Human beings, countless neurobiological and sociological studies tell us, are generally resistant to change. Early in this millenium, humanity has already experienced astonishing change, and perhaps, it seems, too much. How to change or not to change, is that the question? Here are some thoughts..
Social change is real. Many of our institutions do not admit so much, or more likely are disinclined to admit that change is happening in spite of expostulation or dedication to old nostrums and dogma. Our overall educational and social structure, from the Courts to the schools and Universities, appear to lag the leading indicators of economic and political change elsewhere in Asia and the Middle East. How, therefore, do we preserve the best of our social structures and thought structures while engaging this radical new humanity on our doorstep? How do we handle or (dismantle) entrenched interests or incentives which preclude necessary adaptation to a fast-flowing world of ideas and events?
To be an agent for change will mean empowering others. Too many of our current fiscal and structural deficiencies, it seems to me, are products of 'wrong thinking': Even good intentions have been lost in the maelstrom of process, disjointed language, Machiavellian dishonesty and efficient thinking which is increasingly deficient as an explanatory paradigm for the new social world. By empowering others, not 'pathologising' or managing for outcomes, we liberate peoples' best selves ~ the 'better angels of our nature'.
What happened to honesty in discussion and debate? We have to be candid. To "be" in any lasting social dimension, people need to be honest about what has worked for - and within - our societies and what has not, and ask why? Has self-regulation been a panacea, is our parliamentary system sufficiently current to be representative of the populace, what is the optimal project for a multicultural community, does 'optimality' ultimately exist, do our leaders and authority-figures mean what they say, and does what they say contain actual value in the face of problems their constituents are facing? (Is constituency, by its logical identity, far too impersonal?)
How do we renegotiate our concept of work and society? In terms of a 'radical humanity', that is, going to the root or substance of the social contract, are our substantialist definitions of a career - for example, a doctor, lawyer, marketer and teacher - fully consistent with the change we see? The majority of workers, we hear, will transition several careers over the course of their "productive life" and productivity will continue into older age. Sartre, in his autobiography Words, for instance, understood the concept of work as responsibility-to-self for a committed projection of useful existence. (Today I may work as a firefighter, but that does not exhaust my potential output). After all, neg-otiare, as mediators and classicists know, stems from the root "leisure", meaning "not-at-leisure". Change will not be optional, if our societies are to prosper. So what does that mean?
How do we encourage - literally, instil confidence in leaders and followers, groups and counter-groups - a sense of responsibility toward others beyond the immediate self and family? And how do we preserve the value of family, a value which is enshrined in the Irish Constitution? When is change too much, or more felicitously put, counter-productive? What serves as our "conservatising influence", our institutional and structural steel or ballast to borrow from Sir Owen Dixon, in a world characterised by internationalisation and transnational law and sovereignty, transnational crime and trade, and evolving capital markets and cross-cultural fertilisation?
I don't have any answers. But, together, can we at least pose some questions? Over 2 U...
No comments:
Post a Comment