July 4, 2022 Two entries today. The first is about making the world a better place. The second is about two of my favorite words (spolier alert: also, partly).
I think that in addition to multidimensionality of issues, one should address the level of analysis of an issue. Some levels may be less mutable. For example, certain experiences may have large effects on neural structures which may be less mutable and thus more formative in an individual. Also(!!!) as Michael implicitly suggested, goals have some effect on a system's behavior. Behavior is not random. And given the complexity of issues, people, environments, knowing what the current goal of the system is may help sort through some of the endless possibilities for behavior.
Interesting points! I would refer to dimensions rather than levels, but your point remains. Yes, different dimensions are structured in different ways and are dynamic in different ways.
For goals, there can be multiple types of goals, including along an implicit to explicit continuum. And within human systems, different humans who play roles in a system may have different, as well as common goals.
This is great stuff. I was very moved by the reference to the documentary in which victims meet perpetrators. I am always so deeply humbled by such stories -- when victims and perpetrators are able to see that they are both human, they can sometimes forgive. I can't imagine something more difficult.
I was also taken by the idea that diversity can cause divisiveness. This is very true. The concept of multiculturalism is a noble one. But we forget, I think, that multiculturalism is about diversity within unity. We tend to focus on the diversity part, but not the unity part. We tend to think that "if we only had tolerance for one another" then we could have peaceful diversity. Tolerance is necessary, but not sufficient. Within diversity comes conflict. Without a mechanism to coordinate differences and/or resolve conflict, diversity can descend into divisiveness.
We tend to pursue diversity for diversity's sake, under the presupposition that diversity is good unto itself. It is not. Diversity is a means to an end. In evolution, diversity leads to natural selection and the evolution of novel forms. In debates, diversity leads to the proliferation of ideas and thus to the construction of new and better ones. In society, if people interact and coordinate with each other, diversity can lead to a better society. In each case, diversity is not the end; it is a means toward a larger or greater end. We don't focus on those ends enough.
Then is the greater end a society in which everyone agrees to work together toward common goals? If so, then once we achieve that, will there no longer be diversity? There are so many different types of diversity, as Catherine pointed out, cultural, social, physical, environmental, religious. Some of them are more compatible than others. It seems, though, that people would just rather live with people who look, think, and act just like they do. They don't really want different ideas or ways of looking at things. That's why they like to talk about diversity in the abstract, like to sing it's praises, but then they don't really want to embrace the differences and figure out commonalities.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I'm glad you think it's great stuff!
Yes, it is important to think about why we value and want diversity. It can lead to good ends. But maybe sometimes it can be an end in itself. I have to ponder that for a while.
Feel free to respond to Anne Raeff's comment about how to forge or create common ground.
I think that many of us know that the reasons for why people believe or think what they think are complex and that our differences have to do with so many different things. Can you give us some ideas about how we can use this knowledge once we have it to forge compromises or how we can bridge these differences? For example, how can we bridge the huge divide between the pro choice and the anti-abortion way of thinking? I have been reading many articles about who the anti-abortion people are, where they are coming from and the diversity among them. I understand why they think what they think and where they are coming from, but that doesn't lead to a solution about this issue. It doesn't help us figure out how to reconcile two very different concepts of what freedom means. How do we create systems that can encompass such a wide range of beliefs and values?
I think we would have to get together with some people who are anti-abortion. Everyone would have to be willing to engage with each other to forge common ground. There are programs that try to achieve that. This one started with bringing pro-life and pro-choice people together https://whatisessential.org/history And there is https://www.creatingcommonground.org/ which is just starting.
I read Michael's article "We Need to Move Beyond the Morality of Me" with interest. I agree that engagement and community are essential, but as long as capitalism rules unquestioned, as long as accumulating capital is the goal, I think it will be very difficult to get diverse parties to cooperate and engage. Everyone is too busy pursuing wealth or struggling to survive in a system that has little compassion, in which compassion contradicts the main purpose of the accumulation of wealth.
The question of capitalism, I think, is a complex one.
Two things.
