In "Economism or Planetism," John B. Cobb, Jr. (Herman Daly's coauthor in For the Common Good, Beacon Press, 1989) suggests that it is time to reassess our current "non-ideology ideology" of consumerism. Cobb argues that we ought to address both consumption and production as part of a broader whole that interrelates the human economy with the larger natural economy functioning in the biosphere. One aim is to encourage values in addition to, and sometimes in conflict with, consumerism--especially those associated with human community and a sense of belonging to the larger world. Cobb does not deny the efficiency of the market, but champions its role (where appropriate) as a means toward achievement of socially/politically/biologically determined ends. But neither does Cobb believe that markets, and market mechanisms, are a panacea for all our problems. Whether you see his prescriptive remedies to be common sense or nonsense, Cobb's ideas are worth reading and discussing every bit as much now as when first presented in 1991.
ECONOMISM OR PLANETISM: THE COMING CHOICE
John B. Cobb, Jr.
ABSTRACT:
Contemporary economic theory, with its goal of ever-increasing material growth, is the dominant ideology of our time. But earthly limits, once imagined away, now assert themselves, visibly and persistently. A new ideology, one based on concern for the well-being of the planet as a whole, is called for. Theologian John Cobb describes the coming choice and the changes it could bring. Cobb, professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, is the coauthor, with Herman Daly, of For the Common Good. An expanded version of this article will appear in Good News for Animals? Contemporary Christian Approaches to Animal Well-Being, forthcoming from Orbis Press in 1992.
There is an inherent tension between the science of economics as it is practiced today—with its goals of endlessly expanding markets and consumption—and the welfare of the planet, its inhabitants (human and nonhuman), and their communities.
The problem with contemporary economic theory is not its science as such. This can be taken as descriptive of what goes on in exchange of goods and services. As a science there is no question of its predictive success in many, many areas. It provides invaluable information about what results will occur from the adoption of particular policies. Even in these respects it is limited and fallible, since features of the situation from which it has abstracted sometimes play an unanticipated role. But that is not a major criticism. To be a science it must abstract, and its abstractions have proved extremely fruitful.
The problem is that it has ordered its research and theory-building to an end. This is the end of increasing human consumption. One can argue that as a science economics merely tells us what policies will produce which results and leaves to others the decision as to the type of results desired. But that is deceptive. If one approaches an economist and asks what economic policies will result in the improved condition of animals, say, the economist is likely to have nothing to say. Economists have not hypothesized a series of diverse ends and examined the policies that would attain them. They have assumed that the end is growth of total product, and generations of scholars have studied, with great success, how to attain that. Needless to say, they do not as a group merely provide neutral information. They vigorously support and promote those policies that will lead to greater growth.
We see here a problem with the very organization of knowledge in the modern world. Particular aspects of reality are assigned to particular academic disciplines. In order to get on with the constructing of a science, the practitioners of the discipline must make some simplifying decisions ordered to whatever purpose commends itself to them. There is nothing wrong with that. But then the practitioners also claim the turf as their own. Of course, there may be disputes, as between Marxists and neoclassical schools. But most of the assumptions, most of the goals, are held in common between them. If one proposes that the economic subject matter be investigated for quite different purposes, one is told that this would not be economics. Yet no one else is recognized as authorized to investigate this material.
This identification of a "science" with research aimed at a particular end would not be so serious a problem except for profound changes that have occurred in the ethos of the North Atlantic nations. Prior to this century this ethos was dominated by religious and political ideologies. Religion dominated down through the 17th century. Since then nationalism become triumphant. One lived and died for one's nation as one had earlier lived and died for one's faith.
Nationalism came to its peak in the middle of the 20th century in what might be viewed as a caricature. Naziism made of German nationalism an absolutistic religion pursuing the consequences of its ideology with unstinting consistency. The nationalism of other peoples played a large role in the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany, but that whole episode spelled the beginning of the decline of nationalism as a spiritual force.
Following on the earlier decline of religion, this decline of nationalism has sometimes been hailed as the end of ideology. Ideology is now replaced by pragmatism. The task is to identify problems and solve them without commitment to any overarching goals. Much that is very positive has occurred in this context. Western Europe, which had been torn by religious and national fighting for centuries, is now almost free from the danger of a recurrence of this madness. Religious passion and national pride are spent.
