Lifelong learning is indispensable because no one can reach the point where there is nothing more to know or understand. Learning is an on-going journey where we continuously discover more ways to dispel myths and misconceptions, and find new ideas and insights to improve the way we live.
But this quest is made all the more difficult because, at one end of the political spectrum, there are people who want to see all thoughts frozen at just where they would like them to be. For the sake of traditions, stability, prosperity, or any other totem they can point to, they consider critical exploration of prevailing beliefs and institutions as unhelpful, perhaps even dangerous. Education for them is all about passive acceptance of pre-fabricated ‘facts’.
At the opposite end we have those who are not so much interested in learning as in revelling in a state of permanent iconoclasm. They dismiss every idea as untenable. They reject every attempt to share knowledge as indoctrination. For them, the excitement of fermenting ‘anything-goes’ chaos outweighs all drawbacks of ignorance and irrationality. Any form of teaching, except their own, is to be shunned as authoritarian.
To steer through these two extremes we need to follow the path of didactic experimentalism. What is to be believed should not be fixed at some arbitrary point, nor randomly denied for no good reason. Our views on nature and society ought to be adjusted in the light of informed experimentation that sifts out errors over time and builds on findings that add clarity and coherence to our shared understanding.
One may assume that this is the natural path people would take, but history tells us differently. For thousands of years down to the early 17th century, the Chinese philosopher, Mo Tze (5th century BC), stood out as one of the few thinkers in pre-modern times to have advocated the experimentalist approach – linking his teachings and proposals to what best met the test of experience. Even now, his ideas are eclipsed by the traditionalist Confucians and the ‘free-for-all’ Taoists.
In the 17th century, even as Francis Bacon was mapping out how experimentalist learning could lead to the incremental advancement of testable and revisable knowledge, it was the rise of ‘we’ll give you certainty-for-all-time’ infallibilism and ‘I doubt there’s-any-truth-to-be-learnt’ scepticism that stole the limelight. Bacon’s contributions have remained overlooked in educational and general history alike.
And despite the depth and breadth of the experimentalist teachings put forward by 19th/20th century thinkers such as J. S. Mill and John Dewey, all too many conservative-minded education funders and policy makers still regard those ideas as unsuited to the steady ‘transmission’ of knowledge, while there are radicals who distrust them for not throwing everything overboard.
Perhaps extremes will always carry a forceful appeal. But for all their uncompromising stance and flamboyant postures, they lead to a dead-end. When it comes to learning to improve our understanding of the world and how it can be made better, progress is more likely if we follow the trail blazed by the experimentalist pioneers.
Monday, 15 September 2014
Monday, 1 September 2014
Keeping Democracy On Its Toes
Elected politicians and appointed officials are entrusted with making decisions in the public interest when it is not feasible for the public to make those decisions themselves. But how do we know that they are acting for the common good? Question the Powerful speaks to Jessica Crowe, Executive Director of the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS).
Why is public scrutiny essential in keeping public bodies responsive and accountable?
It comes down to one basic principle – someone who makes a decision should not be the only one to review or question whether it was the right decision or had the intended consequences. As individuals, if we take a decision, we will always be biased in favour of thinking it was just and wise. Public bodies, spending the public’s money and often with power over people’s lives, cannot do without the ‘critical friend’ challenge that public scrutiny provides. It’s not just about keeping them honest – which is vital – it’s also about enabling the wisdom of crowds to be brought to bear and to improve decisions and services for the future.
Are the public only interested in scrutiny findings if they are linked to some scandals?
We can’t expect the public to be engaged in every aspect of governance all the time – they have lives to lead and that’s why they elect their representatives to do the job. But obviously the more public interest there is, the greater the mandate scrutineers have to challenge and probe, so they need to keep on doing more to ensure their work is publicly visible, relevant and inclusive. My experience is that when scrutiny investigates a key issue, the public (or at least those sections of the public most affected) do get involved, whether there is a big scandal or not.
Do you think the quality of public scrutiny in the UK compares well or not with that of other countries?