First, the main problem, in my view, right now is, well, big corporations. We are an oligarchy. And these big businesses have undue influence. We have had this problem in the past -- and they were addressed by breaking up monopolies. Not easy given the current climate, but possible. We have to appeal to the middle in order to make this happen.
Second, about getting rid of capitalism. We tend to think that the issue is a choice between capitalism and socialism. (Of course, socialism is defined in many different ways, which makes the discussion hard.) Do we have capitalism now? Well, government routinely bails out big businesses in the boom and bust cycle. So, we certainly don't have free market capitalism. Chomsky suggests that we have State Capitalism -- again, something that may be able to be dealt with by breaking up Big Businesses.
What is the alternative to capitalism? I suggest that we refrain from thinking that the alternative is "socialism". That fixes the alternative. Economic history has moved from hunter-gatherer --> agricultural --> feudalism --> capitalism. Capitalism is better than feudalism, but not better than what might come after it. The problem is that we don't know what can come after capitalism! Whatever it is, it will build on capitalism, just as the previous isms became transformed out of earlier forms. My point is that in the US, in a battle between capitalism and socialism, what we will get is, well, a battle. Let's leave the future open-ended work toward something better. We don't know what it can be -- but history says that new structures evolve out of old ones. So let's identify the contradictions of capitalism and work to resolve them, without specifying the outcome beforehand.
I agree that we should identify the problems within capitalism and work to resolve them, but I do think we need to have ideas about what to replace these systems with. Progressives today are stuck in the identifying and criticizing mode, but there isn't much action.
I agree that we have to get away from this dichotomy of Capitalism versus Socialism, and I don't think that socialism in the Marxist sense is what we should aim for, but we can take from those ideas as well as ideas from indigenous and smaller societies. I think we have a lot to learn from them, especially when it comes to the environment.
In what we call history, the transformations that you mention don't just happen. Human beings create change, and change is almost always accompanied by violence and upheaval. How can this be avoided? That is a big question. The movement from feudalism to capitalism, was extremely violent and at the expense of the majority of humankind, especially those in what we call the Global South. In Europe there was the Plague and then centuries of war. Along with capitalism came the genocide of indigenous people, the enslavement of millions of Africans, the destruction of the natural world, climate change, etc.
I think that viewing history in Marxist terms is useful but also it's not the complete picture because it is a Eurocentric view. Perhaps capitalism has been better than feudalism for Europeans and those of European descent, but, viewing history in a Western, linear way in terms of "progress" might not be the answer.
This is a great discussion! It is interesting how we can go off in so many directions from one newsletter.
I agree that we should identify capitalism's problems, along with its contradictions. Problems and contradictions are distinct, yet undoubtedly connected issues here. The same goes for socialism. What are some its problems? But what are some of its advantages that we can draw on, along with indigenous and other economic models?
I like the idea of not specifying an exact outcome, but some ideas about what reforming capitalism would look like are needed as a starting point. People may not come to the table with the same ideas about goals and expectations for the global economic future, but it would be a place to start. If we want to develop beyond capitalism and insofar as development implies progress toward some goals, then some ideas about goals and expectations are in order. We are not suggesting reforming capitalism just for the sake of changing it, but because we think there are problems. And those problems include that in its current incarnation, capitalism--or state capitalism, or the dominance of corporations--is not in line with some goals and values (e.g., compassion, equity, not exploiting people, not making shareholder dividends the top priority).
The end of capitalism is not imminent. So, what do we do to change it in ways that are more compassionate and equitable and non-exploitative? How do we reduce or even erradicate our own complicity in global capitalism?
Also, maybe we have to start locally. People live local lives--in sub-systems of wider systems. Maybe it is in the direct interactions among people that they can start to forge some common ground, and that can affect other sub-systems and wider systems. It would be trickle up and out, rather than down.
There are no easy or quick or straightforward solutions. Maybe other readers have some ideas???
Indeed -- trickle up and out! I like that. This is an example -- however abstract -- of open-ended dialectical thinking. New systems are transformed out of old ones. New systems self-organize as a result of the contradictions of existing systems. We have to work together to tweak the systems to see what open-ended something that we can build that is better.