But it is not quite true that there is no overarching goal. The goal is economic growth. That goal is taken as obvious and simply rational. And indeed it does not involve the call to heroic personal sacrifice that characterized both religion and nationalism in their heyday. On the contrary, one serves the new goal by attending to one's own economic interest. For the first time in history, it is now established that the best way to serve one's neighbor is to act in perfect selfishness! One can indeed forget all ideology and go about one's own business of gaining as many of the world's goods as possible at the least cost in labor. The market will take care of the rest.
This non-ideological ideology has hardly received a name. I will call it "economism." Religious people have not failed to criticize it, but thus far ineffectively. They have complained about its materialism, but they have shared its goal of providing goods for all. They have complained about its selfishness, but since this selfishness leads to the benefit of all, the complaint is difficult to make credible. They have complained also that the market does not implement justice, that is leads to great inequities. And here they have had some success in the political arena. All North Atlantic countries have taken action to mitigate the suffering engendered by the market and to spread the benefits of the increased production it makes possible.
But as long as religious people shared with economism the goal of economic growth, they could do little to weaken its hold. They preferred its neutrality with respect to religion to the active opposition of the Communists. They supported its progressive weakening and displacement of nationalism. And they contributed to the educational system and the social ethos that enabled economism to dominate.
Economism has also had the acquiescence and support of political leaders. At times their continuing nationalism has led them to resist particular policies that obviously weakened national sovereignty. But on the whole they were persuaded to identify the national interest with growth in Gross National Product, and they accepted the view that GNP would grow faster as markets become larger.
Thus in the North Atlantic countries, economism has gained the support of the remaining strength of both religious and national feeling. It is now almost undisputed master of the world's most powerful peoples. It is because of this enormous power that this "science" must be so carefully criticized. If economism is to give way, like religion and nationalism before it, it must be to something else. Society cannot do without some ordering principle. But what might that be?
The most promising candidate today is reverence for the Earth. This is taking many forms. The Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock has elicited a surprisingly favorable response. Native American spirituality is popular. Some ecologists and environmentalists give themselves sacrificially to saving the planet without any obviously religious expression of their concern. Among Christians there is a renewal of creation spirituality. The picture of the Earth from the moon has become a moving symbol of this new attitude and orientation.
Although almost everyone gives lip service to a concern for the well-being of the planet, and especially its biosphere, thus far this is subordinated to economism. George Bush announced his intention of becoming our environmental president, but he has made it clear that this is not to interfere with economism. The result, of course, is that his environmental record is poor. There is an inherent tension between economism and environmentalism that will not go away by virtue of minor gestures in the direction of the latter. "Planetism," to coin a name for the emerging ideology, has not yet been able to affect basic policy.
Fortunately, the "yet" in the previous sentence is realistic. As our social and environmental problems get worse, and as the negative consequences of economism become better known, leaders will arise who are truly willing to change course. The opposition will be enormous and the temptation to sacrifice planetism for modifications of economism will be great. But there is a chance that the choice will become clear and that people in large numbers will choose for planetism.
Planetism will not succeed unless it can project the possibility of a viable economy. It must show that although there is profound tension between economism and planetism, there is no opposition between planetism and meeting the economic needs of all. Otherwise, however much they regret the losses, most people will remain committed to economism. Economism will still come to an end, but it will be a catastrophic one.
For the planetist the goal of the human economy is to meet physical needs with the smallest possible disruption of the larger, natural, economy. Further, the aim is to do so in ways that encourage other human values, especially those associated with human community and a sense of belonging to the larger world. The intention is to accomplish all this in ways that inflict as little harm as possible on human beings, or other animals and life forms.
The assumptions underlying this goal are clearly different from those underlying economism. One assumption here is that human beings are fundamentally communal. That is, their relations to one another are extremely important, more important than consumption of goods beyond a quite minimal level. Economism assumes that individuals are not relational, so that if their consumption is increased their lot is improved even if their communities are destroyed in the process.
A second assumption is that while human well-being is important, the well-being of the rest of the planet is also--independently of its apparent value to us. All life has intrinsic value, and planetism holds that human beings should adjust their lives in light of this truth.
A third assumption is that individuals count. Economism already affirms this, too one-sidedly, with respect to human beings. Planetism extends it to all sentient beings. The infliction of unnecessary suffering is wrong. Much suffering is unavoidable, and efforts to avoid it are likely to make matters worse. But much suffering inflicted by human beings on other human beings and on other animals is avoidable. Planetists assume that human beings can and should meet their physical needs in ways that cause as little suffering as possible to one another and to other animals.