I think public scrutiny has not been helped by the quality of public debate fostered by some of our national newspapers, or the coverage in the local and regional press. Internationally I know there is concern from bodies like Transparency International about recent developments such as the imminent demise of the Audit Commission, but we still compare well on many measures of public corruption. The most active local public scrutiny now often comes from the ‘hyperlocal blogosphere’ – but there must still be a question about the quality of some of this and how well-informed it is. It is crucial that public scrutiny is evidence-based and involves the exercise of judgment, not just critique or a single perspective.
What more should be done to help improve public scrutiny?
One major problem we face is the ever-growing complexity of public service delivery. This makes it increasingly difficult for scrutineers (let alone members of the public) to pin down who is responsible and accountable for what. It is becoming urgent that we make our systems of accountability less opaque and less complex. We at CfPS have recently proposed a new institution, local Public Accounts Committees to help achieve this. These would have greater powers than existing arrangements to look across all public services that affect a local area and call for national interventions if necessary.
Are there any trends people should be worried about?
The widening gap between the resources available to public scrutineers and those they should keep watch over poses a serious problem. As a recent article on the substantially different levels of resource available to the public prosecutor and those on trial for illegal phone-hacking indicates, public wrongdoing may not be so easy to expose when those with something to hide can outspend their accusers many times over. In local government, for example, staffing levels supporting local authority overview and scrutiny are at their lowest since 2004. If resourcing for public scrutiny continues to fall, incompetence, poor decisions and corruption will become ever harder to identify, highlight or prevent.
Why is public scrutiny essential in keeping public bodies responsive and accountable?
It comes down to one basic principle – someone who makes a decision should not be the only one to review or question whether it was the right decision or had the intended consequences. As individuals, if we take a decision, we will always be biased in favour of thinking it was just and wise. Public bodies, spending the public’s money and often with power over people’s lives, cannot do without the ‘critical friend’ challenge that public scrutiny provides. It’s not just about keeping them honest – which is vital – it’s also about enabling the wisdom of crowds to be brought to bear and to improve decisions and services for the future.
Are the public only interested in scrutiny findings if they are linked to some scandals?
We can’t expect the public to be engaged in every aspect of governance all the time – they have lives to lead and that’s why they elect their representatives to do the job. But obviously the more public interest there is, the greater the mandate scrutineers have to challenge and probe, so they need to keep on doing more to ensure their work is publicly visible, relevant and inclusive. My experience is that when scrutiny investigates a key issue, the public (or at least those sections of the public most affected) do get involved, whether there is a big scandal or not.
Do you think the quality of public scrutiny in the UK compares well or not with that of other countries?
I think public scrutiny has not been helped by the quality of public debate fostered by some of our national newspapers, or the coverage in the local and regional press. Internationally I know there is concern from bodies like Transparency International about recent developments such as the imminent demise of the Audit Commission, but we still compare well on many measures of public corruption. The most active local public scrutiny now often comes from the ‘hyperlocal blogosphere’ – but there must still be a question about the quality of some of this and how well-informed it is. It is crucial that public scrutiny is evidence-based and involves the exercise of judgment, not just critique or a single perspective.
What more should be done to help improve public scrutiny?
One major problem we face is the ever-growing complexity of public service delivery. This makes it increasingly difficult for scrutineers (let alone members of the public) to pin down who is responsible and accountable for what. It is becoming urgent that we make our systems of accountability less opaque and less complex. We at CfPS have recently proposed a new institution, local Public Accounts Committees to help achieve this. These would have greater powers than existing arrangements to look across all public services that affect a local area and call for national interventions if necessary.
Are there any trends people should be worried about?
The widening gap between the resources available to public scrutineers and those they should keep watch over poses a serious problem. As a recent article on the substantially different levels of resource available to the public prosecutor and those on trial for illegal phone-hacking indicates, public wrongdoing may not be so easy to expose when those with something to hide can outspend their accusers many times over. In local government, for example, staffing levels supporting local authority overview and scrutiny are at their lowest since 2004. If resourcing for public scrutiny continues to fall, incompetence, poor decisions and corruption will become ever harder to identify, highlight or prevent.
Friday, 15 August 2014
Question the Powerful: the political education project
Democracy is premised on all citizens having an equal say, and everyone being ready to cooperate for the common good. But when an unaccountable elite amasses ever more power and wealth, they become increasingly accustomed to imposing their agenda on others regardless of the consequences.
