Power of Imagination

The trip to the MSU Libraries new book shelf earlier this week brought me in contact with five titles that escorted me home. I picked up a new book from Mary Midgley, a 94 year old British moral philosopher, Are You an Illusion?


"Midgley argues powerfully and persuasively that the rich variety of our imaginative life cannot be contained in the narrow bounds of a highly puritanical materialism that simply equates brain and self." [from the blurb on the back cover]. After reading the intro, I decided this was more dense than I was ready for at the moment.

Slovenian  political scientist Ziga Vodovnik's A Living Spirit of Revolt: The Infrapolitics of Anarchism jumped out at me in part from a quote on the cover

 
 from the forward by Howard Zinn, "It is time to breathe some clean, refreshing air into the stale, nonsense-filled discussions of anarchism which have occupied the attention of people on all sides of the political spectrum -  right, left and center. This is what Ziga Vodovnik sets out to do in his original and imaginative analysis of anarchism." This one I will at least read the intro in the coming weeks to see if the author clearly conveys some new insights that I want to chew on. I read in my early college years a fair amount on the development of anarchistic thought, and found much that resonated with me. Will this reignite any of that?





Next up was a posthumously published collection of essays and talks from Colin Ward entitled Talking Green. 
 

Ward died in 2010 at age 85 after a long career as public intellectual engaged with urban and education issues. Another anarchist thinker it turns out whose name I have run across many times without ever really reading any of his work. I assume I'll consume a few of these brief essays/talks in the coming weeks.

Introduction to Nonviolence by York University political scientist, Ramin Jahabegloo caught my eye because of the title.

 
I've read a great deal on this topic over the past 45 years in trying to more deeply appreciate and understand the possibilities of nonviolence. Of particular interest will be his specific analysis of nonviolence in relation to major religions of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism.

But it is the fifth title that has captivated me the past few mornings. Richard Falk's (Re)Imagining Humane Global Governance.



It was only  six weeks ago that I blogged and made reference to an article by Falk that I called A MUST READ. In it Falk's shares briefly his notion of "citizen pilgrims", which he delves more into in this book.

     "I have favored an orientation toward citizenship that is animated by time as well as space, regarding the primary role of citizen to be working toward and embodying a sustainable and just future, a work in progress specified as 'humane global governance'. I call this kind of citizen 'a citizen pilgrim', conceiving of pilgrimage as a journey to a desired re-creation of global governance that may or may not be attainable within the course of a lifetime. Of course, there is no defining telos for the citizen pilgrim, as each horizon of aspiration reached will generate a new horizon and start from a different  point of departure. This commitment to re-creation of governance implies an understanding of 'the political' in the sense of deployed by Sheldon Wolin as 'the commitment to finding the common good'. (p.48)

There is so much to sink one's teeth into in this book. Falk's larger vision of international relations and his own self-discovery over many decades of  scholarship and activity are inspiring. The 83 year old professor emeritus of international law at Princeton, has been the UN's Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories. His experience in international relations as well as his sense of  long-term possibilities aligns closely with what we think of as 'sustainability' thinking. His writing evokes what British educator Richard Barnett discusses in his work about Imagining the University, of which I have blogged about several times in the past year in use of language a round 'imagining', 'feasible', and a democratic ethos of exploring what might be possible.

This is one of the well footnoted books that has me constantly expanding my reading list. a perfect example is his quote above to a work by Sheldon Wolin , Democracy Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (2008) Princeton University Press.

 
That scholars like Falk can pull together diverse scholarship, encapsulate it into a coherent whole is such a gift, and there is so much of this good work in so many fields. I doubt if there are any two people alive or dead who have the exact same reading journey. This diversity of intellectual paths stimulates cross-pollination and the idea of what humanity might do together seems therefore to make what seemed impossible, possible.

A Primer on Global Economic Sharing

This it the title of a recent 44 page report that offers an important focal point/ethos for dealing with the myriad challenges that flood the human family from  Share the World's Resources.