I think that in addition to multidimensionality of issues, one should address the level of analysis of an issue. Some levels may be less mutable. For example, certain experiences may have large effects on neural structures which may be less mutable and thus more formative in an individual. Also(!!!) as Michael implicitly suggested, goals have some effect on a system's behavior. Behavior is not random. And given the complexity of issues, people, environments, knowing what the current goal of the system is may help sort through some of the endless possibilities for behavior.
Interesting points! I would refer to dimensions rather than levels, but your point remains. Yes, different dimensions are structured in different ways and are dynamic in different ways.
For goals, there can be multiple types of goals, including along an implicit to explicit continuum. And within human systems, different humans who play roles in a system may have different, as well as common goals.
This is great stuff. I was very moved by the reference to the documentary in which victims meet perpetrators. I am always so deeply humbled by such stories -- when victims and perpetrators are able to see that they are both human, they can sometimes forgive. I can't imagine something more difficult.
I was also taken by the idea that diversity can cause divisiveness. This is very true. The concept of multiculturalism is a noble one. But we forget, I think, that multiculturalism is about diversity within unity. We tend to focus on the diversity part, but not the unity part. We tend to think that "if we only had tolerance for one another" then we could have peaceful diversity. Tolerance is necessary, but not sufficient. Within diversity comes conflict. Without a mechanism to coordinate differences and/or resolve conflict, diversity can descend into divisiveness.
We tend to pursue diversity for diversity's sake, under the presupposition that diversity is good unto itself. It is not. Diversity is a means to an end. In evolution, diversity leads to natural selection and the evolution of novel forms. In debates, diversity leads to the proliferation of ideas and thus to the construction of new and better ones. In society, if people interact and coordinate with each other, diversity can lead to a better society. In each case, diversity is not the end; it is a means toward a larger or greater end. We don't focus on those ends enough.
Then is the greater end a society in which everyone agrees to work together toward common goals? If so, then once we achieve that, will there no longer be diversity? There are so many different types of diversity, as Catherine pointed out, cultural, social, physical, environmental, religious. Some of them are more compatible than others. It seems, though, that people would just rather live with people who look, think, and act just like they do. They don't really want different ideas or ways of looking at things. That's why they like to talk about diversity in the abstract, like to sing it's praises, but then they don't really want to embrace the differences and figure out commonalities.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I'm glad you think it's great stuff!
Yes, it is important to think about why we value and want diversity. It can lead to good ends. But maybe sometimes it can be an end in itself. I have to ponder that for a while.
Feel free to respond to Anne Raeff's comment about how to forge or create common ground.
I think that many of us know that the reasons for why people believe or think what they think are complex and that our differences have to do with so many different things. Can you give us some ideas about how we can use this knowledge once we have it to forge compromises or how we can bridge these differences? For example, how can we bridge the huge divide between the pro choice and the anti-abortion way of thinking? I have been reading many articles about who the anti-abortion people are, where they are coming from and the diversity among them. I understand why they think what they think and where they are coming from, but that doesn't lead to a solution about this issue. It doesn't help us figure out how to reconcile two very different concepts of what freedom means. How do we create systems that can encompass such a wide range of beliefs and values?
I think we would have to get together with some people who are anti-abortion. Everyone would have to be willing to engage with each other to forge common ground. There are programs that try to achieve that. This one started with bringing pro-life and pro-choice people together https://whatisessential.org/history And there is https://www.creatingcommonground.org/ which is just starting.
I read Michael's article "We Need to Move Beyond the Morality of Me" with interest. I agree that engagement and community are essential, but as long as capitalism rules unquestioned, as long as accumulating capital is the goal, I think it will be very difficult to get diverse parties to cooperate and engage. Everyone is too busy pursuing wealth or struggling to survive in a system that has little compassion, in which compassion contradicts the main purpose of the accumulation of wealth.
The question of capitalism, I think, is a complex one.
Two things.
First, the main problem, in my view, right now is, well, big corporations. We are an oligarchy. And these big businesses have undue influence. We have had this problem in the past -- and they were addressed by breaking up monopolies. Not easy given the current climate, but possible. We have to appeal to the middle in order to make this happen.
