it and how it works. As a learning device,
the Schematic offers a workable antidote to the “fragmentation” that David Bohm writes
about in his book, On Dialogue. Fragmentation occurs because of the
misunderstandings about the beliefs people hold for any topic. Dialogue, as Bohm
defines it, exposes beliefs and assumptions that individuals may have. When they are
not exposed, misunderstanding occurs leading to fragmentation in the dialogue.
Because fragmentation can occur very easily, the methodology of the Schematic
requires Sustainability Teams to diligently examine their beliefs and hidden
assumptions. The Schematic answers that most pragmatic of all questions, “What
works?” by exposing unproductive beliefs and their underlying assumptions that will
eventually undermine social stability and defeat social sustainability.
Using the Schematic and the practices of disciplined dialogue give Team members
opportunities to compare and reframe erroneous beliefs and assumptions. If you are
examining the sustainability of a topic with one or two friends, you will find as you work
through the Schematic that you probably have the same values for that topic, but your
beliefs are different. It is at this point that the “fragmentation” of discussion will make
further discussion difficult or impossible. This is the time to ask, “If we have the same
values for this topic, what brought us to believe so differently about those values?”
At this point of the discussion begin an examination of the origins of your differing
beliefs. Simply arguing that you are right and the other person is wrong in their beliefs is
not productive. But by examining how and when you learned the assumed (hidden)
beliefs and then comparing those assumptions will help you clarify each other’s beliefs.
Revealing hidden assumptions is the best way to eliminate “fragmentation” as Bohm
calls it. Working the Schematic this way will teach you how to have much more
intelligible conversations in everyday life. You will be able to help yourself and others
discuss a topic more rationally than ever.
==25 Unconscious, Conscious, Consciousness==
Many of us believe that at the quantum level the universe brings events, people and
circumstances together for a greater benefit of all. One particularly beneficial
coincidence occurred when the authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote,
“…we hold these truths [values] to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, …
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.” Though they were unaware of it, these self-evident “truths” are sufficiently
similar, coincidentally, to the three values of social sustainability to establish a functional
and potentially sustainable democracy.
*1. UNconscious social evolution of the United States began with the efforts of those who
signed the Declaration of Independence and those who drafted the Articles of
Confederation and later those who ratified the Constitution of the United States. The
signers of the Constitution were not aware at the time of the three values that have
sustained our species, but hoped that these states would not only survive the
vicissitudes of time but learn to thrive over the centuries. They were unconscious of the
three core values of social sustainability, but clearly knew without any doubt that one
must have life and the liberty that democracy provides to pursue what makes one happy
– to grow into one’s potential and then to strive to fulfill that potential with their life.
*2. Conscious social evolution described in these Posts deals with the pragmatic efforts
of citizens to intentionally and consciously use the three values that have sustained our
species to guide the continued social evolution of our societies, democracies and
economies. What is necessary to transform a potentially sustainable democracy into an
evolving democracy with ongoing sustainability is the intentional and conscious
application of those three values in the decisions and actions of citizens, their public
executives and through the public policies of their government.
Conscious social evolution cannot take place outside of a democracy, and only in
democracies that intentionally apply the three values of sustainability within the
organizations of the three pillars of a functional society: the social, political and
economic/financial.
*3. “Conscious evolution” as described by Barbara Marx Hubbard, Ervin Laszlo, Andrew
Cohen, the Dali Llama, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra and others involves the efforts of
people around the world to generate a change of CONSCIOUSNESS in the world to
bring about peace, harmony and the oneness of all people. A consciousness as this
provides a friendly and receptive seedbed for applying the concepts of social
sustainability.
==26 Liberal? Conservative?==
Post #24, “Uncovering Assumptions” did not post for some reason. I assumed it had. A
good lesson so immediately poignant! And this points to an assumption that is obvious
to only a few of us, and the reasons for this post: sustainability into the future cannot be
assumed.
Though dualistic thinking is absurdly dangerous, it is the simplest way of showing
contrasts and limited comparisons, and their usefulness. Here is a list of dualisms that
are used by the vast majority of people. EITHER: us or them, them or us, left or right,
right or wrong, liberal or conservative, good or evil, believer or atheist, citizen or
foreigner, Republican or Democrat, winner or loser, saved or sinners, slaves or owners,
sane or insane. The point of listing these few dualisms is to demonstrate that one
dualism is completely missing: the dualism of either sustainability or UNsustainability.
This absence tells us most people assume that social stability and sustainability are
unquestionably assured.