 Perhaps the follow intro to that report might pique the interest of readers of this blog.

  

Humanity is in the midst of a global emergency. The policies that drive the world economy have magnified the gap between rich and poor, led to conflict over the planet’s natural resources, and

resulted in an ecological crisis that threatens life on earth. We urgently need to move beyond the restrictive political and economic ideologies of the past and embrace solutions that meet the common needs of people in all nations - which will be impossible to achieve without some degree of economic sharing both within and between countries. In an increasingly unequal and unsustainable world in which all governments need to drastically re-order their priorities, a call for economic sharing embodies the need for justice, human rights and sound environmental stewardship to guide policy making at every level of society.

This report gives a concise introduction to the principle of sharing in relation to the interconnected global crises we face, and makes a simple case for how the world’s wealth, power and resources can be shared more equitably and sustainably. 

Part 1 introduces the political economy of sharing, and highlights the many broad and diverse expressions of sharing throughout the world. As these examples demonstrate, sharing has long been central to human civilisation and integral to the healthy functioning of societies. But as systems of sharing are being increasingly undermined, it is critical that we support and scale up the process of sharing within nations and internationally.

 

Part 2 outlines how humanity’s continued failure to share is largely responsible for creating what can only be described as a global emergency. This includes the growing tragedy of poverty amidst plenty, the climate and ecological crisis in all its dimensions, and the intensifying conflict over the world’s finite natural resources. Altogether, this leaves the international community with one remaining option: to finally place sharing, cooperation and ecological preservation at the forefront of policy making and global governance. 

 

Part 3 proposes an alternative approach to managing the world’s resources based upon economic sharing and international cooperation. This process must begin with an unprecedented programme of humanitarian relief to prevent life-threatening deprivation and needless poverty-related deaths as a foremost priority, followed by a major restructuring of the global economy to address the structural causes of our present social, political, economic and environmental crises. 

As the conclusion of this report makes clear, we cannot wait for governments to rethink the management of an economic system built upon massive inequality, unsustainable consumption and competition over scarce resources. Given the entrenched vested interests and structural barriers that obstruct progress, the hope for a better world rests with the participation of the global public in a call for reform that extends beyond national borders. Hence it is imperative that millions more people recognise what is at stake and take the lead as proponents for change – a solution to the world’s problems depends on our united demand for a just, sustainable and peaceful future.

 

As author Charles Eisenstein argues forcefully and with much evidence,in his most recent book, The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible, we have been living in a myth of separation. As both the emerging biology, physics, and psychology are informing us, we are more interdependent than we have formerly believed. Understanding this reality, should force us to reconsider the approaches we are using in our underlying economic and political systems. Arming everyone to the teeth provokes the us/them fantasy that has been unraveling both our ecological and social fabric. Perhaps this primer and Eisenstein's keen insights can shift our thinking not only about what we need to do, but what is actually possible.

That's my hope after ingesting these ideas recently.

 

Humanity is in the midst of a global emergency. The policies that drive the world economy have magnified the gap between rich and poor, led to conflict over the planet’s natural resources, and resulted in an ecological crisis that threatens life on earth.

We urgently need to move beyond the restrictive political and economic ideologies of the past and embrace solutions that meet the common needs of people in all nations - which will be impossible to achieve without some degree of economic sharing both within and between countries. In an increasingly unequal and unsustainable world in which all governments need to drastically re-order their priorities, a call for economic sharing embodies the need for justice, human rights and sound environmental stewardship to guide policymaking at every level of society.
This report gives a concise introduction to the principle of sharing in relation to the interconnected global crises we face, and makes a simple case for how the world’s wealth, power and resources can be shared more equitably and sustainably.
Part 1 introduces the political economy of sharing, and highlights the many broad and diverse expressions of sharing throughout the world. As these examples demonstrate, sharing has long been central to human civilisation and integral to the healthy functioning of societies. But as systems of sharing are being increasingly undermined, it is critical that we support and scale up the process of sharing within nations and internationally.
- See more at: http://www.sharing.org/information-centre/reports/primer-global-economic-sharing?dm_i=M4P,2JW4Z,BC9H3V,9B5RB,1#sthash.ZklMJVGU.dpuf

Humanity is in the midst of a global emergency. The policies that drive the world economy have magnified the gap between rich and poor, led to conflict over the planet’s natural resources, and resulted in an ecological crisis that threatens life on earth.

