White Papers
< back
Second
Cambridge Gathering - 6 May 1996
Notes on the Discussion
The Triglav Circle met on Sunday the 6th of May, in
the Harvard Yenching Institute to pursue ideas on how
societies can respond more effectively to material and
spiritual needs of individuals, families, and communities.
Convinced that any vision of a developed society that
does not address the moral and spiritual needs of the
individual and the community is incomplete, the Circle
considered a number of underlying issues generally overlooked
in contemporary debates on development in national and
international fora.
Fundamental
to evaluating economic growth in relation to social
progress should be the criterion of whether it has enhanced
or hindered the capacity of the individual and the community
to enjoy an holistic or spiritually fulfilling life
experience. While offering people more goods, material
options and comforts, the market and the overall economy
do not necessarily contribute positively to the lives
of individuals and societies. Material advances can
produce heavy individual and overall social costs.
Measuring
progress in terms of whether people are better able
to experience life's vast spectrum of possibilities
is a qualitative and intuitive exercise. It is open
to a great deal of subjectivity. People have different
visions of life, its meaning, and its opportunities.
Nevertheless, discernment of classical philosophers,
theologians, poets, physicists, and political idealists
from different cultures suggest holistic criteria for
gauging such progress. Their wisdom and perceptions
of human nature transcend empiric analysis. Piercing
the veil of material circumstances and social behaviors,
they perceive as the essence of humanity, innate appreciation
of beauty, dignity, integrity, and grace. Life's satisfaction
and fulfillment derive from expression of these qualities
-- in giving affection, in labor that ultimates as service
to others, in manifesting courage, and in victories
of spirit over material conditions.
The
Circle explored some practical applications of such
holistic criteria in a variety of domains; architecture,
globalization of the world economy, and human nature
in the context of the present social crisis. The discussion
was intended to contribute ideas for the forthcoming
Copenhagen Seminar on Conditions for Social Progress:
A World Economy for the Benefit of All, to be held in
Denmark, 4-6 October. A background note was disseminated
to participants for that purpose.
Architecture
as a Litmus Test of Culture and Society
A particularly tangible subject area is the assessment
of progress in meeting the basic need for shelter. Obviously,
development is achieved by providing buildings for housing.
The question considered was whether the multiplication
of buildings contributed meaningfully to social progress
when criteria of the human spirit were added to the
equation. There is considerable controversy in the field
of architecture related to this issue.
One
of the most basic needs considered in contemporary development
discourse is housing. A world conference recently took
place in Istanbul on this subject. Providing adequate
shelter becomes increasingly pressing as population
growth in major regions of the world escalates at exponential
rates and concentrates in cities. A realist response
to this pressing demand is: Think not about roses when
the forests are burning.
This
stance, presently dominant in major schools of architecture
and driven ostensibly by the urgent necessity to house
hoards of urban poor, sacrifices aesthetics in the hard
business of building construction. In the design of
basic shelters and of related physical amenities emphasis
is on efficiency and economy. Concomitantly, design
is subordinate to the prescriptions of mechanistic technology
and the limitations imposed by low cost building materials.
This view has dominated the field since World War II.
Another
view, also present in major schools of architecture,
continues to contend for the value of roses even where
forests are ablaze. If architecture is a litmus test
of culture, the rapid global spread of low-cost, concrete
complexes with scant aesthetic appeal is poor augury
for the fabric of society. The lack of attention to
aesthetics in this modern age reveals a culture of impoverished
imagination wherein needs of the human spirit are secondary
to the dictates of technological machinations and financial
calculations. Mass-produced concrete apartment complexes
are not only the public response to poverty-stricken
masses in densely populated urban centers, but these
common block buildings now pepper the planet sheltering
rich and poor alike. Functionalism of this kind blurs
the distinction between beauty and ugliness.
Uniformity,
per se, is not the only indicator of crisis; and variety,
in and of itself, would not solve the problem. To be
a positive factor, variety must be accompanied by quality
and express a diversity of cultures. The principal problem
emerges from failure to consider buildings and shelters
as reflections of the human spirit. This view holds
that architects must seek inspiration and give necessary
time and thought to fulfill their responsibility for
feeding humanity's innate hunger for aesthetic satisfaction
from its surroundings. Beauty and the sense of poetry
disappear in a cultural mentality that suppresses or
ignores sensitivity to the quality of its surroundings.