A fourth assumption is that labor is not inherently evil. Certainly much labor is boring, painful, demeaning, and in general intrinsically unrewarding. Planetism agrees with economism that this should be minimized. As little as possible of such labor should be imposed on other animals also. But reducing the hours of labor in general is not the only way of reducing the evil involved in labor. It is also possible to make labor itself more enjoyable and fulfilling. The ideal is to produce the goods people need with as little disruption of the natural economy as possible, and also with human labor that is as enjoyable as possible. Sometimes more labor-intensive modes of production are both less damaging to the environment and more enjoyable. From an economistic perspective, to shift to such modes would be a backward step. For the planetist, it can be a gain.
That markets are the most efficient means of allocating resources—of adjusting production to consumer preferences--has been demonstrated again and again both theoretically and practically. Planetism supports market economies. But whereas economism seeks to minimize non-economic restrictions on markets and to maximize their size, planetism seeks to minimize their size and to establish rules for each market about the conditions of labor and the impact on the environment. The allocative efficiency of the market is not harmed by such rules as long as they apply equally to all participants. The only "losses" are in productivity and total product, and these are not the goals of planetism. Of course, those who produce under these rules should not be forced to compete with others who are not so restricted. Each market should be protected from outside competition to the extent necessary.
Whereas economism makes each local area dependent on goods produced elsewhere and capital derived elsewhere, planetism seeks local self-reliance and relative self-sufficiency. There is no harm in trade when the trade involved is not essential to local survival. Such trade is truly voluntary and mutually beneficial. But so-called "free trade" today is compulsory. Countries trade on terms laid down by others on pain of starvation. Planetism would have none of that.
Planetism's goal of self-sufficiency includes the field of energy. A planetist society would price imported energy high so as to provide maximum incentive for the market to engender the urgently needed changes. The first step would be shifting to highly energy efficient equipment to reduce the need for imported fossil fuels. The second step would be some shift from energy-intensive mass production to labor-intensive handicrafts and small-scale diversified family farming. The third step would be building homes, offices, and even whole cities that meet their energy requirements from direct solar energy alone. The fourth step would be developing new technologies for more efficient transformation of solar energy into electricity. The fifth step would be building cities that do not require use of motor vehicles. These changes would all take time, but reduction in dependence on imported energy could be begun quickly.
Economism has compromised with land use policies that place some land outside the market. However, even federally owned lands have been exploited for commercial purposes. Planetism aims at reduced use of the land. Other forms of life, including animals, would be major beneficiaries of such a policy.
Under planetism, much land now in national forests would be classified as wilderness, which is the single most important contribution human beings could make to the well-being of other life forms, including animals. Similarly, much land now overgrazed by cattle would be returned to buffalo and deer. Much land now used for crops would revert to pasture. The result would be the reduction of cropland. But this need pose no problem in respect to adequate supplies of food. If livestock were raised almost entirely on grass, far less land would be needed to grow grains. The remaining lands would more than suffice for direct human consumption.
It is clear that the result of these changes would be a reduced production of meat, especially beef. Some of this reduction could be compensated by increased supplies of wild meats, especially buffalo and venison. But a diet for planetism would involve a substantial reduction in red meat.
A planetist economy would move quickly to end the pollution of lakes and rivers, the destruction of wetlands, and the overfishing of the ocean. Some species might recover and rather large-scale sustainable fisheries might become possible in areas where they have been abandoned.
These brief reflections on a planetist economy have had the United States in view. The scenario would be different in other places. Precisely since economies would be local, their problems and responses would be different. But in general they would all aim at a sustainable relationship to their local environment that maintains as much diversity of life there as possible.
From: Earth Ethics 3(1), Fall 1991.
There is no harm in trade when the trade involved is not essential to local survival.
So can NZ buy medicines from overseas or not?
How about iodine supplies? (NZ soil is naturally low in iodine. Pre-European Maori got iodine from seafood. Given that the author has doubts about whether fishing can survive, thus making reliance on seafood doubtful.)
And I must trade with others in order to not starve to death. Why is this okay for me, but bad when you scale up to nations level? Doesn't this have good effects in that it makes me reluctant to start wars on pain of starvation? Isn't part of the EU's determination to avoid another war like the Germans started part of their experience with being hungry during WWII?