We urgently need to move beyond the restrictive political and economic ideologies of the past and embrace solutions that meet the common needs of people in all nations - which will be impossible to achieve without some degree of economic sharing both within and between countries. In an increasingly unequal and unsustainable world in which all governments need to drastically re-order their priorities, a call for economic sharing embodies the need for justice, human rights and sound environmental stewardship to guide policymaking at every level of society.
This report gives a concise introduction to the principle of sharing in relation to the interconnected global crises we face, and makes a simple case for how the world’s wealth, power and resources can be shared more equitably and sustainably.
Part 1 introduces the political economy of sharing, and highlights the many broad and diverse expressions of sharing throughout the world. As these examples demonstrate, sharing has long been central to human civilisation and integral to the healthy functioning of societies. But as systems of sharing are being increasingly undermined, it is critical that we support and scale up the process of sharing within nations and internationally.
- See more at: http://www.sharing.org/information-centre/reports/primer-global-economic-sharing?dm_i=M4P,2JW4Z,BC9H3V,9B5RB,1#sthash.ZklMJVGU.dpuf

Abolition of War - What Are We Waiting For?

     You will say at once that although the abolition of war has been the dream of man for centuries, every proposition to that end has been promptly discarded as impossible and fantastic. Every cynic, every pessimist, every adventurer, every swashbuckler in the world has always disclaimed its feasibility. But that was before the science of the past decade made mass destruction a reality. The argument then was along spiritual and moral grounds, and lost....But now the tremendous and present evolution of nuclear and other potentials of destruction has suddenly taken the problem away from its primary consideration as a moral and spiritual question and brought it abreast of scientific realism. It is no longer an ethical question to bee pondered solely by learned philosophers and ecclesiastics but a hard core one for the decision of the masses whose survival is at stake....The leaders are laggards....Never do they state the bald truth, that the next great advance in civilization cannot take place until war is abolished....When will some great figure in power have sufficient imagination to translate this universal wish -- which is rapidly becoming a universal necessity -- into actuality> We are in a new era. The old methods and solutions no longer suffice. We must have new thoughts, new ideas, new concepts....We must break out of the strait-jacket of the past. [Douglas MacArthur, 1955 in a speech given to the American Legion as quoted in  Glenn Paige's Nonkilling Global Political Science, p.156]

     Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. [President Eisenhower, 1953]

During one of my final days as a librarian combing the stacks of our political science collection for possible pruning I came upon a very slim volume (56pp) written in 1969 by Frederick L. Schuman, Woodrow Wilson Professor of Government, Emeritus Williams College and Professor of Political Science at Portland State University, entitled simply, Why a Department of Peace? I was intrigued because in my ignorance I thought that Dennis Kucinich was the torchbearer of such a concept. But Schuman's research made it clear that much earlier attempts have been made.

Senator Alexander Wiley spoke on the Senate floor calling for such a department in 1943. But actually as early as 1790 there was a proposal calling for such by either Benjamin Banneker or Benjamin Rush. But as anyone with a pulse clearly knows, we don't have such an interest in a Department of Peace, preferring instead a Department of Defense, formerly the Department of War. Actual legislation has been introduced into Congress many times since the 1930s. Never has it had a serious hearing. Why?????