To counter this emerging dystopian scenario of the powerful securing irreversible hegemony over everyone else in society, it is essential that people of all ages and backgrounds learn about the growing threats, what they must do to resist them, and how they can build an equitable and sustainable alternative.
The 'Question the Powerful' (QTP) project has been established in conjunction with the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, to take forward the work of expanding political education so as to reverse the widening power inequalities that are corrosive of reciprocity and inclusive community life.
The project will promote a range of resources, including theoretical analyses, dystopian fiction, polemical essays, and policy guidance, which have been put together to promote an alternative to as well as a critique of the plutocratic distortion of human relationships.
It is not enough to recount the mechanisms of government institutions, or set out in abstract terms the ideal of voting, if people are to see clearly why the distribution of power is fundamental to social cohesion and personal wellbeing. By showing how power concentration in one group, who can buy their way out of democratic constraints, can damage our lives, we pave the way for a deeper and sharper understanding of what should be done to: (a) strengthen collective means to counter the harm inflicted by prevailing power inequalities; (b) cut the considerable gap between the powerful and others to secure a better balance of power for all; and (c) develop cooperative forms of democratic collaboration to facilitate the spread of inclusive networks and communities.
The ' Question the Powerful' resources (see'QTP Resources' for details) have been tested and revised through critical academic discussions, government policy implementation and reviews, and exchanges with lifelong learning participants. The project aims to work with partners in education, democratic advocacy, and the media to increase awareness and application of the ideas set out in the core resources in mounting an effective challenge to those who are relentlessly undermining democracy and cooperation.
If you are interested in supporting this educational project - through promoting/reviewing the resources it is making available; conducting face-to-face or online Q&As; arranging public talks; engaging tutors/teachers; or commissioning articles for your web/publications - get in touch with me at: htam.global@talk21.com.
To counter this emerging dystopian scenario of the powerful securing irreversible hegemony over everyone else in society, it is essential that people of all ages and backgrounds learn about the growing threats, what they must do to resist them, and how they can build an equitable and sustainable alternative.
The 'Question the Powerful' (QTP) project has been established in conjunction with the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, to take forward the work of expanding political education so as to reverse the widening power inequalities that are corrosive of reciprocity and inclusive community life.
The project will promote a range of resources, including theoretical analyses, dystopian fiction, polemical essays, and policy guidance, which have been put together to promote an alternative to as well as a critique of the plutocratic distortion of human relationships.
It is not enough to recount the mechanisms of government institutions, or set out in abstract terms the ideal of voting, if people are to see clearly why the distribution of power is fundamental to social cohesion and personal wellbeing. By showing how power concentration in one group, who can buy their way out of democratic constraints, can damage our lives, we pave the way for a deeper and sharper understanding of what should be done to: (a) strengthen collective means to counter the harm inflicted by prevailing power inequalities; (b) cut the considerable gap between the powerful and others to secure a better balance of power for all; and (c) develop cooperative forms of democratic collaboration to facilitate the spread of inclusive networks and communities.
The ' Question the Powerful' resources (see'QTP Resources' for details) have been tested and revised through critical academic discussions, government policy implementation and reviews, and exchanges with lifelong learning participants. The project aims to work with partners in education, democratic advocacy, and the media to increase awareness and application of the ideas set out in the core resources in mounting an effective challenge to those who are relentlessly undermining democracy and cooperation.
If you are interested in supporting this educational project - through promoting/reviewing the resources it is making available; conducting face-to-face or online Q&As; arranging public talks; engaging tutors/teachers; or commissioning articles for your web/publications - get in touch with me at: htam.global@talk21.com.
Thursday, 14 August 2014
QTP Resources for Political Education
Political Education that addresses power inequality:
The ‘Question the Powerful’ educational project promotes materials that aid learning about why and how those with more power than others are to be subject to democratic control. The key lessons relate to the importance of structuring power in society so that:
• none will be so strong that they can exploit or oppress others;
• each can have an equal say in determining the pursuit of the common good; and
• all can count on the security produced by their shared endeavours.