Second, about getting rid of capitalism. We tend to think that the issue is a choice between capitalism and socialism. (Of course, socialism is defined in many different ways, which makes the discussion hard.) Do we have capitalism now? Well, government routinely bails out big businesses in the boom and bust cycle. So, we certainly don't have free market capitalism. Chomsky suggests that we have State Capitalism -- again, something that may be able to be dealt with by breaking up Big Businesses.
What is the alternative to capitalism? I suggest that we refrain from thinking that the alternative is "socialism". That fixes the alternative. Economic history has moved from hunter-gatherer --> agricultural --> feudalism --> capitalism. Capitalism is better than feudalism, but not better than what might come after it. The problem is that we don't know what can come after capitalism! Whatever it is, it will build on capitalism, just as the previous isms became transformed out of earlier forms. My point is that in the US, in a battle between capitalism and socialism, what we will get is, well, a battle. Let's leave the future open-ended work toward something better. We don't know what it can be -- but history says that new structures evolve out of old ones. So let's identify the contradictions of capitalism and work to resolve them, without specifying the outcome beforehand.
I agree that we should identify the problems within capitalism and work to resolve them, but I do think we need to have ideas about what to replace these systems with. Progressives today are stuck in the identifying and criticizing mode, but there isn't much action.
I agree that we have to get away from this dichotomy of Capitalism versus Socialism, and I don't think that socialism in the Marxist sense is what we should aim for, but we can take from those ideas as well as ideas from indigenous and smaller societies. I think we have a lot to learn from them, especially when it comes to the environment.
In what we call history, the transformations that you mention don't just happen. Human beings create change, and change is almost always accompanied by violence and upheaval. How can this be avoided? That is a big question. The movement from feudalism to capitalism, was extremely violent and at the expense of the majority of humankind, especially those in what we call the Global South. In Europe there was the Plague and then centuries of war. Along with capitalism came the genocide of indigenous people, the enslavement of millions of Africans, the destruction of the natural world, climate change, etc.
I think that viewing history in Marxist terms is useful but also it's not the complete picture because it is a Eurocentric view. Perhaps capitalism has been better than feudalism for Europeans and those of European descent, but, viewing history in a Western, linear way in terms of "progress" might not be the answer.
This is a great discussion! It is interesting how we can go off in so many directions from one newsletter.
I agree that we should identify capitalism's problems, along with its contradictions. Problems and contradictions are distinct, yet undoubtedly connected issues here. The same goes for socialism. What are some its problems? But what are some of its advantages that we can draw on, along with indigenous and other economic models?
I like the idea of not specifying an exact outcome, but some ideas about what reforming capitalism would look like are needed as a starting point. People may not come to the table with the same ideas about goals and expectations for the global economic future, but it would be a place to start. If we want to develop beyond capitalism and insofar as development implies progress toward some goals, then some ideas about goals and expectations are in order. We are not suggesting reforming capitalism just for the sake of changing it, but because we think there are problems. And those problems include that in its current incarnation, capitalism--or state capitalism, or the dominance of corporations--is not in line with some goals and values (e.g., compassion, equity, not exploiting people, not making shareholder dividends the top priority).
And this happily relevant article is in today's New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/18/magazine/herman-daly-interview.html
The end of capitalism is not imminent. So, what do we do to change it in ways that are more compassionate and equitable and non-exploitative? How do we reduce or even erradicate our own complicity in global capitalism?
Also, maybe we have to start locally. People live local lives--in sub-systems of wider systems. Maybe it is in the direct interactions among people that they can start to forge some common ground, and that can affect other sub-systems and wider systems. It would be trickle up and out, rather than down.
There are no easy or quick or straightforward solutions. Maybe other readers have some ideas???
Indeed -- trickle up and out! I like that. This is an example -- however abstract -- of open-ended dialectical thinking. New systems are transformed out of old ones. New systems self-organize as a result of the contradictions of existing systems. We have to work together to tweak the systems to see what open-ended something that we can build that is better.