When an “either-or” dualism exists, it sets up a contention between two topics. If there is
no dualism, no contention exists. Concerning the dualisms of either social stability or
social chaos and social sustainability or social decline are not even close to being a
thought of contention in the minds of most people, except the Preppers. It is assumed
that what exists today will exist tomorrow, which is probably more typical of citizens in
mature democracies than emerging or developing democracies.
My point is that there is a high likelihood that the vast proportion of people in any
democracy believes their society and nation is invulnerable, timeless and immanently
sustainable. To date, we have not seen the destabilization of any mature democracy.
The point of this Post is that it is timely for citizens to apply dualistic thinking to the
sustainability or UNsustainability of their democracy, the contention that develops could
be very useful. Discerning the history of the democracies of the US, France, Britain and
others we see that they have evolved into their maturity without losing any functions or
rights of citizens. …they evolve, which means that if that continuing evolution becomes
stalled with the three pillars of society (social, political and economic/financial) also
becoming stalled, the outcome is not known. The contention should provoke these
questions, “What would it take for a mature democracy to become UNsustainable? And,
what is needed for it to evolve into social sustainability?” We can assume that the
answers are already on the minds of strategic thinkers, but not for typical citizens in any
of these democracies.
==27 The Three Pillars of Society==
In the simplest terms societies develop from individuals, families, and multiple families
or clans that are the beginning of primitive societies. The simple affairs of society
become organized in three different functions: Social – family training, education,
livelihood skill development, religious functions, etc.; Politics and governance –
settlement of disputes, coordination between groups, establishment of common rights of
property, etc; Economic/financial – systems of agreed exchange, debts, rules of
bartering, invention of money, etc. These are the three pillars of a functional society.
As societies become larger and more complex, increasing the size of organizations
within each of pillar is insufficient to maintain the functionality of society. We see clearly
that larger and larger governments with more laws, regulations is not a solution to more
complex social, political and economic/financial growth. What is needed is a qualitative,
evolutionary development that inherently has the means to resolve complex societal
and public issues. If this evolutionary development does not occur, then as
organizations within the three pillars become more dysfunctional, society as a whole will
also reflect that dysfunction – arguable generalities, of course.
When we discern functional societies, whether large or small, we see that agreed upon
common rules of operation help everyone and every organization operate with little
external control. Fewer agreed upon rules or values require more authority and control
to maintain a stable society. When societies accept and implement the three values
(quality of life, growth and equality) as the rule of law for all social, political and
economic/financial relationships, then the size and functions of government will become
smaller. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law]) The other side of that equation is that
more responsibility must then come to rest on the shoulders of each individual and
organization to live in accordance with those values.
We all are familiar with those values. They are innate to our DNA! We only need to
publicly recognize, accept and install them to determine “the common good” which
makes social justice more immediate. Those values are encompassed in The Three
Moral Imperatives of Social Sustainability (Post #11).
[[Category: Political Science]]
==14 Culture Change==
What is proposed in these posts is not a social, political or economic/financial “fix” for
any democratic nation. What is proposed is a slow but deliberate and intentional effort
to change the culture of democratic nations to create social stability and sustainability —
peace!
Culture change occurs spontaneously with individuals — individuals who are convinced
that it is insane for their nations to continue as they have for decades, centuries and
even millennia. “Insanity” is defined as, “Doing the same thing over and over again
expecting different results.” We do not need to examine history very closely to see that
intrusion across national borders, conquering weaker or neutral nations, genocide and
all of the other dimensions of war does not work. Currently, the world is experiencing
ongoing, continual war in more than one region.
My intention for providing these posts is not to convince anyone that war is eminently
destructive or that peace generates cooperation and sharing. My intention is to provide
a learning process for generating culture change that results in sustainable families,
child rearing, communities, business, governments and economies, health care and
education just to mention a few areas where creative and sustainable solutions are
vitally needed.
To change a culture from engrained self-destructive social, political and economicfinancial
practices there must be a relatively easy to understand and implementable
process for reinterpreting “reality” in terms that brings sustainability to societies,
governments and economies. A number of readers have read this material and agree
that it is easy to read, but it is doggoned hard to understand. That’s the definition of
cultural dissonance. We may not like what we are doing that is destroying our way of
life, but we are really uncomfortable with making any changes!
To make that cultural change, most of us must understand how to create a different
outcome. Do you have an intention for your life for the future? For your family? For your
community? For your city, county, state or nation? If not, then for the sake of
participating in the future, please do so. That’s a beginning. If you are really creative you
may even have several good intentions that contribute to the sustainability of your life,
your family and your society.