Learn from the QTP resources:
We have drawn from a wide range of ideas on democracy and community cooperation to produce a set of key texts and support materials. Each one offers a new perspective on the threats of letting the powerful dominate others, and together they set out how a better alternative can be secured. If you’re interested in rethinking the potential of politics in redressing power imbalance and socio-economic injustice, take a look at the following:
• Dystopian fiction warning against the dangers of allowing the powerful to take over ever more wealth and power: the satirical Whitehall through the Looking Glass and the allegorical Kuan’s Wonderland (for details, click on: Dystopia of the Powerful novels).
• A historical review of how the devious, greedy and arrogant everywhere have always tried to amass power to dominate others, and how democratic and progressive activists have organised the struggle against them (for details, click on: Against Power Inequalities).
• A comprehensive and accessible introduction to the communitarian theory of strengthening democracy and building more inclusive communities; and reform ideas to inform policy discussions and campaigns (for details, click on: Communitarianism).
• Resources on community empowerment practices and cooperative problem-solving techniques that have been tried and tested in enabling citizens to deliberate and act together to shape decisions that affect them (for details, click on: Together We Can).
Promote the ideas & key texts:
As a writer/editor or a host of a reading circle/web group, you can support the ‘Question the Powerful’ project by:
• Reviewing one or more of the key texts listed above and recommending them to your readers;
• Suggesting they keep in touch by subscribing to the ‘Question the Powerful’ blog (it’s free – just have to enter their email address in the box on at the top left of this webpage);
• Co-writing or commissioning an article about one of the texts or a particular aspect of the project that will most interest your readers.
• Explaining the thinking behind the project or specific texts through, for example, an interview with the project’s director;
Organise learning sessions:
As a learning provider or community organiser, you can support our political education project by:
• Arranging for a one-off presentation on a core theme or one of the key texts of the project (see QTP Talks for examples of past and current talks);
• Co-producing learning aids for your students/members;
• Hosting a briefing session for tutors/teachers on utilising the QTP ideas & key texts;
• Organising a Q&A session at one of your routine/annual events to discuss feedback and follow-up work to learning from the QTP materials.
Help us Question the Powerful:
Politics ought to be the public antidote to exploitation by the powerful few. But if we allow the few to buy their way to controlling political institutions, then we are rendered mere pawns in servicing their private gains. To forestall the hegemony of the unaccountable, help us promote the ‘Question the Powerful’ project, its resources, and the learning opportunities that can be developed with partners in schools, adult education, civil society and government.
The ‘Question the Powerful’ educational project promotes materials that aid learning about why and how those with more power than others are to be subject to democratic control. The key lessons relate to the importance of structuring power in society so that:
• none will be so strong that they can exploit or oppress others;
• each can have an equal say in determining the pursuit of the common good; and
• all can count on the security produced by their shared endeavours.
Learn from the QTP resources:
We have drawn from a wide range of ideas on democracy and community cooperation to produce a set of key texts and support materials. Each one offers a new perspective on the threats of letting the powerful dominate others, and together they set out how a better alternative can be secured. If you’re interested in rethinking the potential of politics in redressing power imbalance and socio-economic injustice, take a look at the following:
• Dystopian fiction warning against the dangers of allowing the powerful to take over ever more wealth and power: the satirical Whitehall through the Looking Glass and the allegorical Kuan’s Wonderland (for details, click on: Dystopia of the Powerful novels).
• A historical review of how the devious, greedy and arrogant everywhere have always tried to amass power to dominate others, and how democratic and progressive activists have organised the struggle against them (for details, click on: Against Power Inequalities).
• A comprehensive and accessible introduction to the communitarian theory of strengthening democracy and building more inclusive communities; and reform ideas to inform policy discussions and campaigns (for details, click on: Communitarianism).
• Resources on community empowerment practices and cooperative problem-solving techniques that have been tried and tested in enabling citizens to deliberate and act together to shape decisions that affect them (for details, click on: Together We Can).