Environmentalism's
criteria for progress and what constitutes aesthetic
appeal challenges both the architectural fire fighters
and proponents of roses. It says to the first: economic
resourcefulness and construction efficiency without
concern for sustainability is short term expediency
with long term wasteful entanglements. To the other,
it suggests that aesthetics are not only visual but
are reflected in the way buildings use resources. True
roses are buildings that are functional and constructed
in harmony with sustained resource availability in the
natural environment. Thus, the modern aesthetic should
embrace concern for energy consumption and the environment.
Teaching in schools of architecture should emphasize
the synthesis between the various requirements - including
housing needs, aesthetics, cultural individuality, functionality,
and environmental sustainability.
Soulless
or not to begin with, the appearances of buildings,
once inhabited, reflect choices and behaviors of the
residents as they turn their dwelling places from houses
to homes. Beyond their visual appeal, the attractiveness
of buildings depends on the willingness of inhabitants
to respect property and to police destructive behavior.
All too often new buildings are rendered ugly by the
filth, graffiti, and slovenliness of the dwellers and
the neighbors sharing the environment. This behavior
is perhaps as symptomatic of rebellion against poverty
in the spirit and soul of humanity as it is of rebellion
or despondence for lack of pecuniary wealth. In this
connection it is observed that buildings, beautiful
in a natural way, are often left unscathed while the
unbecoming and the more ostentatious buildings with
beauty bespeaking class or affluence are particularly
vulnerable to attack.
Thus,
by measure of the human fulfillment criteria, the completion
of building programs alone is an inadequate measure
of social progress.
Globalization
and Disparity
Arguments for globalization are extremely potent. They
combine appeals to reason and emotion. They are consistent
with a modernist interpretation of enlightenment philosophy
and give legitimacy to the quest for ever escalating
material progress and abundance for humanity. Resistance
to this economic evolution is perceived to express fear,
nostalgia, jealously, and reactivism in light of change.
Nevertheless, strong voices contend that the process,
as such, is incomplete and its promises are deceptive.
Different economic indicators show serious problems
in the present development path. Holistic criteria demonstrate
that this global economic message obscures or downplays
realization of the humanity=s potential for attaining
wisdom, social harmony, and the sheer joy of living.
Economic
development is rapidly leading to globalization, or
the rendering of the world into a single village of
common opportunities and material conditions. According
to traditional economic criteria, the creation of a
global market and society is beneficial for humanity.
An American entrepreneur can invest in Russia and in
Indonesia, a Korean entrepreneur in China and the United
Kingdom, and both will make a profit while providing
jobs and income in the recipient countries. A consumer
in Lagos or Hanoi can drink a coca cola or watch a television
program produced in New York, both at low prices. Globalization
is bringing about greater material equality in certain
dynamic developing regions. Masses of people, most notably
in Asia, are improving dramatically their material lot.
China and India are now experiencing the emergence of
a strong middle class.
And,
this is perceived as only the beginning of a process
that is to have immense benefits for humanity as a whole.
According to present economic wisdom, while poverty
is still so widespread, when so many people are hungry
and deprived of the basic physical amenities enjoyed
in the western world, it is inhumane to propose putting
brakes on the liberalization of the world economy and
on the initiatives of free market entrepreneurs and
financiers who serve the world economy while they pursue
their legitimate interests. Presently, more than 50%
of the world=s population lack access to telephones.
International and national political rhetoric indicates
that the possession of such amenities are principal
aspirations of the majority of humankind that can only
be satisfied in the global market.
Moreover,
rather than causing uniformity -- a widespread concern
of the culturally sensitive--, some data suggest that
the development process leading to globalization may
ultimate in more product and cultural diversification
as the process continues. Statistics in the most advanced
developed societies indicate that mass produced consumer
goods no longer constitute the most dynamic or profitable
sector in their parts of the global village. K-Marts
and other retailers of generic low priced goods are
leaving economic leadership to industries responding
to the needs of the affluent. This phenomenon is particularly
notable in the US where the advertising of automobiles
focusses increasingly on high-priced models. This development
has been interpreted as signaling movement towards more
differentiated high quality goods as societies reach
certain development thresholds.
For
its proponents, globalization expresses the direction
of modern culture and is the stage in human history
to be marked by progressive abolition of physical and
other constraints to the full enjoyment of earth's material
potential for humanity. It gives vent to the capacity
of humanity for innovation, openness, and dynamism.
