Horizontal Social Governance

Inspired by the following RSA presentation I have begun a new train of thought this morning. But before I introduce what could become a lengthy introduction I will let you get acquainted with the material yourself.

What I gather from this talk is that Jeremy Rifkin believes that a 3^rd industrial revolution could be on its way. Obviously this is interesting by itself, with all the perspectives on peak oil and what not, but what I find to be even more intriguing is that this perspective that power and management thus far has been vertical – top-down. And as is introduced the internet has more than proved that people are ready for a more horizontally oriented approach. Powerful search engines have made the lack of available information a thing of the past, and this could be interpreted as a sign that people are adjusting to having more influence.

As opposed to Mr. Rifken I see a wealth of possible conflicts with this emerging social paradigm of equality. A horizontally governed direct democracy, as it would be, would feature less individually oriented authority. This would make politics obsolete in a relatively short period of time, and that would be perfectly fine, if it was not for the fact that the powers that be will know this in advance of the majority, and they will try, as they have with the Occupy movement and similar groups, to turn public orientation towards an illusion that they and they alone embody democracy. Because if they do it would become obvious how counterproductive it is to diminish the institutions concerned with politics and law making.

The proof of the above claim? Look at how the media handles the rising discontent with governing institutions. They are attempting to shadow the reality of how big a portion of the globe is currently interested in making changes. While all of them do not share a unified goal for whatever change they seek, they agree on the fact that something must be done. Humans are now on a collision course with reality, as we begin to understand that razing forest after forest to compete in this global game of monopoly is unrealistic.

In closing it should be noted that the reason that we are simultaneously aware of this abyss and still moving towards it, is exactly the vertical governing installation of representative democracy. This makes for a dissonance between what we know and how fast we can make changes accordingly because every discovery in science and later in public understanding has to go through the process of persuading political figures and market shaping forces before it can be integrated properly.

Because we are a top-down species at this point, we are limited from responding optimally to emerging social problems.

Criticism

Most people today are familiar with the idea that it is easier to notice the flaws of others than the flaws of oneself. To my knowledge this is an idea originating from the teachings of Christ, which would make it a lesson from the new testament. Without needing to debate religious subjects to dig deeper, it is perfectly possible to reflect on how this has had an effect on the larger social evolution that has happened since then.

Many people revert to this mantra every time they are called out on making a mistake. Indeed it is a practise we spend considerable amounts of time on disapproving of in public. We disapprove of politicians that spend their valuable time for preaching their own mass appeal on preaching of the lack of mass appeal in their adversaries instead.

So it would be safe to assume that we have made it a cultural phenomenon to express discontent with any one flawed person or group to criticise another person or group. In this respect it becomes somewhat impossible to be honest about oneself and constructive towards others. Because by default we are all useless as critics to one another, as we are all “sinners”.

Since evolution has made us a socially dependant animal I would propose something entirely different to this approach discussed above. It is possible that we have developed in a fashion that made us superior at noticing the mistakes of others simply because we have spent so much time through history on looking outwards. At others and at society. Indeed it compliments us well in social contexts that we can function as coaches for others.

Imagine that from this instance people were better at coaching themselves than others. What would spark our drive towards mutual inspiration? How would we surpass anything previously thought of, if we were only better critics of what we had produced or proposed ourselves, rather than of the common wealth of knowledge and produce of all others?

Is it possible that this natural inclination towards outward criticism is culturally fought because if we accepted this perspective as innate, if not to our entire species then at least to our contemporary culture, we would rise towards our current potential and possibly evolve our social sphere?

Cause is mentioned here as there is conservative inclination in most social contexts to resist any change that could potentially snowball into more changes. “Controlled change” is even a phrase used by modern conservative politicians.

Ownership

What is ownership? In its most basic term it seems to imply the occupation of something by someone. This someone has since the original term was used been expanded to also include organisations and institutions such as corporations and even countries or groups of countries.

What it legally means, however, is simply that this something you have legally bought or acquired is now reserved for you by the enforcing institutions of your community. Is this just a silly overanalytic way to say that the something is yours?

No.

There is a vast difference between the idea of ownership and the actual phenomenon of ownership. You see in the idea of ownership it is possible to say that something is yours. But in the actual world nothing is really yours. It can all be taken away, if not by other people then by external elements operating outside the rule of ownership, such as your dog deciding to eat it or a tsunami washing it all away.

So what you are left with is simply this illusion backed up by real world enforcement that in the event that your something is taken away from you and still desirable for you, then you may call upon these enforcers to bring it back to you or at the very least punish the ones that took it and in some cases recieve a monetary settlement in exchange for your something. It is an illusion that only works because we are all hooked into the same feed of rules, norms and acceptable behaviour.