Promote the ideas & key texts:
As a writer/editor or a host of a reading circle/web group, you can support the ‘Question the Powerful’ project by:
• Reviewing one or more of the key texts listed above and recommending them to your readers;
• Suggesting they keep in touch by subscribing to the ‘Question the Powerful’ blog (it’s free – just have to enter their email address in the box on at the top left of this webpage);
• Co-writing or commissioning an article about one of the texts or a particular aspect of the project that will most interest your readers.
• Explaining the thinking behind the project or specific texts through, for example, an interview with the project’s director;
Organise learning sessions:
As a learning provider or community organiser, you can support our political education project by:
• Arranging for a one-off presentation on a core theme or one of the key texts of the project (see QTP Talks for examples of past and current talks);
• Co-producing learning aids for your students/members;
• Hosting a briefing session for tutors/teachers on utilising the QTP ideas & key texts;
• Organising a Q&A session at one of your routine/annual events to discuss feedback and follow-up work to learning from the QTP materials.
Help us Question the Powerful:
Politics ought to be the public antidote to exploitation by the powerful few. But if we allow the few to buy their way to controlling political institutions, then we are rendered mere pawns in servicing their private gains. To forestall the hegemony of the unaccountable, help us promote the ‘Question the Powerful’ project, its resources, and the learning opportunities that can be developed with partners in schools, adult education, civil society and government.
Friday, 1 August 2014
We Are What We Eat
Ludwig Feuerbach, the 19th century radical thinker, is probably best known for his aphorism about our essence being the food we consume. But when one reflects on the social phenomenon known as ‘Incredible Edible Todmorden’, his philosophy that true fulfilment is ultimately to be found through the interactions of mutually caring people, is even more pertinent.
In Todmorden, a town with a population of about 15,000 in the north of England, this vision of the good life is very much an everyday aspiration. No one reading Incredible! Plant Veg, Grow a Revolution: the story of Incredible Edible Todmorden (by Pam Warhurst and Joanna Dobson, Troubador: 2014) can fail to be impressed by how the seemingly simple idea of encouraging people to grow edible plants on public land around the town would mushroom into a pervasive culture of healthy living and community cooperation.
The ‘Incredible’ book can be read at two levels – both equally important. First of all, it is a handy guide to cultivating vibrant community spirit through the growing and sharing of food. Instead of filling public areas with pyracantha and grasses, or lamenting the lack of allotments for individuals to use, why not plant fruit and herbs in communal space? For anyone interested in doing just that, the authors are more than happy to share their recipes – for everything from what to grow, how to cook, to finding volunteers and drafting a constitution for a community group.
In case you wonder how shared growing on public land could happen with neither top-down control nor privatisation, there is the practical example of a council granting license for people to use public land to grow food – thus building trust and enabling people to improve things for themselves and their communities.
Far from suggesting that merely tapping into people’s innate niceness and everything would then work out spontaneously, this book constantly reminds us that it takes hard work, persistence, and an unwavering willingness to learn to make things happen.
At a second level, this book is an inspirational tale of how social change can happen when people reclaim their common resources. Given the increasing interest in the politics of the commons, the story of what has been happening in Todmorden – and now spreading to other parts of the world – demonstrates vividly the role of accessible practices in steering society towards the ethos of sharing and cooperation.
The tireless and imaginative ways the pioneers in Todmorden engaged with schools, adult learners, pubs and restaurants, local farmers, the police and fire services, offenders on community service, and numerous other groups and organisations show how an alternative mind-set can be nurtured. And with a different set of dispositions, people are more ready than ever to come up with new collaborations to support healthy eating, community enterprise, sustainable farming, environmental improvements, and countless other positive outcomes most public policy makers can only dream of.
The most important outcome of all is the realisation that communities do not have to succumb to the ideology of greed or surrender to the clutches of despair. Cooperation can and does offer a better future.
In Todmorden, a town with a population of about 15,000 in the north of England, this vision of the good life is very much an everyday aspiration. No one reading Incredible! Plant Veg, Grow a Revolution: the story of Incredible Edible Todmorden (by Pam Warhurst and Joanna Dobson, Troubador: 2014) can fail to be impressed by how the seemingly simple idea of encouraging people to grow edible plants on public land around the town would mushroom into a pervasive culture of healthy living and community cooperation.