==15 Social Evolution of a Democratic Society==
To guide the conscious social evolution of a society, we must first be able to reframe
our relationship to it, much like a planetary manager, to gain the perspective of being
“outside” of society. Then we can view it by looking on to it, rather than being “in it”
where everything is too close to gain an objective view of it all.
Earth’s history of civilizations is littered with failures. All societies and all civilizations
have failed. Ours will also. There is one possibility, however, that could very well
change the dismal trajectory of all democratic nations. That possibility lies in having an
ongoing consciousness to observe ourselves making similar mistakes as other societies
in history; then have the presence of mind to ask, “What is necessary to transcend our
existence so that democratic societies endure for centuries and millennia?”
I think the first step is to see our societies as “social organisms” in much the same way
as we perceive the progressive developmental stages of an infant-becoming-an-adult.
The development of a child is to become an adult, to make decisions that support his or
her growth and the development of their innate potential. That means the child assigns
to itself increasing levels of responsibility for the decisions that he or she must make so
that they do grow into a fully responsible and powerful individual.
In this perspective, a self-aware, self-directed, self-organizing and self-adjusting society
has never existed before. What we are asking ourselves to do is much like a child
raising itself to become a fully responsible and fully actualizing adult! We have no
previous successful democratic models to follow. We have no mentors or parental
figures to guide us. The key to this proposition is to become self-aware — self-aware of
“what works” and “what does not work” that leads to, or prevents us from, ongoing
sustainability.
Without such a mentor or model, we will need is a reliable, consistent and universal
guide for the development of sustainable options, choice-making, decision-making and
action/implementation that points toward a sustainable future. This has not existed
before. But, it does today. To create sustainable, self-monitoring and self-adjusting
societies all organizations that support that society must necessarily begin to apply the
three values that have sustained our species for 40,000 – 500,000 years. Profit-making
and a consistently black bottom line will not assure a corporation that it will be in
existence in 50 years. Neither are good intentions and good decisions by foundations
and churches. More is not needed: Sustainable option development and actions.
==16 The First Paradigm of Democracy==
When the US democracy was formed it was the “state of the art” of democratic political
development. It was radically different from any previous form of democracy that had
existed since the classic democracies of Greece, (507-336 BCE). Now, after 238 years,
most U.S. citizens feel that the democracy that was so revolutionary and radical at the
time is now so remote and distant from them as to be almost irrelevant to their lives
except that its government is too large to ignore. One of the questions Basic Concepts
of Social Sustainability will try to answer is, “Is it possible to design democracies to
evolve in synch with citizens and the public?” Doing so would go a long way to prevent
demonstrations, revolts and revolutions, which are otherwise inevitable.
In the early stages of an evolving democratic society democratic paternalism is an
advantage until the public has become better educated, more informed and is
technologically capable of ongoing “dialogue” with their public executives. If that
paternalism does not yield to more frequent public participation as the public matures,
the paternalist relationship between government and the public begins to take on a
familiar and conflicted adolescent “parent-child” interaction. As with maturing children,
that signals the time for citizens to take on more responsibilities in their own governance
and become more fully, personally acquainted with the realities of democratic
governance in the matters that sustain their communities, states and nation. Such a
REALITY DEMOCRACY requires an “eyes wide open” approach to citizen participation
and public executive decision-making with transparency of the facts supporting the
decisions that take society in a chosen direction.
“Basic Concepts of Social Sustainability” necessarily describes the relationship between
social sustainability and the evolution of democracies. The irony of this relationship
could mean the difference between a democratic society that comes to its fullness and
then withers and dies or one that continues for centuries. The difference will become
apparent if “the government” and the public are of common opinion that “this is as good
as it gets”; or, whether they are of common opinion that their democracy provides the
foundation for democratic social evolution. Which do you think will lead to a sustainable
democratic nation that will overcome the social, political and economic/financial
vagaries and vicissitudes nationally and internationally in the centuries ahead?
==17 The Second Paradigm of Democracy==
The paternalism of the First Paradigm of Democracy was a mix of independence and
the monarchial cultural carryover from the British Crown, and from the monarchial
cultures of immigrants from other countries. While the restraints of monarchial rule
became egregious to these New Americans it had always provided a protective,
paternal and maternal shield to its subjects that protected them from the realities of
intra-national and inter-national social, political and economic/financial issues. That
protective paternalism (“subordinates should be controlled in a fatherly way for their own
good”) is a deeply embedded attitude in the culture of state and federal governments,
and continues to be the attitude projected to citizens and the public in general.