Globalization is the definition of progress. Globalization
and its virtues form the substance of the dominant social
message emitted by the most powerful media.
But,
the same economic indicators that support the proponents
of globalization stimulate another assessment of current
trends in the reduction of poverty and inequalities.
The official text of the Social Summit, held in Copenhagen
in March 1995, states the following: We are witnessing,
in countries through out the world, the expansion of
prosperity for some, unfortunately accompanied by an
expansion of unspeakable poverty for others. It also
states that: within many societies both in developed
and developing countries the gap between rich and poor
has increased. Considerable data corroborates this experience
and confirms that, at least in the industrialized countries,
both the number of poor, and the gaps between rich and
poor and rich and middle class have increased during
the last ten or fifteen years. Above all unemployment
levels are extremely high in most parts of the world.
Not surprising then that expressions such as marginalization,
social exclusion, and dual societies, are current in
the political discourse in both developed and developing
societies.
Many
signs indicate that societies, at least in the Western
world, are becoming increasingly stratified. In the
West, disparity in income levels correlates with disparity
in status and opportunity. While CEO's are amassing
increasingly large salaries, significant portions of
the middle class are sinking into lower income stratums.
The beneficiaries consider that such salaries reward
their talents and are reflections of their market value.
Others consider that increased profits, rather than
rewarding business acumen, reflect technological changes
that permit down-sizing and consequent savings on labor's
wages, salaries, and social benefits. Moreover, stratification
is attributed to declining mobility, both in geographical
terms - people are moving less than before to find better
jobs- and psychological terms - people are less confident
that their children will have a better material life
than they themselves have enjoyed.
The
human capital factor complicates the discourse on disparities.
While there is increasing inequality in wealth and status,
adding human capital to the equation gives a different
balance. One view holds that inequalities are over-estimated
because human capital, defined in relation to education,
training, and access to information, is more equally
distributed than income as compared to the past. However,
another view points to newly emerging data that show
increasing gaps in literacy defined as capacity to handle
basic technical operations or bureaucratic requirements--
including, for example, the filling of social security
forms. Moreover, there is a growing gap between people
who understand the electronic bases for the functioning
of modern societies and those who do not. Those who
do not understand have access to large amounts of information
but have no leverage to influence what is going on in
their societies. Information is a new currency replacing
money, and while access to it may appear to be very
evenly distributed, it is in proclivities to comprehend
and apply this newly exploding information that strong
inequalities are now emerging.
A
fundamental challenge to the current course of economic
development and the globalization process is the observation
that during the past ten to twenty years, the United
States and other countries, have have experienced mathematically
positive increases in GDP that in reality have added
much less or even subtracted from the real wealth of
the country. In these countries an increasingly significant
portion of GDP is made up of environmentally destructive
activities (cutting forests, mining coal), defensive
activities in coping with modern social complexities
(traffic lights, six lane highways, insurance payments),
and social protection (more police, bigger prisons,
home defense weapons, drug programs). These activities
either add to or are necessary responses to negative
externalities of the modern economic machine including
pollution, resource exhaustion, over crowding, material
glut, social disparities and conflict.
From
a holistic perspective, excesses of greed and materialism,
uncontrolled in the globalization process, threaten
to quench the natural spirit of people. Self-worth and
dignity, attributes of spirit, are commonly perceived
in elite and ordinary people in traditional or long
historically established cultural settings. In urban
centers of developing and industrialized countries the
poor appear to have lost sense of their inherent worth
and dignity. And, so have former middle class managers
in modern societies who have lost their jobs. Add to
their numbers, young people in down-sizing economies
where meaningful employment opportunities are diminished;
and many social groups, marginalized by forces of technical
and economic change.
There
are a number of philosophical, political, and economic
reasons for taking measures to avoid allowing significant
social and economic disparities to grow or to remain
among people in societies or between societies. Morality,
nature, common sense, and even enlightened self interest
indicate that significant inequalities are poor augury
for peace and prosperity in any society.
In
philosophical terms there is the belief that all people
share a common humanity grounded in a spiritual heritage.
Humanity's intrinsic dignity requires that efforts be
made by the most advantaged to correct the inequalities
that circumstance creates for the less fortunate. This
action is an inherent exercise of human flourishing,
an aspiration of humankind to do what is good and fair.
Common
sense suggests that by correcting inequalities, notably
inequalities of opportunity, society releases or makes
available the human resources that are required to make
communities and the world function better. In other
words, it generates reciprocal altruism and avoids the
waste of unused talents and unexploited potentials.