The ‘Incredible’ book can be read at two levels – both equally important. First of all, it is a handy guide to cultivating vibrant community spirit through the growing and sharing of food. Instead of filling public areas with pyracantha and grasses, or lamenting the lack of allotments for individuals to use, why not plant fruit and herbs in communal space? For anyone interested in doing just that, the authors are more than happy to share their recipes – for everything from what to grow, how to cook, to finding volunteers and drafting a constitution for a community group.
In case you wonder how shared growing on public land could happen with neither top-down control nor privatisation, there is the practical example of a council granting license for people to use public land to grow food – thus building trust and enabling people to improve things for themselves and their communities.
Far from suggesting that merely tapping into people’s innate niceness and everything would then work out spontaneously, this book constantly reminds us that it takes hard work, persistence, and an unwavering willingness to learn to make things happen.
At a second level, this book is an inspirational tale of how social change can happen when people reclaim their common resources. Given the increasing interest in the politics of the commons, the story of what has been happening in Todmorden – and now spreading to other parts of the world – demonstrates vividly the role of accessible practices in steering society towards the ethos of sharing and cooperation.
The tireless and imaginative ways the pioneers in Todmorden engaged with schools, adult learners, pubs and restaurants, local farmers, the police and fire services, offenders on community service, and numerous other groups and organisations show how an alternative mind-set can be nurtured. And with a different set of dispositions, people are more ready than ever to come up with new collaborations to support healthy eating, community enterprise, sustainable farming, environmental improvements, and countless other positive outcomes most public policy makers can only dream of.
The most important outcome of all is the realisation that communities do not have to succumb to the ideology of greed or surrender to the clutches of despair. Cooperation can and does offer a better future.
Tuesday, 15 July 2014
Politically ‘Incorrect’ or Morally Repugnant
When people are categorised as dubious because of the colour of their skin; despised because they are disabled; or detained because they question the claims of their government; they stand little chance of fighting back on their own unless there is a wider system of protection that will throw its weight behind them.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights represents a crucial collective agreement on the dignity to be accorded to all people solely by virtue of their common humanity. Yet we continue to encounter people sneering at the mention of human rights, or blithely brushing aside the condemnation of their violations as mere ‘political correctness’. Why?
Four reasons come to mind, and each calls for a firm response.
First, people all too often forget how hard it is to win better protection, or how precious that protection really is. It is the nature of succeeding generations to take the accomplishments of earlier times for granted. Unless they are effectively reminded of how daunting life would be without true respect for human rights in all circumstances, they will not be ready to resist the encroachment against those rights when it comes.
Secondly, the notion of human rights, like any idea or practice in life, can be exploited by the unscrupulous to benefit themselves at the expense of others. If attempts to invoke ‘human rights’ to justify immoral behaviour go unchallenged, they damage public understanding. Not only must such attempts be swiftly exposed, we cannot allow them to be appropriated by anti-human rights politicians as an excuse for dismantling the essential legal framework that is in place.
Thirdly, there is always a minority who pay lip service to respecting human rights while they try to undermine it surreptitiously. From polluting water supply to human trafficking, those responsible for callously ruining the lives of others should be widely branded as the worst public enemy. Whether it is through better detection, enforcement, or the closing of legal loopholes, the pursuit of these culprits ought to have the highest profile so that the public are aware of the importance of stopping them.
Last but not least, there are people who are so extreme in their views or so egoistical in their inclinations that they openly disavow any respect for various sections of society. To massage their self-importance, they will insist on their own superiority over women, gays, other ethnic groups, people with different beliefs, or people on low income. They cling to feeding their self-esteem by denigrating the ‘others’. Instead of granting any relativist credence to their ‘customs’, ‘traditions’, or ‘faiths’, they should be roundly condemned.
Human rights, as the mutual commitment to defend our basic wellbeing, are indispensable for ensuring abuse, exploitation, or predatory behaviour have no place in a civilised society. It’s time to put an end to the insidious trick of using the ‘political correctness’ label to cast aspersions over legitimate moral criticisms.
Only by taking seriously the implications of human rights can we begin to counter the spread of inhuman wrongs.