The “father knows best” attitude of government generally sets citizens apart from the
process of governance, even when citizens have become better educated and
informed; and, electronically connected to public issues – but not to their elected and
appointed public executives. Citizens are now far better prepared to take on the realities
of greater responsibilities to participate in option-development, preference-sharing and
choice-making of public social, political and economic/financial issues than at any time
before. Public participation supports the premises of democracy – the opportunity for
self-determination by individual citizens and the public collectively concerning the
myriad public issues of local, state, regional and national governance.
When we examine and discern the intentions of the new democracy of 1776, we find
that in the last 200 years those intentions have been fulfilled: a full set of political rights,
the same as a monarch; freedom from political, social and economic oppression; liberty
to chose how to live one’s life, to choose how to explore their potential as each person
may determine for themselves, and to improve the quality of their life equally as anyone
else. Those intentions for founding this democratic nation have been fulfilled –what will
keep its citizens working for greater progress?
Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”** says much about “the Great
American Experiment” of democracy. Today it is no longer an experiment. It has proven
itself. It has fulfilled its ideals, though our ideals continue to evolve as they become
fulfilled, just as our needs do. What then are our new intentions to keep citizens and
democratic societies striving to achieve more improved quality of life, of growth and
equally, too? What would The Second Paradigm of Democracy look like, at least for the
United States? Just as de Tocqueville witnessed the flourishing of this nation, if he
returned two centuries later, would we be as proud of his descriptions?
==18 Time Out!==
Oooops! I’ve had a couple of comments from readers that 350-450 words per day,
every day is more than they can read, digest and reflect on, and would prefer to have
them half the size and far less often. Fair enough.
Producing posts of this size is not prompted by over 40 years of working on the
development of sustainable democracies, or half a million words in WORD folders and
files relating to social sustainability and democracies. It is prompted by the draw of the
future to provide peaceful, constructive and evolutionary alternatives to what seems
obvious to me that will inevitably occur in the future by 2030… only 16 years away.
You don’t need to have a prodigious memory of history to review the course of nations
and societies for the last 8,000 years to know that very, very few alternatives were
available to the public to motivate their government(s) to improve their performance and
to become more humane. Violence is a theme that has been repeated thousands of
times in hundreds of societies, and almost always by the underprivileged,
unrepresented, propertyless and disenfranchised masses – those who yearn for a better
quality of life, and to grow into their innate potential equally as the 1% does.
The Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring demonstrations and uprisings were the
squeaky wheel that will squeak again in another revolution of the wheel of prosperityrecession-
prosperity-depression cycles. It will continue such until the axle of society
breaks and the wheel becomes cocked to one side and the whole carriage of society
comes to full stop and overturned.
Having had the uncomfortable faculty of prescience since my childhood, what is ahead
will require us as individuals and collectively to seek alternatives to violent repetition. If
there are no alternatives, then there will be violence. As these Posts reveal, there is
now an alternative. My chore is to write and to bring social sustainability forward not
only as a peaceful alternative, but an alternative that developmentally and evolutionarily
brings about greater social stability — peace. My writing and your support are
necessary to bring this alternative to the awareness of citizens in every democratic
nation of the world. For those who pray for peace, do as Professor Abraham Joshua
Heschel said in 1965 when asked why he would be marching in Selma, Alabama with
Martin Luther King, Jr. He replied, “When I march in Selma, my feet are praying.”
==19 REALITY DEMOCRACY==
To make a comparison, the 2 Paradigm of Democracy is to the 1 Paradigm as
democracy was to the monarchy. Seen another way, smart phones are to DOS as the 2
Paradigm is the 1 Paradigm.
We know what the 1 Democratic Paradigm is like – we are living in it. The motivations
and intentions of the founders of the United States democracy have been fulfilled. Yet,
the hunger for self-determination by democratic citizens is still burning within them.
Something seems to be amiss: Many citizens in most democracies are dissatisfied with
the performance of their governments. There seem to be very few options, as viewed by
most citizens. They can either, a) strive to revise the entrenched bureaucracy from
within it; b) use the recall and/or referenda to motivate change from a public citizen
base; c) use some form of public demonstrations or protest; or d) resort to riot, rebellion
or revolution — none of which are effective. The last option retards social progress, and
often entrenches the existent powers.
What the 2 Paradigm of Democracy proposes is to create change rather than being a
victim of change. We know that the three values that have sustained our species for
tens of thousands of years are a reliable and timeless guide for the development of
humane social, political and economic policies. We know, too, that democratic
processes are no longer experimental but have been firmly proven and validated by
over two centuries of experience. It is time now to consciously use those three values to
design an evolved form of democratic process using contemporary technologies,
without violence or demonstrations. To move this nation and the democratic global
community of nations into the 2 paradigm of democracy, leaders of all organizations
must be taught and trained how to reframe their thinking from political processes that
support democracy to social systems that support sustainable democracies.