Thorsten Veblen offered this cogent response in his 1919 Inquiry into the Nature of Peace

     Any politician who succeeds in embroiling his country in a war, however nefarious, becomes a popular hero and is reputed a wise and righteous statesman, at least for the time being. Illustrative instances need perhaps not, and indeed cannot gracefully, be named; most popular heroes and reputed statesmen belong in this class....Since the ethical values involved in any given international contest are substantially of the nature of after-thought or accessory, they may safely be left on one side in any endeavor to understand or account for any given outbreak of hostilities.     
        The moral indignation of both parties to the quarrel is to be taken for granted, as being the statesman's chief and necessary ways and means of bringing any war-like enterprise to a head and floating it to a creditable finish. It is a precipitate of the partisan animosity that inspires both parties and holds them to their duty of self-sacrifice and devastation, and at its best will chiefly serve as a cloak of self-righteousness to extenuate any exceptionally profligate excursions in the conduct of hostilities.

Once again there has been legislation introduced to create a Department of Peace[building]. It gets no press and there will likely be no hearing that might give it serious consideration. Meanwhile, our legislators outbid each other to fund war.
 
This short two-minute animation recently put together with Nobel Peace Laureate, Jody Williams, might be the tonic we need to push that along. Write or call your legislators. Demand hearings on H.R. 808.

We'll never abolish war if we don't join together to force our governments to seriously study peace.

    

Taxes Are The Dues For Living in a Democracy

I have been fortunate to over the past few mornings to note the period between extreme stillness in the rural countryside I live in with the first voices of the birds. Each day here in EDT the arrival of the sounds of morning arrive between 5:00-5:10 a.m. If you want to know Why Birds Sing in the Morning, there is a wonderful story from Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame that you should know and share with your children or grandchildren, or heck, any living breathing being. This story was one of my favorites, as well as for the many hundreds of school kids I was able to share it with, from his first book for children, Fairy Tales, that we bought for our daughter Alex when she was a toddler. The early edition was accompanied with wonderful water color images from Michael Foreman.

But I digress. After a few minutes of enjoying the conversations of the ornithological world outside my window, I arose to my early morning reading ritual with a fresh cup of coffee. Today's entree was a truly juicy piece of analysis and proposed remedies of our tax system released just a week ago by Nobel recognized economist Joseph Stiglitz. I can't recommend this 28 page White Paper, Reforming Taxation to Promote Growth and Equity  published by the Roosevelt Institute highly enough.

 

Stiglitz doesn't confound us citizens with difficult econometrics, although there are 70 footnotes for those that want to go deeper, but instead cuts to the chase with little jargon.

In the paper he does a quick review of the current U.S. economic situation. A quick example of his erudite and cogent analysis -

     It is important to dispel a misunderstanding that one often hears from advocates of lower taxes for the rich and corporations, which contends that the rich are the job producers, and anything that reduces their income will reduce their ability and incentive to create jobs. First, at the current time, it is not the lack of funds that is holding back investment. It is not even weak and dysfunction financial sector. America's large corporations are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash. What is holding back investment, especially for large corporations, is lack of demand for their products. If there were demand, firms would respond, as they always have, even when tax rates were far, far higher than they are now (as they were until 1980). It is demand that creates jobs, and it is our current system's high level of inequality that accordingly is destroying jobs.(p.6)

But Stiglitz isn't writing simply to critique or analyze our economic pulse. He is offering a holistic, concise package of tax reform proposals, that would benefit the common good, including reducing the environmental degradation our current economic system disregards. In this he addresses conservative concerns while touching on issues of deficits, balanced budgets, corporate income tax, corporate welfare, financial transaction taxes, tax havens, carbon tax, fair tax, tax loopholes, inheritance taxes, etc.

He sees these issues as tied together and thus  tax reform must be a whole package. His bottom line is simple:

        As we have repeatedly said, tax reform is not an end in itself. Nor is the object of tax reform just to raise more money to reduce the deficit. The objective of tax reform is to create a more efficient tax system, which simultaneously advances a variety of societal goals: higher employment and growth, a better distribution of income, and less environmental degradation. (p.26)

Who can't support that!! I recommend we each make sure every candidate for elective office gets, reads, and responds to Stiglitz' ideas. This is a serious discussion worth having across political lines and Stiglitz has provided a platform for that discussion.