It is also possible to make labor itself more enjoyable and fulfilling. The ideal is to produce the goods people need with as little disruption of the natural economy as possible, and also with human labor that is as enjoyable as possible.
The second step would be some shift from energy-intensive mass production to labor-intensive handicrafts and small-scale diversified family farming.
Is this plan compatible with the goal of making labour itself more enjoyable?
And why does this guy focus on markets, and not on all the environmental damage governments have done? He should be putting as much effort into how to constrain governments so they don't hurt the environment too.
And who are the people holding the views of economism? Citations please. Externality theory is taught in Econ 101 at universities, so I am disinclined to believe that there are significant numbers of people out there who simply believe "One can indeed forget all ideology and go about one's own business of gaining as many of the world's goods as possible at the least cost in labor. The market will take care of the rest. " I think John Cobb is attacking a straw man. (There are people who believe that on average the government will do a far worse job if it tries to correct market outcomes, but that's a different position.)
Posted by: Tracy W | March 12, 2006 at 08:35 PM
Tracy W.
* There is no harm in trade when the trade involved is not essential to local survival. So can NZ buy medicines from overseas or not? How about iodine supplies? (NZ soil is naturally low in iodine. Pre-European Maori got iodine from seafood. Given that the author has doubts about whether fishing can survive, thus making reliance on seafood doubtful.)
Certainly trade is often good, and championed by all economists. Daly and Cobb say in FOR THE COMMON GOOD that 9 times out of ten arguments against trade are invalid. Daly and Cobb propose trade above some commonly-agreed-to base, which may be a bit hard to pin down, but still is a useful idea to talk about and attempt to develop public policy for.
* And I must trade with others in order to not starve to death. Why is this okay for me, but bad when you scale up to nations level? Doesn't this have good effects in that it makes me reluctant to start wars on pain of starvation? Isn't part of the EU's determination to avoid another war like the Germans started part of their experience with being hungry during WWII?
It is OK to scale trade up to the nation-state level, preferably in a sequential, bottoms-up way, as long as the nation is not risking losing it's comparative advantages. And yes, there are advantages to an inter-twined world made possible in part by trade arrangements.
* It is also possible to make labor itself more enjoyable and fulfilling. The ideal is to produce the goods people need with as little disruption of the natural economy as possible, and also with human labor that is as enjoyable as possible.
Yes! And I assume that you meant "natural ecology" not "natural economy" (it proves too easy to hit a wrong key or two in comments and then not see such until it's too late).
* The second step would be some shift from energy-intensive mass production to labor-intensive handicrafts and small-scale diversified family farming. Is this plan compatible with the goal of making labour itself more enjoyable?
Wonderful, if it happens. A friend and I were discussing similar framing at a meeting in Colorado this week. We agreed that bliss would be if, after most all things are made by computer robotics and after many of the so-called service sector jobs disappear due to very powerful communication information systems, craft guilds and local artists were able to make a good living as part of some futuristic production/income distribution system. The other possibility is Kurt Vonnegut Jr's PLAYER PAINO world described in a post on my Econ Dreams – Econ Nightmares blog as "Leontief's Worry: Jobs Destroyed Much Faster than Created" http://forestpolicy.typepad.com/economics/2006/02/leontiefs_worry.html
* And why does this guy focus on markets, and not on all the environmental damage governments have done? He should be putting as much effort into how to constrain governments so they don't hurt the environment too.
Yes, we should be rightfully critical of the damage done to the environment in the name of governments. Power concentrations are always something we should be fearful of.
* And who are the people holding the views of economism? Citations please. Externality theory is taught in Econ 101 at universities, so I am disinclined to believe that there are significant numbers of people out there who simply believe "One can indeed forget all ideology and go about one's own business of gaining as many of the world's goods as possible at the least cost in labor. The market will take care of the rest. " I think John Cobb is attacking a straw man. (There are people who believe that on average the government will do a far worse job if it tries to correct market outcomes, but that's a different position.)
To some extent Cobb has set up a strawman—don't we all too much of the time—but the problem of externalities being forgotten in both practical political situations and in much of the written text of economics is well-documented. I don't have my economics books at home or I'd rattle off a few citations. Perchance I'll find a spare moment to do so tomorrow, if others don't answer this question before I get to it.