Accomplishing such a task will require a totally new method of option-development,
problem solving and decision-making — one that reliably supports the existent society
and culture while introducing a way to engage the holism of society, solving problems
that take most social parameters into context. In other words, we will intentionally create
social change using the sustaining values of our species to design social programs with
far greater assurance of the quality of what they produce. “The best way to predict the
future is to create it,” according to Alan Curtis Kay, 1971, at an early Palo Alto Research
Center meeting. (Also attributed to Peter Drucker and Dandridge M. Cole.)
==20 REALITY DEMOCRACY 2==
It was late last night when my phone rang. I’ll paraphrase the conversation --
“Hello, Daniel? This is Brita Jorganson calling from Stockholm.”
“Daniel,” Brita continued, “you did not really answer the question in my mind about
REALITY DEMOCRACY, as you call it.”
Brita got right to the point, “What is REALITY DEMOCRACY, Daniel?”
“To put it succinctly, Brita, REALITY DEMOCRACY takes a lot of its definition and
operation from “REALITY THERAPY,” written by Dr. William Glasser, M.D., who
redefined psychiatry by saying that the historical referents of a patient’s condition are
not relevant to their current treatment and healing. He said that the patient could not be
healed except now in this moment and that the patient is responsible for their behavior
and needs to take an active role in their healing.”
“The parallels, Brita, are these – the patient is the people of a democracy who have
historically relied on the doctor to heal them. The government is the doctor, who
historically has acted as a paternal father figure taking on the responsibilities of the
people, much like a caretaker. This leaves the people feeling left out of the processes of
governance, dependent, and incapable when in fact they are ready to take on more
responsibilities to exercise their rights of self-determination… except that early forms of
democracy do not provide a means for the people to participate in developing options to
public issues, to state their preferences or to make choices. This does not mean that
they actually make the decisions. That is the responsibility of public executives, much
as the doctor makes the final choices and takes actions as needed. As for ultimate
responsibilities, the people are ultimately responsible for what their government does or
does not do. Of course if there are no means to participate, then they are subject to the
dictates of the government without being consulted.”
I paused a moment, to gather my thoughts when Brita interjected, “Is that all? I mean,
that is not all there is to it, is there?”
“No, but that is a beginning. The second essential aspect of REALITY DEMOCRACY is
that it is immediate. Just as the dialogue between the patient and doctor is immediate,
in a REALITY DEMOCRACY the “dialogue” between the public and their public
executives is ongoing and immediate in "real time," not as it is now.
“In a REALITY DEMOCRACY citizens use the Internet to offer their options for action,
their preferences, opinions and their preferred choices for action. Of course this would
mean that there would have to be some independent, unaffiliated and non-aligned
organization that would facilitate this connection.
“In a REALITY DEMOCRACY citizen participation is more immediate and more direct
without changing any aspect of existent democratic processes. The real benefit is that
citizens have a means to exercise their species-prerogative and political rights of selfdetermination,
which helps to avoid demonstrations, riots and other forms of political
violence.”
There was silence on the other end of the phone. I thought that she had either gotten
bored or disgusted when she took a deep sigh.
“So, is this a part of the ‘Second Paradigm of Democracy’ that you write about? (“Yes.”)
And then I can speculate that this is a peaceful form of political and social evolution?
(“Yes.”) Of course, Daniel, you can expect that many people in politics will embrace
these concepts, but many will vehemently reject them. Correct?”
“Yes, certainly,” I continued. “As citizens or public executives, we can never really
escape our humanity, our fear of the untested and the need to bolster our flagging egos.
These two factors are a part of any immature personality and frequently seek authority,
control and power to make them feel more secure and sure. The situation of evolving
democracies is difficult, even existentially ironic. For democratic societies to develop,
mature and evolve, as children do to become responsible adults, in the case of
democratic societies the child must not only develop and mature, but do so alone
without a parental model to guide them. The only thing democracies can use to guide
their maturity, social evolution and decision-making are the three values that have
sustained our species for so many thousands of years.
“Contemporarily, social change takes place very rapidly, leaving the democratic process
behind, and leaving the needs of the public seemingly abandoned. That is why the
public needs to be involved on a real time basis, so that public issues are addressed
quickly and responsibly. It will help take the guess work out of public policy
development. The public and public executives cannot do this separately. They must be
engaged together in the processes of democratic policy development in real-time mode.