Our Fixation on Measurement

          To measure the unmeasurable is absurd and constitutes but an elaborate method of moving   from preconceived notions to foregone conclusions. The logical absurdity, however, is not the greatest fault of the undertaking: what is worse, and destructive of civilization, is the pretence that everything has a price or, in other words, that money is the highest of all values.

           (E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered, 1973 cited in Lorenzo Fioramonti, How Numbers Rule the World: The Use and Abuse of Statistics in Global Politics, 2014 p.104)

 

As I have sauntered over the past few weeks between  Fioramonti, Kathryn Schulz’s compelling, deep, and light-hearted Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margins of Error, 2010;

Michael Lewis and Pat Conaty’s The Resilience Imperative: Cooperative Transitions to a Steady-State Economy, 2012;

 

and David Selby’s lengthy essay “Degrees of Denial: As Global Heating Happens Should We Be Educating for Sustainable Development or Sustainable Contraction” in Talking Truth, Confronting Power (2008) a deepening resonance with Schumacher’s insight above is palpable.

The capture of the currency of conversation by the market across the whole spectrum of our lives is suffocating our  ability to find our way out of our evolving challenges. Each of these tomes offers a glimpse, I think, of a way out. Note I say, "a" way, not "the" way. Reading Schulz's narrative is a humbling exercise in learning how easily and frequently we are wrong, and our many techniques for pretending we are not. I suspect this humbling is a prerequisite for making our way forward into a desirable and sustainable common future.

Lewis and Conaty offer up a litany of possibilities taken from communities creating them in place small and large from across our globe that might just lead us to that desirable and sustainable future. The emphasis is on the local/community level responses.

     

     The world seems to be looking for the big solution, which is itself part of the problem, since the most effective solutions are both local and systemic. (Paul Hawken, Blessed Unrest)

Maslow once quipped, "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." This seems to be Fioramonti's aim in critiquing the infusion of numbers into everything in our lives as if to provide us with some certainty, in our daily lives that Schulz's unmasks as a pipe dream. Fioramonti does this most persuasively in his review of the rise of credit reporting agencies and their impact on our global lives.

I remember doing a similar skewing [radio commentary] of the incessant reporting of stock market prices over a decade ago and how that regurgitation frames how we think and measure up. The corporatization of higher education, the movement of sport into profit centers at all levels seems to me to be just further examples of this escalator to an abyss of lost meaning of what it means to be human within a larger community of life.

      Numbers, albeit critical to human progress, are double-edged swords, which can surreptitiously reduce the complexity of social phenomena and ultimately lead us in the wrong direction. Just like ta conscientious mother would never reduce her role to that summarized in an algorithm, we should not expect governance systems to be automatically driven by econometric models. Governance is a public good, Not only our future as human beings but that of the whole planet depends on our commitment to governance, in all of its ramifications, from global to the local level. The more the public sphere retracts under the increasing pressure of market rationalism, the more we lose the capacity to regain control over our democratic institutions. More dangerously, as market mechanisms crowd out other forms of social interaction, we extirpate alternative forms of socialization. As they cannot be measured in conventional terms, gift economies, community-based reciprocity schemes and other types of informal dynamics tend to disappear under the pressure of formal market structures.In this process we are losing not only entire communities and ecosystems, but also millennia of knowledge.
     ...This is why the public sphere is so important. All those soft elements of social life, from mutual respect to solidarity, which systematically escape our obsession with measurement, are ultimately much more important than what is integrated into the numerical models  are driving contemporary governance. True, participation can be a painful experience. The process of interacting, debating, compromising and deliberating can be tedious and frustrating. Yet, we have no other way. We are social animals and life in a profoundly interconnected world. As remarked by Raj Patel, the solution will not come from market society but from 'the liberty of living together and engaging in the democratic politics that will help us value our common future." Numbers will not save us. We need to do it ourselves. (Fioramonti, pp.212-13)