Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
Christian Arnsperger started a new blog this April called Eco-Transitions: The Next Step Economy. Here's an excerpt from the 2nd post of 4/16/11 called “Why transition? A first look at concepts”:
"The transition model tries, in a sense, to steer a middle way between revolution and collapse. Transition can be compared to getting an airplane to fall from the sky in a fully controlled fashion -- an accomplishment known nowadays as "landing," utterly baffling and yet totally trivialized. The jet airplane neither falls abruptly from the sky, nor does it remain in flight while mutating into a completely different machine. Transition is intentional, just like revolution. It involves deliberating, tracing out possible scenarios, and then making decisions as to which one we think we can pursue. Transition also has a collapse-like flavor, in the sense that it consists in readjusting many crucial parameters of the incumbent system -- and that readjustment will usually have a "downward" feel to it. Some things need to be done without, in the short and medium run, and sometimes also forever more, but this can be turned into subsequent opportunities for a positive outcome -- namely, a safe landing after a downward-sloping path...
The originality of the transition model is that we deliberately choose not only the speed and deceleration of our landing maneuvers, but we also deliberately select the landing track on which we intend to touch down. In fact, Rob Hopkins, the initiator of the Transition Towns movement, regularly speaks of "energy descent." It's a fair enough expression, since there is no getting around the fact that reduction and rescheduling, as well as even a modicum of selective "de-growth" (I will touch on this in later posts), are indeed part of the transition model. The thing is, all these have to be intentional, hence deliberate and deliberated between the actors concerned. And they do not imply a directive on a predetermined set of "acceptable" ways of life; these are supposed to emerge creatively along the process of (a) touching down safely and (b) exploring the track one has landed on.
Transition links up very closely to the idea of conscious evolution: While the collapse model is often predicated on an ecological notion of "succession" -- that is, the idea that systems break down, go through a series of endogenous mutations, and reach a new equilibrium down the line (see Greer's discussion in chapter 2 of The Ecotechnic Future) -- the transition model relies on deliberate institution- and culture-building. It is, therefore, an intrinsically political model and it requires its politics to be spelled out precisely by those who are doing the institution-building, i.e., the whole democratic collectivity in the most desirable cases. So there is a point in common with the revolutionary model, although the similarity stops here: A transition is not a revolution because, basically, it does not follow an exhaustive ex ante blueprint. In fact, this is where the transition model hooks up with aspects of the collapse model, in the sense of relying on a rather organic and bottom-up conception of overall change. If I were not afraid of being misunderstood, I would surmise that a transition combines "deliberate collapse" and "decentralized revolution." Maybe this speaks to your sensibility, but if it does not, just don't follow the thread of that metaphor further... (Better metaphors for this distinctive middle path may come to my mind in later posts. Suggestions are welcome.)
What I see as particularly interesting in the transition model is that it allows us to think at two levels at the same time:
the level of what I will call framework conditions for change, i.e., the general features our institutions should have so that we can encourage change in the right direction
the level of the life choices for individuals and communities which given framework conditions make possible, and which are the substance of change
Framework conditions (such as, for instance, new modes of political government, a new financial structure, new legal frameworks for enterprise, or a new income-redistribution scheme) come about through a political process and are, therefore, deliberate and deliberated. Life choices (such as, for instance, voluntary simplicity, devoting one's research to the physics of renewable energies, changing one's mode of consumption, insulating one's house, or investing one's money in an ethical fund) are also deliberate but should not, if at all possible, be "forced choices." We all know situations where we think we are choosing freely but are, in fact, faced with a choice set containing only one possibility. If this is what the framework conditions end up doing -- i.e. if, for instance, the new incentives, rules, and regulations amount to an ecological dictatorship -- then we are no longer in a transition but in a revolution. The transition model relies crucially on citizens being given both the resources and the time to reflect and act, and this involves necessarily the possibility not to act immediately and in a rush. Life choices can be very difficult to make, and honoring the conflicting demands of our lives may mean that we might not want to become part of the "first wave" of pioneers who move quickly. The transition model can and should accommodate such situations; the revolutionary model is unable to (and history has, alas, shown abundantly how revolutionary factions treat the reluctant and recalcitrant).