“Does this answer your questions, Brita?”
“Yes, it does. However, it raises many more questions, which I am sure you probably
have already considered. Thank you for your time. I’ll be following your posts to see
what else you come up with. I apologize for it being so late. Good night.”
==21 Problem Solving for Social Evolution==
Now that we have the tools to create positive, conscious evolutionary social change,
rather than being the victims of social change, we also need to know something about
the process of “problem” solving and decision-making. It begins by having a different
mind-set about “problems.” Rather than seeing problems as situations that need to be
“fixed,” they are really opportunities for creating solutions. As an aside, fixing problems
locks us into the existent paradigm. Paradigms represent a stage or plateau of social
evolution with an arc of existence: a beginning, a rise in effectiveness and an eventual
loss of functionality. The First Paradigm of Democracy in the United States is now well
into its final development and is largely no longer effective to resolve social, political or
economic and financial problems. A new democratic paradigm is needed, and it must be
created rather than developed as a “fix” to the old paradigm. Creating change as this
must occur peacefully, without violence to be effective.
Fortunately, the three values that have sustained our species offer a totally new method
of option-development, choice-making and decision-making concerning social issues. It
begins with our intention: To create a sustainable future by fulfilling human needs that
develop from those values.** Those three values offer the capability to create a
systemic integration of the three pillars of society: social, political, and economicfinancial
systems. This allows social action planners and everyone to see quite clearly
what a conscious plan for evolutionary social change would look like.
Planning as this was previously not possible because planners could not agree upon
the values that were important for everyone. Designing institutions and organizations for
the three pillars of society using the three core values ensures that individual citizens
and the public collectively can progress as they determine: As everyone progresses,
society progresses. As individuals, families, society, politics and economics embrace
the three core values, whole societies will become stable and sustainable.
Embracing the thee values of sustainability generates sustainable options by asking, a)
“Does this option improve the quality of life of those who are affected by this option?”; b)
“Does this option encourage and allow those affected to grow into their potential,
equally as most any other person?” The process of assuring sustainability may seem
tedious, but it far surpasses the time taken to repeat the “trial-and-error” method of
gaining experience, which also locks planners into a cycle of “fixing” problems
repeatedly, rather than creating long term solutions.
==22 Emerging and Developing Democracies==
Yesterday’s Post #21, “Problem Solving for Social Evolution,” provides an introduction
to social planners of emerging and developing democracies. Using this problem solving
technique, based on the three values of social sustainability, will consciously shorten
the time needed to develop mature and stable democracies.
After a democratic government has been put into place it is time for social planners to
formulate an intention for the long term development of their new democratic society,
government and economic/financial sectors. Because social sustainability provides the
longest lived vision for any democratic society, social planning must take into account
the development of sustainable families, who will eventually provide society with middle
class entrepreneurs and social leaders. Planning a sustainable society, government and
economy is primarily concerned about embedding the three core values into all
organizations so that the nation has a future that is continuing, without internal
interruptions. Call it sustainable progress, because that is what it is.
In the early stages of developing a democratic government and society, it is vitally
important that social and political planners clearly state their intentions for developing
such a society and government. In the first place, it is immediately understood that the
political and social rights of citizens must be firmly grounded in the constitution. This will
provide the essential foundation for the development of a society that is moving toward
stability and social sustainability.
That may sound as though the establishment of individual political rights is “taken for
granted.” It isn’t, but planners must ask, “Then what? What will we develop once those
political rights are established in our democracy? What is the continuing intention for our
nation and societies? Is it to grow and mature so that we can eliminate internal social,
political and economic dissension?” Answering that will require using the three core
values of social sustainability to design social, political and economic/financial
organizations that contribute to the stability and sustainability of that nation.
“It is by the decisions of individuals that our species will be improved or decline. It is by
the decisions of organizations that our societies, nations and civilization will be
sustained or fail.” Please see the illustration in Post #5. This shows the relationship of
organizations to societies, as the cause of societal sustainability or failure.
==23 Schematic for Validating Social Sustainability==
For this Post, let us take on the persona of a child, a pre-teen. We begin with something
every child knows: DISAPPOINTMENT! We have all been disappointed in some way.
What causes disappointment? Why would we become disappointed? The primary
reason we become disappointed is because our EXPECTATIONS are not fulfilled.
When expectations are fulfilled, we are happy.