Just like money it only works as long as everyone operates under the same principles. As soon as someone breaks the norm and becomes a thief, then you need to bend the guiding principles of reality to incorporate enforcing parties, such as the police, to shield you from this asocial behaviour.

And just like money it is only required for society to work properly as long as everyone operates under the same principles. As soon as someone breaks the norm and becomes able to grow their own food and gather their own water from natural sources, they start breaking the need to compromise themselves as individuals to function in this game of monetary exchange.

This clash of topics will most likely raise the issue of what happens to ownership when nothing is bought or sold anymore. When money is no more.

It obviously ceases to exist as the illusion it has survived as for so long. Surely it is a requirement for society to function though?

When you think about it, it should be a perfectly viable model for adults to share rather than own. After all we are not the primates we evolved from, nor are we the child we grew up from. If you connect the reality of sharing rather than owning with the reality that our current means of production could produce an abundance of high quality items for everyone, so long as there is no need for a profit to be generated anywhere, then you will see that this idea of ownership really only serves the salesman. The buyer is left with purchasing illusions.

So this is where the closing question arises. How much do we believe in the modern social sciences proving to us that we are extremely adaptive to the rules of whatever context we apply ourselves to?

Solace

In this post a link between different ideas and perspectives on social evolution will be attempted. It is my hope that the reader will discover resonance with at least a fraction of this train of thought.

Kicking it off with this profoundly well adjusted comment on the spirit of the age we have Jiddu Krishnamurtis combination of social observation, implication and aspiration. Packed into a single sentence he manages to describe the how invalid the aeon old idea that one should strive to be well adjusted to whatever context one exists in, when the context is indeed "profoundly sick", which also sets up the following aspirations.

1. To end any adjustment to an unsustainable context. As Marthin Luther King Jr. put it: "[...] There are some things in our social system that I'm proud to be maladjusted to, and I call upon you to be maladjusted to." - source
2. To push for a change of the context.

Admitted, the second aspiration is my own addition, and it cannot rhetorically be extracted from the quote in the first picture. If you frequent this blog, however, you will know that I have sourced several scientific studies and findings indicating that we humans are socially dependant beings. Because of this it becomes the internal motivation for survival and personal improvement to improve socially. Either through a betterment of personal standing or through betterment of society, depending on the culture the individual is raised in.

Accepting this it should be obvious that maladjustment is positive only so long as the maladjusted individual nurtures hope that the social context may change for the better. To break away from a norm is to feel isolated until a sense of commonality with others is again obtained. This solace seeking is natural for gregarious animals and, as we can now agree upon, quite needed.

Everyone's favorite inventor Leonardo Da Vinci has even coined a perfect phrase for this darker side of norm-breaking inception.

Imagine being the smartest person in the world. It must be lonely there at the top. A very important realisation to acknowledge is that to be at the very top requires disregard for a wide variety of norms. The conformity to norms is a compromise. Social security in exchange for the ability to grow in whichever direction the personality would otherwise.

So do you try and inspire people to join you at the peak, or do you leave the peak and join into the community of a mountain village at a lower altitude?

This is in no way an implication of any peak position held by myself or any of the people referenced. It is simply an extreme metaphor meant to paint an obvious picture of the dilemma which keeps most people from breaking significant norms, due to the severance from social relevance associated with such a transformation of the identity.

News

Here Jason Read, with a Ph.D. in Philosophy, comments on the conservative notion of face value in society.

Dr. Read seems to think that the book is not to be judged by its cover. That the classes of society are not only what the media portray them as. Please remember that the media, from where you might have had your view on this matter skewed, are institutions that obviously do not act against the interest of their owners or share holders. And it should be obvious to most people that such owners or share holders portray not in the slightest the lower classes of society.

You see the news is not just the news. It is not everything that you need to know about a given situation that is relatively new. It is a perspective. Brought forth by the interest to sell it to you. You have to inspect news and information as you would a car being sold to you. Make sure that the model is not suitable for you because of how the salesman pitches it, but because it is what you need it for. A car is a vehicle for transportation. The news is your way of relating to contemporary society. That makes it vastly more important to inspect thoroughly when it is being sold to you.

For a broader perspective on matters somewhat related to my points, you can take a look at Dr. Read's lecture "The Social Individual" here:

Mass Media

The society of today is very proud of labelling itself the age of information. With this label it somehow draws the parallel that the inhabitants of the modern world are well informed. Why else would it be the age of information?

What it does not label itself as, although that is probably just as fitting is the age of mass neurosis and stress related diseases. Rates of illness are off the chart compared to earlier, and that is not just because fancier methods of diagnosis are now available. No it is because the tomorrow of yesterday is today. And with this leap into the future, with all the proud noise equipment people now find themselves armed with, this species has managed to create an atmosphere of constant attention seeking.