The transition model figures prominently in one of our decade's most influential books, Tim Jackson's Prosperity Without Growth, which originally (in its report version) had as its subtitle: "The Transition to a Sustainable Economy." Although I do not agree with all the proposals set out by Jackson, and I believe he is leaving out some crucial areas of reform (more on this in later posts), I do believe his book is a definite landmark because he is one of the first economists of this new century to have put on the table the twin issue of framework conditions and life choices, attempting to link them together into a coherent whole through a macroeconomic framework that can allow for microeconomic changes. (He draws part of his inspiration in that area from a somewhat less well-known book, Peter A. Victor's Managing Without Growth.) One of the key questions that needs to be asked as we reflect, and act towards, a transition is: What framework conditions are we going to deliberately create so that the forced economic growth that is currently built into our economic system releases its stranglehold? This implies a deep modification of certain key framework conditions (most notably, credit and money as well as income redistribution) but it does not imply a preordained set of ways of life to be forced on citizens in the name of "sustainability" or whatever other slogan we might cherish. The transition model rests on a fundamental trust in human nature: If framework conditions change in the right way, there will be an emergence of the "right" or "sustainably feasible" ways of life. People are not homo economicus: They are caught in a system and they willingly go along with it, but if macro-conditions change many are prepared to investigate alternatives. It's just a question of unleashing that "natural" inquisitiveness of citizens, which the current economic conditions and constraints tend to stifle (except for a small minority of pioneers). Of course, this fundamental trust is open to discussion, and I sense that adepts of the collapse model harbor much less trust in human reason. But this will be one of the key issues to be discussed on this blog.
In the next posts, I would like to gradually unravel the key aspects of what I see as a credible model for a transition towards a more ecologically and socially viable economy. I call it the "Next-Step Economy" simply to emphasize that although I believe we do have to make deep changes in our institutions -- and hence create some radically new framework conditions -- these changes cannot imply that everyone's lives will be overhauled completely and brutally. If Rob Hopkins's Transition Town movement is any indication, this concern is shared by many of those who are busy reflecting on feasible and desirable pathways out of the current quagmire. (See Hopkins's remarkable Transition Handbook.) Life choices there will have to be, but the transition model carries the hope that they can be effected in a reasonably gradual and progressive way. This hinges, of course, on there still being enough time to avert the dangerous cumulative processes which the collapse thinkers are rightly emphasizing. I am not minimizing the relevance of collapse scenarios. But perhaps, as suggested by my colleague Jean-Pierre Dupuy (see his remarkable book, in French: Pour un catastrophisme éclairé: Quand l'impossible est certain, which can be translated as Enlightened Catastrophism: When the Impossible Is Certain), we can use the threat of virtually certain and inevitable collapse scenarios to act in such a way as to avert that threat. Just maybe. But we can never be definite about it. And that, too, is part of the somewhat tragic ethos of the transition model. It's also part of what makes that model so fascinating for those of us who seek a democratic, reasoned, but also critical and emotionally engaged, pathway out of today's blind alleys."
The student I mentioned last year has posted an update, and started a Kickstarter campaign, for their integrated, sustainable farming project (changing the name, it appears, from Autopoetic Cooperative to Ten Acre Organics).
In my research today I found a couple of old Arnsperger articles at Integral Life: Obama's Jobs Speech and The American Jobs Act. From the latter:
"Obama’s economic worldview, in terms of spiral dynamics, is orange-going-on-green. [...] He is a Keynesian, basically demand-side Democrat who believes the capitalist economy can be helped by budget policy to grow and to create many more jobs than it destroys; he is an egalitarian liberal, meaning a liberal who thinks equality shouldn’t be total (you need a significant degree of income inequality to keep incentives active and to keep people innovative and entrepreneurial) but who believes that America should embody the ideal of equal opportunity to the fullest and that public policy can be active in providing the conditions for this to be the case; he thinks that earning your income through a job—rather than through either unemployment insurance extended too long, or financial speculation made too easy—is an expression of personal responsibility, and that endeavoring to provide jobs for everyone is an expression of collective responsibility.
"He is facing a Republican party—as well as a contingent of economists—who are predominantly blue-harking-back-to-red, and who staunchly believe that with people, especially the rich, behaving as they do (as described by the upper-right quadrant) and with capitalism, globalized and financialized, operating as it does (as taught by the lower-right quadrant), providing tax breaks in the middle income brackets and requiring “millionaires and billionaires” to step up and accept higher taxes will be self-defeating: It will, so the story runs, cause closedowns and capital flights so that there will be a net destruction of jobs."
"Can the capitalist market economy be compatible with a liberal-egalitarian Democratic set of values? It has in the past. It may no longer today. Not because that worldview has become “wrong,” but because both (a) the system’s inner workings have been modified over the past three decades through reform after reform going in the direction of more liberalization and more privatization and (b) the system’s “inhabitants,” we as citizens, have changed on average (in the upper-left quadrant) in a direction that may make this worldview less workable. The period from 1979 to 2008—with Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush, Jr. officiating as successive presidents—has been one in which a fully-fledged “spirituality of economic individualism” has made its way into US citizens’ consciousness, mostly under the pressure of a globalized economy put together by red-to-blue decision-makers. Not that the regression from orange-green to red-blue occurred in every individual citizen to the same extent, but on average the end of the 1970s ushered in a period of memetic regression that is only now starting to get reversed. Reversed it will be, for sure."