On a piece of paper please make 4 columns. The right column would be titled, “Criteria
of Fulfillment.” This is measurable. Our emotional feelings of disappointment or happy
reflect the outcome. No iPhone under the Christmas tree or Hanukah menorah and we
have tears and sobbing. What prompted those tears or happy smiles depend on
whether our expectations were fulfilled... or not.
As you might guess, the third column is titled, “Expectations.” This sets out the
specifications for fulfillment. This is what gives the fourth column the capability of being
measured.
The second column is entitled “Beliefs.” It is our belief that because we do not have an
iPhone and we have asked for one, and we are of the proper age to have an iPhone,
and all of our peers have one, that we should get one for Christmas/Hanukah/birthday
or whatever occasion. Little do we know is that we have assumed that because every
peer has an iPhone that if we ask for one, we will get one for this special occasion. But!
we have not discussed this assumption with our parents. Ahhhh, assumptions are the
fountainhead of much grief and anguish. So assumptions are undisclosed, assumed
beliefs.
Our beliefs are something that are usually shared with most everyone, with few
exceptions, so that we also accept our assumptions hold the same weight. But that is
surely not always true. Our beliefs emanate from our values, at least how we interpret
those values. Because this special occasion is something that is shared by most of our
peers, our parents and our community, we KNOW the values of this special occasion
involve generosity, sharing, giving, receiving, fulfillment of cherished wishes and desires
and even sometimes our needs. Please write “Values” in the first column. Values drive
everything to the right of the Values Column.
When we insert the values of social sustainability, (quality of life, growth and equality)
into the first column, then everything to the right is validated (cross-checked) by those
values as being socially sustainable or not. Easy peasy, huh?
==24 Uncovering Assumptions==
As you may might conclude, using the Schematic is not easily explained in one page
Posts. But you will get a brief understanding of it and how it works. As a learning device,
the Schematic offers a workable antidote to the “fragmentation” that David Bohm writes
about in his book, On Dialogue. Fragmentation occurs because of the
misunderstandings about the beliefs people hold for any topic. Dialogue, as Bohm
defines it, exposes beliefs and assumptions that individuals may have. When they are
not exposed, misunderstanding occurs leading to fragmentation in the dialogue.
Because fragmentation can occur very easily, the methodology of the Schematic
requires Sustainability Teams to diligently examine their beliefs and hidden
assumptions. The Schematic answers that most pragmatic of all questions, “What
works?” by exposing unproductive beliefs and their underlying assumptions that will
eventually undermine social stability and defeat social sustainability.
Using the Schematic and the practices of disciplined dialogue give Team members
opportunities to compare and reframe erroneous beliefs and assumptions. If you are
examining the sustainability of a topic with one or two friends, you will find as you work
through the Schematic that you probably have the same values for that topic, but your
beliefs are different. It is at this point that the “fragmentation” of discussion will make
further discussion difficult or impossible. This is the time to ask, “If we have the same
values for this topic, what brought us to believe so differently about those values?”
At this point of the discussion begin an examination of the origins of your differing
beliefs. Simply arguing that you are right and the other person is wrong in their beliefs is
not productive. But by examining how and when you learned the assumed (hidden)
beliefs and then comparing those assumptions will help you clarify each other’s beliefs.
Revealing hidden assumptions is the best way to eliminate “fragmentation” as Bohm
calls it. Working the Schematic this way will teach you how to have much more
intelligible conversations in everyday life. You will be able to help yourself and others
discuss a topic more rationally than ever.
==25 Unconscious, Conscious, Consciousness==
Many of us believe that at the quantum level the universe brings events, people and
circumstances together for a greater benefit of all. One particularly beneficial
coincidence occurred when the authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote,
“…we hold these truths [values] to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, …
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.” Though they were unaware of it, these self-evident “truths” are sufficiently
similar, coincidentally, to the three values of social sustainability to establish a functional
and potentially sustainable democracy.
*1. UNconscious social evolution of the United States began with the efforts of those who
signed the Declaration of Independence and those who drafted the Articles of
Confederation and later those who ratified the Constitution of the United States. The
signers of the Constitution were not aware at the time of the three values that have
sustained our species, but hoped that these states would not only survive the
vicissitudes of time but learn to thrive over the centuries. They were unconscious of the
three core values of social sustainability, but clearly knew without any doubt that one
must have life and the liberty that democracy provides to pursue what makes one happy
– to grow into one’s potential and then to strive to fulfill that potential with their life.
*2. Conscious social evolution described in these Posts deals with the pragmatic efforts
of citizens to intentionally and consciously use the three values that have sustained our
species to guide the continued social evolution of our societies, democracies and
economies. What is necessary to transform a potentially sustainable democracy into an
evolving democracy with ongoing sustainability is the intentional and conscious
application of those three values in the decisions and actions of citizens, their public
executives and through the public policies of their government.
