Monday, March 07, 2005
Idea Proliferation
I read in a recent issue of The Nation magazine that had suggestions from numerous writers on what should be included in the Democratic platform. I found that most of the suggestions seemed sensible to me, from strategies to protect the environment, promote labor organization, foster international cooperation, to issues of the proper governmental role in our lives (re: Patriot Act).
I am not optimistic about the prospects of seeing any of these admirable ideas implemented. The complexity of life today provides enough analytical and perceptual challenges for most people. They've got to figure the best way to handle their own resources, interact with an increasingly diverse set of people (neighbors, co-workers, customer service people, etc.), and interact with new communication devices and modes (e.g. automated phone systems).
Your average citizen is not looking for more subjects to have to make sense of. Advocates of seemingly radical ideas, regardless of how obviously they may promote the common goals of humans, have very little means of promoting those ideas beyond several small groups (e.g. the others deeply concerned with that issue, and more general elements of the citizenry who have a strong interest in social structures, sane development, peace, etc.).
In ancient Greece the city-states had functioning democracies in which the "citizens" (defined rather restrictively) voted to resolve disputes. The assembly allowed open discussion and argument of the issues of the day and then decide by majority vote on a course of action. They were able to successfully run their (relatively) small social units, and, together with a philosophy that had less developed "doctrines" that limited the range of ideas, they seemed to successfully (at least rationally) deal with a broad range of challenges and threats. Rationally being a key word - also doctrines.
Dissemination of information that would allow the citizenry to reach rational conclusions does not occur effectively; media spin is available to support many different world views. The media aimed at the general public successfully informs people in some areas of their lives, but when complex systems are involved (e.g. the earth, or international politics, technology and its implications), they are not very successful. There is a need for some integrative influence to sift the multiple issues in diverse fields, produce strategies that can elevate these issues to national prominence, and prevent special interests from skewing the perceptions of the public. Political parties and think tanks are not performing this function.
The crux of the problem is that the diversity and complexity of the world leads individuals to rely on "authority" to provide the answers and rationale in most areas of social policy. The "authorities" have not made significant progress in advancing the human condition in the last fifty years, despite the huge consumption of resources that has taken place. The "authorities" that dominated the twentieth century have not all been the most rational and objective operators (our current president - GWB - a case in point).
Can we develop some authorities that have in their underlying aims a more humane (i.e. for the good of the species) understanding of the effects of their actions. Some that might balance short term utility with long term sustainability. Head toward flattening the income distribution curve of nations and the world. Where would these authorities come from? Academia? Business? Government? Is there some blend of hierarchical and democratic systems that might accomplish saner, more accountable government?
Democracy requires an informed and engaged populace to function effectively. Our nation, due to size and diversity, a lazy and cowed media, and our attitude that our sole purpose is the pursuit of happiness, does not seem to have the necessary prerequisites for a functioning representative democracy.
Rob
I am not optimistic about the prospects of seeing any of these admirable ideas implemented. The complexity of life today provides enough analytical and perceptual challenges for most people. They've got to figure the best way to handle their own resources, interact with an increasingly diverse set of people (neighbors, co-workers, customer service people, etc.), and interact with new communication devices and modes (e.g. automated phone systems).
Your average citizen is not looking for more subjects to have to make sense of. Advocates of seemingly radical ideas, regardless of how obviously they may promote the common goals of humans, have very little means of promoting those ideas beyond several small groups (e.g. the others deeply concerned with that issue, and more general elements of the citizenry who have a strong interest in social structures, sane development, peace, etc.).
In ancient Greece the city-states had functioning democracies in which the "citizens" (defined rather restrictively) voted to resolve disputes. The assembly allowed open discussion and argument of the issues of the day and then decide by majority vote on a course of action. They were able to successfully run their (relatively) small social units, and, together with a philosophy that had less developed "doctrines" that limited the range of ideas, they seemed to successfully (at least rationally) deal with a broad range of challenges and threats. Rationally being a key word - also doctrines.
Dissemination of information that would allow the citizenry to reach rational conclusions does not occur effectively; media spin is available to support many different world views. The media aimed at the general public successfully informs people in some areas of their lives, but when complex systems are involved (e.g. the earth, or international politics, technology and its implications), they are not very successful. There is a need for some integrative influence to sift the multiple issues in diverse fields, produce strategies that can elevate these issues to national prominence, and prevent special interests from skewing the perceptions of the public. Political parties and think tanks are not performing this function.
The crux of the problem is that the diversity and complexity of the world leads individuals to rely on "authority" to provide the answers and rationale in most areas of social policy. The "authorities" have not made significant progress in advancing the human condition in the last fifty years, despite the huge consumption of resources that has taken place. The "authorities" that dominated the twentieth century have not all been the most rational and objective operators (our current president - GWB - a case in point).
Can we develop some authorities that have in their underlying aims a more humane (i.e. for the good of the species) understanding of the effects of their actions. Some that might balance short term utility with long term sustainability. Head toward flattening the income distribution curve of nations and the world. Where would these authorities come from? Academia? Business? Government? Is there some blend of hierarchical and democratic systems that might accomplish saner, more accountable government?
Democracy requires an informed and engaged populace to function effectively. Our nation, due to size and diversity, a lazy and cowed media, and our attitude that our sole purpose is the pursuit of happiness, does not seem to have the necessary prerequisites for a functioning representative democracy.
Rob
# posted by robdashu @ 4:26 AM 
