Here is an example of examining the larger frame in a way that has a chance of achieving understanding of widely divergent views and requiring us to avoid group-think ourselves:Excerpts from a talk on why H. sapiens is not sustainable By William E. Rees, PhD, FRSC (Nov 2013) ....Consider just two factors: First, humans are naturally short-sighted (we discount the future) and tend to use up all available resources—we are not natural conservers; our tendency to (over)consume now overrides reason. Second, societies tend to act according to ‘socially constructed’ behavioural and conceptual norms. A social construct is an idea or conceptual framework that is first birthed in language and subsequently massaged through social discourse and debate. The concept is eventually elevated to the status of received wisdom by frequent repetition and tacit agreement among members of the social group creating the construct. The problem is that sometimes ‘received wisdom’ doesn’t reflect external reality. For example, continuous economic growth and market capitalism make no concessions to biophysical limits to growth. Worse, our deliberately constructed consumer ethic reinforces humans’ natural tendencies to expand, over-consume and use up accessible resources. In combination, then, these factors have operated to propel the human enterprise into its present state of ecological overshoot despite the warnings of global-change scientists. It should be obvious that any core construct or ‘cultural narrative’ that ignores important dimensions of biophysical reality is seriously flawed. For example, many basic concepts of neoliberal economics make no reference to fundamental principles of the ecosystems with which the economy interacts. And because important dimensions of the two systems are fundamentally incompatible, serious environmental problems are inevitable. Incidentally, formal science is structured to avoid this ‘incompatibility problem’ by constantly testing scientific ‘social constructs’—i.e., hypotheses—against the real world. If, through observation and experiment we are able to disprove a particular hypothesis, the logical next step is to revise and re-test that construct so that it better conforms to observed reality. (Contrast this with attempting to impose one’s constructed beliefs on reality.) Through the scientific method, scientists gradually build theory that provides an increasingly accurate ‘map’ of the reality it purports to represent. Experimental replicability is a key step in advancing our understanding of scientific ‘truth’. With this in mind, consider that, like scientific theories, religious doctrines, academic paradigms and political ideologies are all social constructs. However, unlike science-based ideas, the latter are generally not systematically verified. As suggested above, problems may therefore emerge when people, particularly political leaders, take socially their constructed frameworks more seriously than evidence-based reality—in other words, when ideology overrides facts. American historian Barbara Tuchman describes the tragic impacts of such political “wooden-headedness” down through the ages in her 1984 classic, The March of Folly. Tuchman defines ‘folly’ as “assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions” (i.e., ideology), as acting “according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by facts”. This is a key to understanding our ecological dilemma—global society is being propelled into ecological crisis by a deeply problematic cultural narrative, by unwavering dedication to growth-oriented economic theory and market capitalist ideology, in spite of a swelling cascade of contrary evidence. It gets worse. The ‘deification’ of ideological error seems to have a neuro-cognitive dimension. Research shows that during an individual’s development, repeated experiences or exposure to particular ideas and beliefs (e.g., cultural norms), actually help to shape the brain’s synaptic circuitry in patterns that reflect and embed those experiences. In other words, socially constructed beliefs and values can acquire a physical presence in the brain. Importantly, once such circuitry is established, people tend to seek outcompatible experiences and associate with people who think the same way and, “when faced with information that does not agree with their [preformed] internal structures, they deny, discredit, reinterpret or forget that information” (Wexler, 2006). Unfortunately, once entrenched, comfortably familiar ways of thinking become difficult to dislodge. I suggest that this phenomenon may help to explain the increasingly anti-intellectual climate of modern society including continuing allegiance to the growth ethic and the prevalence of climate-change denial. Indeed the general lack of progress toward sustainability in the mainstream may be symptomatic of a culture in which politicians, corporate leaders and even much of the general population are more swayed in their political beliefs and policy choices by deeply embedded shared illusions than by the gathering empirical evidence that society is on a collision course with reality. Social Engineering: Abetting he problem This situation is not a random accident of history. It is increasingly clear that the prevalence of neoconservative thinking, the dominance of corporate values and the global spread of growth-based market capitalism is, at least in part, the result of deliberate social engineering. For at least four decades the radical right has out-manoeuvred the centre and left, successfully changing the tenor and tone of all levels of political discourse at all levels in North America. As Michael Walker, former Director of Canada’s Fraser Institute is said to have observed: “If you want to change society, you have to change the ideological fabric of society.” So it is that such concepts as ‘the public interest’, ‘the common good’ have effectively been abolished and replaced by ‘private interests’ and ‘corporate values’; cooperation and community have given way to competitive individualism; taxes, once considered a means of pooling resources to achieve common goals are now the ultimate evil to be abolished or reduced (especially at the top); hard-won social programs are eroded to make up the resultant deficit; governments are denigrated and mistrusted even as corporations elevated to special interest status. In short, the neo- conservative right has beaten the liberal left in the grand game of social construction and has managed to create an anti-social cultural narrative based on corporate values—the past generation or two, especially in the US but increasingly in Canada, are the most successfully socially-engineered generations ever to walk the planet. Regrettably, this narrative is driving the global socio-ecological crisis. It seems that a significant factor in kick-starting this neoliberal transformation was the so-called Powell Manifesto.[1] In 1971, corporate lawyer Lewis Powell wrote a memorandum to the US Chamber of Commerce in which he argued that the “American economic system is under broad attack” from many directions including “... not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic” (think ‘civil rights movement’, ‘war-resistors’, ‘environmentalist,’ ‘feminists’). Powell argued that: “Business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination—without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.” He recognized that: “Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.” According to Powell, appropriate action should include the financing of neoliberal economics departments, establishing new right-thinking think-tanks, and supporting other kinds of ‘front groups’ with a view toward reversion the tide of liberal thinking and promote corporate values in the US. While obviously not the whole story, various analysts credit Powell with helping to galvanize US business interests to undertake the social reconstruction of the nation in their own image. It is no mere coincidence that he number of corporations with public affairs offices in Washington grew from 100 in 1968 to over 500 in 1978. Similarly, while only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in Washington in 197, nearly 2,500 did by 1982. The number of corporate Political Action Committees increased from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 by mid 1980. As for think-tanks to promote corporate values, Powell’s legacy is said to include such powerful right-wing entities as: the Business Roundtable, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Manhattan Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy (precursor to Americans for Prosperity) and other various other organizations united in pushing back against political equality and shared prosperity. Many of these organizations are notably anti-science and explicit climate change deniers. It doesn’t require much analysis to see the parallels between the revolution in US politics in recent decades and the wannabe policies of the Harper Conservatives in Ottawa. The mirror imaging includes the elevation of the corporate sector to special status as the only ‘special interest group’ with obvious clout in the setting of economic, tax and social policy; the erosion of the public sector; attacks on public health care; the unraveling of the social safety net; and a pervasive anti-intellectual/anti-science attitude, including climate change denial. It seems North America has entered a new age of unreason`. Our best science has not only detected an iceberg that threatens to sink global civilization, but can describe it in exquisite detail. Yet our political leaders, captives of ideological illusion, stoke the engines of growth (regrettably cheered on by many in the steerage cabins). And like the Titanic, industrial society plunges blithely on to a certain fate.... -------------------
Posted on: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 02:37:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015