Conscious social evolution cannot take place outside of a democracy, and only in
democracies that intentionally apply the three values of sustainability within the
organizations of the three pillars of a functional society: the social, political and
economic/financial.
*3. “Conscious evolution” as described by Barbara Marx Hubbard, Ervin Laszlo, Andrew
Cohen, the Dali Llama, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra and others involves the efforts of
people around the world to generate a change of CONSCIOUSNESS in the world to
bring about peace, harmony and the oneness of all people. A consciousness as this
provides a friendly and receptive seedbed for applying the concepts of social
sustainability.
==26 Liberal? Conservative?==
Post #24, “Uncovering Assumptions” did not post for some reason. I assumed it had. A
good lesson so immediately poignant! And this points to an assumption that is obvious
to only a few of us, and the reasons for this post: sustainability into the future cannot be
assumed.
Though dualistic thinking is absurdly dangerous, it is the simplest way of showing
contrasts and limited comparisons, and their usefulness. Here is a list of dualisms that
are used by the vast majority of people. EITHER: us or them, them or us, left or right,
right or wrong, liberal or conservative, good or evil, believer or atheist, citizen or
foreigner, Republican or Democrat, winner or loser, saved or sinners, slaves or owners,
sane or insane. The point of listing these few dualisms is to demonstrate that one
dualism is completely missing: the dualism of either sustainability or UNsustainability.
This absence tells us most people assume that social stability and sustainability are
unquestionably assured.
When an “either-or” dualism exists, it sets up a contention between two topics. If there is
no dualism, no contention exists. Concerning the dualisms of either social stability or
social chaos and social sustainability or social decline are not even close to being a
thought of contention in the minds of most people, except the Preppers. It is assumed
that what exists today will exist tomorrow, which is probably more typical of citizens in
mature democracies than emerging or developing democracies.
My point is that there is a high likelihood that the vast proportion of people in any
democracy believes their society and nation is invulnerable, timeless and immanently
sustainable. To date, we have not seen the destabilization of any mature democracy.
The point of this Post is that it is timely for citizens to apply dualistic thinking to the
sustainability or UNsustainability of their democracy, the contention that develops could
be very useful. Discerning the history of the democracies of the US, France, Britain and
others we see that they have evolved into their maturity without losing any functions or
rights of citizens. …they evolve, which means that if that continuing evolution becomes
stalled with the three pillars of society (social, political and economic/financial) also
becoming stalled, the outcome is not known. The contention should provoke these
questions, “What would it take for a mature democracy to become UNsustainable? And,
what is needed for it to evolve into social sustainability?” We can assume that the
answers are already on the minds of strategic thinkers, but not for typical citizens in any
of these democracies.
==27 The Three Pillars of Society==
In the simplest terms societies develop from individuals, families, and multiple families
or clans that are the beginning of primitive societies. The simple affairs of society
become organized in three different functions: Social – family training, education,
livelihood skill development, religious functions, etc.; Politics and governance –
settlement of disputes, coordination between groups, establishment of common rights of
property, etc; Economic/financial – systems of agreed exchange, debts, rules of
bartering, invention of money, etc. These are the three pillars of a functional society.
As societies become larger and more complex, increasing the size of organizations
within each of pillar is insufficient to maintain the functionality of society. We see clearly
that larger and larger governments with more laws, regulations is not a solution to more
complex social, political and economic/financial growth. What is needed is a qualitative,
evolutionary development that inherently has the means to resolve complex societal
and public issues. If this evolutionary development does not occur, then as
organizations within the three pillars become more dysfunctional, society as a whole will
also reflect that dysfunction – arguable generalities, of course.
When we discern functional societies, whether large or small, we see that agreed upon
common rules of operation help everyone and every organization operate with little
external control. Fewer agreed upon rules or values require more authority and control
to maintain a stable society. When societies accept and implement the three values
(quality of life, growth and equality) as the rule of law for all social, political and
economic/financial relationships, then the size and functions of government will become
smaller. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law]) The other side of that equation is that
more responsibility must then come to rest on the shoulders of each individual and
organization to live in accordance with those values.
We all are familiar with those values. They are innate to our DNA! We only need to
publicly recognize, accept and install them to determine “the common good” which
makes social justice more immediate. Those values are encompassed in The Three
Moral Imperatives of Social Sustainability (Post #11).
[[Category: Political Science]]