The act of seeking attention was formerly reserved by organic species, but now the more inanimate of our fellow planetary residents have joined in to this game of depriving others of their focus. Dramatic as it may appear when written down like that, is is no further from the truth than the very related fact that humans are now outnumbered by their electronic creations.

The pivotal point to make is if a correlation exists between the boom in electronic devices available and the boom in illnesses, and that has proven more difficult than someone uneducated in this field of sociology such as myself could master. The reason that I bring this up is simply to note this idea and see if it resonates on some level with any of the readers on this blog.

Another reason that I bring this up is the picture that I shared in my last post depicting quite strongly the un-individualization of the modern audience for television.

Take 1 minute and 56 seconds out of your life and prove me wrong in this: Howard Beale can paint this picture quite nicely.

And I can only say that I find myself the victim of this culture he describes. I too am guilty of succumbing to the media available to me. I frequent blogs, watch shows online, listen to podcasts and converse with friends about the newest games available.

All very much to the detriment of my creativity, as the recent lack of consistency in my posting is evidence of. And I do not believe myself to be alone in this situation.

Political Science

I hope we can agree that moral politics should be a thing of past. If that is the case then I would like to share an idea with you.

I thought to myself: How could politics become tangible so more people could get into it? A democracy, from my point of view, is something that requires people to be active. Voting every four years is a mockery of that ideal. The public should be a lot more hands on with this; their system of choice.

So what could spark this involvement?

Well perhaps transparancy and responsibility could. Why not introduce a new approach that requires all new bills and laws to refer to at least one relevant scientific study done on the subject? Politicians are paid handsomely to do their job, and I would find politics a lot more interesting for sure, if I could back track their work and see how they made the conclusions they did. If you can get into the mindset of the politicians you would be a lot more likely to want them as your representatives as well. It would indeed motivate them to be and work for the people.

Consider how much more sense new laws would make if it held a clear reference to a scientific article explaining in detail the research done on the matter. And as a database programmer I can promise you that it would be easy to make a central hub of politically used articles, so that the voting community can keep up to date with when the science is surpassed and obsolete as grounds for law making. It could be an online community of sharing information about what is new in social science. What do we know about society today?

I would log on to my voter's account every day keeping myself up to date with what is new from the politicians. Which articles are they currently reviewing, and what laws could be extracted from this work? Just like checking my online bank account. I would give my daily votes towards what articles I would like to see as basis for new laws, voting up the work of the progressive social scientists that used to be stuck in the old system where their work would be overlooked.

Example: Is the change in the law that reduces the age at which you can be jailed from 15 to 14 reasonable or not? The answer is: We do not know. What we need is research on the subject and proof before we come to a conclusion. What we also need is at least one clear referencing point for this potential law or bill, which will serve as a connecting hub for it, meaning that it is discarded and reverted to its prior state when new science emerges that disproves the old assumptions.

To me that sounds like a democratic society of the year 2012.

Feudalism

Before feudalism society was built and made by slaves. Now instead of a history lesson on that shift, I'll just move ahead to the point. Feudalism is economic slavery. Your survival was contigent upon what you were able to yield from your land. Does that sound at all familiar?

What you need to do to make economic slavery, which can in some cases be much more devious than physical slavery, seem appealing is to sell it off as an idea of liberation. Physically you are shackled no longer so go and prosper!

The age old residue of this is something that has shaped into an understanding of some ideal of independance. An ideal that is unrealistic for a species that is socially dependant almost from the moment of conception. Still it is considered to provide motivation for live improvement for people to understand themselves as responsible and self-providing.


The issues of this make themselves abundantly known in societies such as western culture where this independance ideal has gone way too far. There is no humility anywhere anymore. As soon as you reach voting age in your country you are legally considered old enough to be a part of the group in society aiming to be self-sufficient. And through the century old process that has made this ideal emerge and take hold we have completely lost sight of the fact that this has no natural basis.


Anthropologists would point out that tribal cultures show no signs of this striving towards self-sufficiency. They understand the interdependance of their culture and work to further the tribe as a whole rather than themselves as individuals. For each of them to try and accrue more riches than their neighbours would be sociocidal (the act of a person which adversely impacts upon a society or culture to a negative degree).

I did a highly relevant post to this topic called Meritocracy in which Allain De Botton details how it has a very negative reaction in society that everyone is responsible for their own position, when there is a sense of total equality socially. It was much easier to deal with not being the king of your country in the times of old, but it is near devastating for teenagers to get dropped off a pop star program today, because it is made to feel achievable.


So what does this advanced stage of feudalism we live in really entail for us?