It
makes economic sense to avoid excessive inequalities
if the market is to continue to be dynamic. Politically
speaking distributive justice is a way to social stability.
Uncontrolled, social Darwinism ultimates in political
instability. There are limits to what is acceptable
as the social/economic gap between rich and poor.
History
affirms that a powerful political reason for redistributive
policies is fear of the poor, of their revolt against
living conditions and humiliation. The situation now
seems hopeless for a great portion of humanity: depletion
of world grain reserves combined with denigration of
the traditional agricultural way of life, have led to
mass migrations from rural to urban areas, and from
agricultural activities to other activities. Arriving
in urban centers migrants meet unemployment and slums.
To a large extent, the question of foreigners, migrant
workers, and in general movements of peoples across
national and regional borders is conceived and discussed
in an atmosphere of fear.
In
seeking solutions, it is considered that there are many
different types of modernity and different ways of expressing
the life experience rooted in collective wisdom. It
is not necessary nor desirable for some countries to
adopt the Western model. In East Asia, while the model
of development could appear to be similar to the Western
capitalist model with its commercialism, industrialism,
competitiveness, and general disregard for the environment
there are still major differences in economic and cultural
way of life. In the East there remains a spirit of collaboration,
emphasis on rituals and less on legal framework, and
individualism constrained by communal ethics. Overall,
however, the negative social externalities wrought by
industrialization of East Asia confirms need for an
alternative to the dominant model of development.
Human
beings deserve a minimum economic base that is universal
but culturally tailored. From this base, individuals
and social groups find many ways to express their identities
and to mark their differences. Nevertheless, this base
implies not only a certain level of production but also
redistributive measures such as progressive taxation
and other compensation, as a minimum, when the reespective
economies do not operate in the best interest of the
whole society.
Social
Crisis and Human Nature
More obvious than the possible negative consequences
of globalization of markets, is the pervasive crisis
in values and the culture of people. Societies are held
together not only by laws but by modes of behavior transmitted
from generation to generation. By this criteria it would
appear that present societies are spinning out of control.
The powerful mass media are conveying an overall message
of economic, social, and cultural laissez faire. People
have license to do whatever they feel and want.
The
fundamental problem at this stage in human social cultural
evolution is that the model of Aright behavior that
industrial homo sapiens has internalized no longer gives
valid guidance for dealing with twenty first century
problems. The dominant social paradigm that has evolved
in response to the affluence of the industrial revolution
has shaped a society that is ill-prepared to cope with
an era of increasing constraints. Moral systems are
in disrepair. The authority of the state has eroded.
Market forces lead to environmental destruction. And,
even the mechanism which pass survival relevant information
from one generation to the next are falling apart.
In
brief, at this point in history the human race is painting
itself into a corner. The rapidly spreading material
expectations of an upwardly mobile generation around
the world cannot be met, and this creates a potentially
revolutionary situation. The basic question before us
is whether the human race is clever and creative enough
to build new institutions and moral systems capable
of sustaining it through an era of transformation that
begins the new millennium.
Comment submitted by Dennis Pirages, 5/20/96
Participant
in May 6 meeting
Historically, the breakdown of the contemporary moral
order can be traced back to the Aoversight@ of the philosophers
of the 18th century who, having to struggle against
the temporal power of the Church and the clergy, neglected
the spiritual needs and dimensions of individuals and
societies. In encouraging rebellion against the Church,
they ignored the distinction between freedom to and
freedom from (see Isaiah Berlin). Democracy, at the
origin, was a legitimate struggle to achieve freedom
from abusive power. Then, confusion emerged between
such freedom and the freedom to do whatever pleases
the individual, at the neglect of the freedom of others.
Leading societies moved from an ethic of satisfaction
of needs to a culture of satisfaction of desires.
Architecturally
speaking, but now in metaphor, today's competition to
claim possession of the tallest building among cities,
countries, and major enterprises is symptomatic of the
competition for individual power and the drive to excel
that marks rugged individualist societies wherein social
Darwinism is condoned and in different circumstances
even fostered. Competitiveness is also espoused in the
global village. Korea and Taiwan are used as illustrations
of global development success.