Posted by: Dave Iverson | March 12, 2006 at 09:38 PM
Externalities problem:
Wikipedia has this to say about "externatilites": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
"An externality occurs in economics when a decision, such as for example, to do something which pollutes the atmosphere, causes costs or benefits to stakeholders other than the person making the decision, often from the use of common goods, though not necessarily so. In other words, the decision-maker does not bear all of the costs or reap all of the gains from his action. As a result, in a competitive market too much or too little of the good will be consumed from the point of view of society. If the world around the person making the decision benefits more than he does, such as in areas of education, or safety, then the good will be underconsumed by individual decision makers; if the costs to the world exceed the costs to the individual making the choice in areas such as pollution or crime then the good will be overconsumed from society's point of view.
"…Economists see voluntary exchange as mutually beneficial to both parties in an exchange. On the other hand, either the consumption of a product … or its production may have external effects…. Those who suffer from external costs do so involuntarily, while those who enjoy external benefits do so free….
"From the perspective of a social planner or welfare economics, this will result in an outcome that is not socially optimal. From the perspective of anybody affected by the externality, it is either a negative factor in their lives, as with obnoxious smell or pollution or a boon, as with the other's pretty clothes. In the first case, the person who is affected by the negative externality in the case of air pollution will likely see it as violating his freedom to breathe freely. It might even be seen as trespassing on their lungs, violating their property rights. Thus, an external cost can easily pose an ethical or political problem. Alternatively, it might be seen as a case of poorly-defined property rights.
"An external benefit, on the other hand, may increase the availability of choices for — and thus the amount of freedom of — the beneficiaries with no cost to them. In effect, it can be called a "free lunch" for them. They may thus resist the ending of such beneficial externalities along with any associated inefficiencies.
"The value of the effects of the externality are likely not something that can be easily calculated in a technocratic way by economists or social planners, since they reflect the ethical views and preferences of the entire population. Instead, for countries believing in popular sovereignty, some sort of democratic method is needed to attach values to the external costs and benefits.
"Sometimes, laissez-faire economists such as Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman refer to externalities as "neighborhood effects" or "spillovers". But it should not be thought that all externalities are small, spilling over only in the "neighborhood." For example, the burning of fossil fuels affects the entire "neighborhood" of the Earth, and according to many, causes global warming.
"Going outside the broadly-defined liberal political tradition, Marxists see externalities of all sorts, including pecuniary ones, as ubiquitous, being the rule rather than the exception. Production is socialized or totally interdependent...."
THEORETICAL WELFARE ECONOMICS, by J. de V. Graaff, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975 (first published 1957)) has this to say:
"... Much of the appeal of what we might call laissez-faire welfare theory, which is largely concerned with demonstrating the optimal properties of free competition and the unfettered price system, is undoubtedly due to its elegance and simplicity. Admit the existence of external effects [the so-called externalities] and both disappear. Even under ideal circumstances, price no longer measures the marginal contribution a good makes to social welfare--it measures the contribution it makes to private welfare, which may be something quite different. ...
"... In my view the job of the economist is not to try to reach welfare conclusions for others, but rather to make available the positive knowledge -- the information and understanding -- on the basis of which laymen (and economists themselves, out of office hours) can pass judgment.
"It is for this reason that I choose to regard aggregate index numbers of output or consumption as mere providers of information which may or may not be useful in themselves, but which are certainly devoid of normative significance. ...
"No doubt many professional economists are reluctant to abdicate what they may like to regard as their traditional prescriptive role, and are uneasy at the prospect of becoming mere purveyors of information. If they are, it is up to them to show how welfare economics can be set upon a basis which is even reasonably satisfactory--or can be made to yield conclusions with which a significant number of men are likely to concur." (pp. 170-1)
{Note: The THEORETICAL WELFARE ECONOMICS Cite is drawn from my "Criitques of Cost-Benefit Analyisis," http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/econcritiques.html }
Posted by: Dave Iverson | March 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM
John Cobb's claim was that certain people believe, amongst other things, something like "For the first time in history, it is now established that the best way to serve one's neighbor is to act in perfect selfishness! One can indeed forget all ideology and go about one's own business of gaining as many of the world's goods as possible at the least cost in labor. The market will take care of the rest. "
A series of citations of people attacking this idea are not proof that anyone holds it. Nor is uncited claims about Hayek or Friedman. Furthermore, I've had my meaning completely misinterpreted by quoting out of context, so I'll see the quotes first before I'll believe that anyone like Hayek or Friedman would have completely forgotten Econ 101 (E.g. once I said in letter drafted for someone more important that "Private banks cannot create credit like a central bank can." [Going on to explain the differences]. This got quoted as "banks cannot create credit ...".)