--
[The above is based on a longer essay I wrote for the Global Minorities Alliance to commemorate the United Nations Day of Diversity, Dialogue and Development in 2014]
The UN Declaration of Human Rights represents a crucial collective agreement on the dignity to be accorded to all people solely by virtue of their common humanity. Yet we continue to encounter people sneering at the mention of human rights, or blithely brushing aside the condemnation of their violations as mere ‘political correctness’. Why?
Four reasons come to mind, and each calls for a firm response.
First, people all too often forget how hard it is to win better protection, or how precious that protection really is. It is the nature of succeeding generations to take the accomplishments of earlier times for granted. Unless they are effectively reminded of how daunting life would be without true respect for human rights in all circumstances, they will not be ready to resist the encroachment against those rights when it comes.
Secondly, the notion of human rights, like any idea or practice in life, can be exploited by the unscrupulous to benefit themselves at the expense of others. If attempts to invoke ‘human rights’ to justify immoral behaviour go unchallenged, they damage public understanding. Not only must such attempts be swiftly exposed, we cannot allow them to be appropriated by anti-human rights politicians as an excuse for dismantling the essential legal framework that is in place.
Thirdly, there is always a minority who pay lip service to respecting human rights while they try to undermine it surreptitiously. From polluting water supply to human trafficking, those responsible for callously ruining the lives of others should be widely branded as the worst public enemy. Whether it is through better detection, enforcement, or the closing of legal loopholes, the pursuit of these culprits ought to have the highest profile so that the public are aware of the importance of stopping them.
Last but not least, there are people who are so extreme in their views or so egoistical in their inclinations that they openly disavow any respect for various sections of society. To massage their self-importance, they will insist on their own superiority over women, gays, other ethnic groups, people with different beliefs, or people on low income. They cling to feeding their self-esteem by denigrating the ‘others’. Instead of granting any relativist credence to their ‘customs’, ‘traditions’, or ‘faiths’, they should be roundly condemned.
Human rights, as the mutual commitment to defend our basic wellbeing, are indispensable for ensuring abuse, exploitation, or predatory behaviour have no place in a civilised society. It’s time to put an end to the insidious trick of using the ‘political correctness’ label to cast aspersions over legitimate moral criticisms.
Only by taking seriously the implications of human rights can we begin to counter the spread of inhuman wrongs.
--
[The above is based on a longer essay I wrote for the Global Minorities Alliance to commemorate the United Nations Day of Diversity, Dialogue and Development in 2014]
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
Cooperation Denial
Findings from anthropology, social psychology, game theory, and many other fields consistently suggest that where people cooperate with others as they would like others to cooperate with them, it leads to positive outcomes for all concerned.
Yet from ancient monarchic oppression to contemporary corporate exploitation, we keep coming across cooperation deniers who refuse to accept that working in equal partnership with others is a preferable option. They all exhibit one or more of these familiar symptoms: they claim to have answers to problems that no one else should question; they feel they deserve to have a better life than others; or they need to have far more power than others if chaos is not to break out.
Consequently, either their rejection of cooperation is accepted, in which case everyone has to put up with their egocentric behaviour; or persistent cooperation denial stokes frustration and resentment until tension boils over to bitter confrontation.
Is there another alternative? How can society be guided away from anti-cooperative forms of human relationship without falling into other types of asymmetric structure or some anarchic free-for-all where those with the might will sooner rather than later declare themselves to be exclusively ‘right’?
According to the Radical Communitarian Synthesis, a political philosophy that brought together the three most pertinent strands of critique against cooperation denial, this problem should be tackled by addressing its three underlying causes. First, systemic ignorance allows misunderstanding and deception to stop people seeing how more reliable answers can be ascertained cooperatively. Secondly, selective indifference to the plight of others blocks people from taking into consideration the full impact of their own behaviour. Thirdly, structural imbalance of power makes it possible for some to dismiss as unlikely any prospective retaliation against their unjust actions from victims too weak to hit back.
Correspondingly, a culture of cooperation can only flourish if we strategically advance the core elements of inclusive community life:
(1) Cooperative Enquiry: truth-claims must be subject to coherent and transparent assessments that can be validated by informed participants deliberating under conditions of evidence-based and uncoerced exchanges. (For examples of how the cooperative approach to problem-solving can be applied in practice, see: ‘Together We Can’).