If
the dynamic competitive society is the epitome of the
development model, a corollary thereto can reasonably
define a flourishing democracy as a plutocracy of winners
in the economic game of fierce individualism according
to which each player operates virtually unrestrained
in self interest striving to be the best. Such a democratic
government is, de facto, of, by, and for the economic
winners. On the world scale, for many countries such
an outcome is not attractive because it means virtual
dependence on winners who, according to the values of
the "Darwin" ethic, should not engage in economic
activities that do not ultimately serve personal interests.
This
popular view perceives in human nature a primary instinct
to strive for differences and superiority. In other
words, the proverbial pecking order represents the natural
order of social life. Attempts to impose equality in
societies have always failed and have often led to totalitarianism.
Neither Kibboutz nor the Soviet system provide satisfactory
alternatives. In the framework of a society driven by
competition and desire to excel, cooperation, ordinarily
the antonym for competition, has become an expedient
means to achieving personal goals.
From
the common sense perspective, self interest and competition
is not by definition bad. It is the driving force of
development and progress in democratic societies. And,
since the CEO and the successful athlete are role models
of today=s society, it is futile to deny their attractiveness.
Suffice it to point out that their position imposes
on them great responsibilities towards the community
and the world. In the past, it was more common that
the most economically successful entrepreneurs and the
heroes of society took their social obligations seriously
and set ethical standards for others by their philanthropy
and responsibility towards their workers and society
as a whole.
In
the same vein, those who criticize the current social
order often make comparisons with distant civilizations
and with primitive cultures. It is to be recalled that
in societies of the past, notably Judaic/Christian,
the distribution of roles and status was set with very
few people in positions of power. And, there was neither
possibility nor need for mobility and a different distribution
of roles and goods. In the modern world built on the
interplay of transactions, society has moved from status
to contracts. And, democracy has irresistible appeal.
Yet,
for those sensitive to the modern malaise and breakdown
in moral order, there is urgent need for a more humane
vision of human nature and for a different perspective
on progress. Human nature is not fundamentally as competitive
as the rugged individualist model suggests. Being the
best, the tallest, and the grandest, is not necessarily
to be the king of the mountain. In modern life there
are so many fields and ways to excel, that being the
top winner is, at best, being one of many thousand successes.
For others, satisfaction is not to be the best among
others, but to try one=s best given one's own gifts.
In other words, it is in opportunities to exercise natural
talents, to gain wisdom, and to enjoy beauty that an
improved quality of life is measured.
Alternatively,
personal satisfaction does not necessarily arise from
individual excellence or achievements in terms of dominance
in society or in terms of fulfillment of individual
goals, but can be derived from having done one's best
as part of a team and, in the larger sense, of a society
working for a goal. This vision accords with the Confucian
notion of human flourishing through involvement in networks
of human interrelationships. In this perspective it
is vital for a society that individuals have their own
spiritual self definition that is communal in its core.
A communal self definition is the foundation for cooperation
defined as an antonym of competition. It is also consistent
with basic tenets of Christianity and other great religions
traditions.
In
sum, human nature has two basic needs: energy and opportunity
to grow as an individual and relationship connections
through family, institutions, society, nature and the
universe. Both of these aspects in human nature have
to be encouraged and brought into balance. What seems
to be a source of trouble in dominant western societies
is that their educational institutions and socialization
processes give too much weight to the first need while
virtually neglecting the second. Such emphasis is consistent
with these societies single minded focus on the market
as the central focus of the life experience.
Responsibility
at all levels is a condition for regenerating a sense
of the spirit. Harmony in a democratic society is dependent
on the contribution of its participants. Every society
requires balance, respect for nature, and moderation
in all aspects of human endeavor. Society would benefit
from awakening to the presence of a transcendental vision
of life that would offer humankind a way to peace and
harmony with the universe. For this, as well as for
the acquisition of knowledge and sociability, education
has an essential role to play. Education has the capacity
to develop the virtues that lie dormant in the human
heart. These virtues are particularly important for
public servants, merchants, entrepreneurs, and information
suppliers in all the media given their powerful influence
on society. A spiritual identification of the self is
a strong basis for self respect and can be fostered
by education that instills appreciation of the humanities
as well as the acumen needed to be effective in a particular
vocation.
The
Golden Rule stated in the negative is a most potent
prescription for present society- thou shall not do
unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
Notes
prepared by Barbara Baudot, Secretary and Coordinator
of the Triglav Circle.
back
to White Papers main page
|
Photo: © Chris Black |
| "Measuring
progress in terms of whether people are better able
to experience life's vast spectrum of possibilities
is a qualitative and intuitive exercise." |
|