As for 'natural economy' vs 'natural ecology', I actually quoted that from the text in the post. I meant to put it in italics, but they didn't show up.
I have my doubts that small-scale farming and intensive handcrafts will lead to enjoyable labour. When you read accounts by 19th century NZ settlers that was much of their lives, and quite often they disliked it.
Posted by: Tracy W | March 13, 2006 at 01:15 PM
Tracy W.
Sorry about misinterpreting your intent, and not appropriately separating what you were quoting from the nature of your inquiry and challenge.
As to "who are the people holding the views of economism?" I reply: All those who don't adequately account for externalities, which in my book is a large number, particularly when dealing in matters of political economy. The very act of labeling something "external" gives license to ignore it, or leave it as a problem for others to solve. I believe this happens far too often, and is, in my opinion, a major reason that the cross-disciplinary conversation Ecological Economics came to be.
Posted by: Dave Iverson | March 13, 2006 at 07:00 PM
My mistake on the quotes - I sometimes get confused between different commenting interfaces on the web.
"Do not adequately account for externalities", with Dave Iverson presumably defining what is meant by 'adequate', is a different thing from believing that "... it is now established that the best way to serve one's neighbor is to act in perfect selfishness! One can indeed forget all ideology and go about one's own business of gaining as many of the world's goods as possible at the least cost in labor. The market will take care of the rest." I now have a Bayesian-probability based belief that there is no one who holds the view John Cobb describes. (Bayesian-based because I'm prepared to alter it if someone actually does come up with good evidence that someone does hold this belief.)
Reasonable people can disagree on whether externalities have been accounted for adequately. See for example these cross-submissions on how the HVDC link in NZ should be priced, at http://www.electricitycommission.govt.nz/submissions/substransmission/hvdcjan06. (You will have to take my word for it as a NZer that these people are reasonably reasonable, however).
'The very act of labeling something "external" gives license to ignore it, or leave it as a problem for others to solve. ' - who gives this license? I wish my thesis supervisor at uni had adopted this approach, it would have made my thesis much easier. :)
Posted by: Tracy W | March 14, 2006 at 03:06 PM
* 'The very act of labeling something "external" gives license to ignore it, or leave it as a problem for others to solve. ' - who gives this license?
License is too-easily taken, not given, by politicians, business moguls, wildcatters, and others who operate in the sphere described well by author Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. when he said (in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater):
"The therapist, after a deeply upsetting investigation on normality at this time and place, was bound to conclude that a normal person, functioning well on the upper level of a prosperous, industrialized society, can hardly hear his conscience at all."
Posted by: Dave Iverson | March 14, 2006 at 04:58 PM
Dave, in my experience, politicans don't need the word "externalities" to take license. What drives them is the need to get re-elected, and they will ignore their own common sense, let alone any economic or ecological arguments, if they think it is the best way to get votes. See what happened with the cod fisheries in Canada.
Which is why I worry about the eventual effect of those environmentalists like John Cobb who implicitly blame only markets for environmental damage, and never mention the damage done by governments. They risk setting up an institutional structure by which more enviromental damage is done because the risk of damage by government was not considered at the outset.
Posted by: Tracy W | March 15, 2006 at 01:19 PM
These ideas really remind me of the whole concept of corporate social responsibility, yet they also take into account the role played by the individual in the economy. Very thought provoking stuff here!
Posted by: thebizofknowledge | August 28, 2006 at 01:22 PM
Follow up on "corporate social responsibility, yet they also take into account the role played by the individual in the economy."
I've been reading Ian Mitroff and Harold Linstone's THE UNBOUNDED MIND. In a chapter titled "Unbounded Sytems Thinking: A Fifth Way of Knowing" they suggest looking at problems (framing things) into three realms: technical (science-technology), organizational (social entity, small to large, informal to formal), and individual.
Mitroff and Lindstone advocate a reasoned approach that allows one (or communiites larger than one)to vet problems and work up resolutions by looking at things differently depending on the different lenses through which one looks. In this the two authors join a large and growing number of people who advocate taking a "multiple perspective" approach to complex and wicked problems.
Wouldn't it be nice to see the press, the politicos, etc. using multiple frame approaches instead of "faith based" or "I'm right therefore you are wrong!" approaches.
Posted by: Dave Iverson | August 28, 2006 at 02:53 PM