(2) Mutual Responsibility: arrangements should be put in place so that people can effectively help improve each other’s wellbeing, and collectively curb any activity which intentionally or otherwise inflicts harm on others, especially those most in need.
(3) Citizen Participation: the gap between the powerful and others should be continuously reduced so that all those affected by any given power structure can participate as equal citizens in determining how the power in question is to be exercised. (For more on how this problem has been tackled, see ‘Against Power Inequalities’).
To counter cooperation denial and the deleterious effects it has on society, we must therefore have:
• Lifelong learning that will raise people’s shared understanding of how things will get better through collaboration and enable them to see through the lies and dogmas spread by charlatans and exploiters;
• Commonly owned institutions through which people can tap into meaningful give-and-take interactions so no one’s contributions are undervalued and everyone’s needs are taken into account;
• Power redistribution so that the power gap is substantially reduced and greater power is only ever entrusted to those who are truly answerable to and can be replaced by the people they are meant to serve.
The extent to which these are achieved will determine how far and fast open cooperative governance in decision-making by states, businesses and community groups, from the local to the global level, becomes the norm.
--
[For a detailed exposition of the ideas outlined above, see ‘Communitarianism’]
Yet from ancient monarchic oppression to contemporary corporate exploitation, we keep coming across cooperation deniers who refuse to accept that working in equal partnership with others is a preferable option. They all exhibit one or more of these familiar symptoms: they claim to have answers to problems that no one else should question; they feel they deserve to have a better life than others; or they need to have far more power than others if chaos is not to break out.
Consequently, either their rejection of cooperation is accepted, in which case everyone has to put up with their egocentric behaviour; or persistent cooperation denial stokes frustration and resentment until tension boils over to bitter confrontation.
Is there another alternative? How can society be guided away from anti-cooperative forms of human relationship without falling into other types of asymmetric structure or some anarchic free-for-all where those with the might will sooner rather than later declare themselves to be exclusively ‘right’?
According to the Radical Communitarian Synthesis, a political philosophy that brought together the three most pertinent strands of critique against cooperation denial, this problem should be tackled by addressing its three underlying causes. First, systemic ignorance allows misunderstanding and deception to stop people seeing how more reliable answers can be ascertained cooperatively. Secondly, selective indifference to the plight of others blocks people from taking into consideration the full impact of their own behaviour. Thirdly, structural imbalance of power makes it possible for some to dismiss as unlikely any prospective retaliation against their unjust actions from victims too weak to hit back.
Correspondingly, a culture of cooperation can only flourish if we strategically advance the core elements of inclusive community life:
(1) Cooperative Enquiry: truth-claims must be subject to coherent and transparent assessments that can be validated by informed participants deliberating under conditions of evidence-based and uncoerced exchanges. (For examples of how the cooperative approach to problem-solving can be applied in practice, see: ‘Together We Can’).
(2) Mutual Responsibility: arrangements should be put in place so that people can effectively help improve each other’s wellbeing, and collectively curb any activity which intentionally or otherwise inflicts harm on others, especially those most in need.
(3) Citizen Participation: the gap between the powerful and others should be continuously reduced so that all those affected by any given power structure can participate as equal citizens in determining how the power in question is to be exercised. (For more on how this problem has been tackled, see ‘Against Power Inequalities’).
To counter cooperation denial and the deleterious effects it has on society, we must therefore have:
• Lifelong learning that will raise people’s shared understanding of how things will get better through collaboration and enable them to see through the lies and dogmas spread by charlatans and exploiters;
• Commonly owned institutions through which people can tap into meaningful give-and-take interactions so no one’s contributions are undervalued and everyone’s needs are taken into account;
• Power redistribution so that the power gap is substantially reduced and greater power is only ever entrusted to those who are truly answerable to and can be replaced by the people they are meant to serve.
The extent to which these are achieved will determine how far and fast open cooperative governance in decision-making by states, businesses and community groups, from the local to the global level, becomes the norm.
--
[For a detailed exposition of the ideas outlined above, see ‘Communitarianism’]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)