Dear Willy,
thank you for your future post last and as always, ask forgiveness for my late reply. I am very happy that you have accepted my new charge as well and you've done right in the middle of the debate about the social impact of our previously discussed scientific views. How is it your way You like a "concentration charge" provided new ideas and approaches that I, as is my way of slowly like "dröseln apart!
First, I address the political dimension of change, and here we'll get to a completely heretical question: matching democracy and self-organization? Do not we have a kind of "eco-absolutism" , Introduced along the lines of: "The power is based on the nature and it is given to Ökodiktatoren enlightened, the wise manage the welfare of mankind and their environment"?
future have in my last post I argued that we derive from observation of what is not be able to infer the future, but probably can develop a guide on how to decide "makes". Especially in our political system (and here I am referring to Austria in particular and Europe in general) can be the very vorexerzieren beautiful. Here however, we need a pretty strong stomach, because the "look at politics" can (at least here in Austria) same strain and threaten the very own health.
The image is drawn quickly: We are moving rapidly from a "discourse-driven democracy" to a "fear-driven democratorship. Especially my son Benedict is a very interesting book on the political communication of the Freedom Party of Austria has FPÖ (for all non-Austrians: the populist right wing party with us) posted. For this book I learned a lot, especially that parties are only successful if they play on the keyboard feel and especially the "fear" chords mastery. Party leaders are successful when they are credibly anchored in the lives of the voters when they visit discos, smart and attractive "come over" and give the voters the people establish that they are not intelligent but just louder than the average citizen. The "be against something," the "Check All" is the program. Solutions are not expected, any political action is a "reform", no reform hurts to help "them" (that is always the other) and only worsens the quality of life. Politically, only one, "the other" (parties, social classes or even "alien") punishment, and to clear away. Compromises are always defeats, the truth is a debilitating concept and the communication with the people always just a monologue, or at best an disco music over the loud roar of chum to potential voters. The goal of political action is the defense or achievement of "power", then does nothing but in the end.
This moral view of the policy is of course very easy to create, but it shifted the view of the most basic shortcomings. First we must ask ourselves what are the guidelines of the political actors. Still a few years (from the 2nd World War up until maybe this magic 68iger "year) had political parties or ideologies fed from the world and of man, firmly structured views of the desirable future and the necessary social structures, practices and planning principles. As images of the world in general, these ideologies were fixed, and non-questionable. So of course they were very practical in the daily political action, solid guidance and explanation mechanisms. Although of course no "conviction" of ideologically different political opponent bearing could be achieved (world views, one can not "explain away"!), So ideologies formed but at least a solid basis for compromise. At least as long as the solutions are not one of the ideologies of the parties involved completely disagreed.
In that time, the political systems dominated either by an ideology (as the "real socialism") or bipolar, so that there are almost always a compromise, the two dominant ideologies did not ran to meet fully. In addition, the dominant ideologies (the socialist / communist and bourgeois / capitalist) children were of the same "original world view," the mechanistic world view of the 19 and 20 Century. This is interesting in that the main features of the concept of "progress" (the basis of what constitutes desirable future) in both ideologies were largely interchangeable (but not the answer to the question like the fruits of this progress should be distributed).
The basic elements of political systems were the one hand, strictly hierarchical administrations, largely stratified societies (do you have on this unique assignment workers = Socialist, remember Bauer = conservative? Long, long's ago ...) and the stabilization of society through unlimited economic growth. For the (historically short) period of a quarter century us the mechanistic world view and its ideology-driven policies in Europe, peace, peace and prosperity has brought, it had indeed also to make some good!
With the realization of the boundaries of the world, while globalization of trade, of ideas and information in this political model is becoming increasingly obsolete. Here is something worthy of debate, why all this happened this way. My explanation for this is simple (and we may perhaps in the next phrase of our Ping-Pong game, a little take a closer look): A new world dawned, it was also the basis of ideologies undermined. I have however been shown in detail in my book and would therefore not go into them now.
is important is rather something else: The world was too complicated for a bi-polar, hierarchical social system and ideology-driven for a policy compromise between two views, even so, the Background of an ever-growing wealth base can be achieved relatively easily. Difficulties arise when one's own political activities and the nature in all its complexity "miterwischt" and in addition, also decisions on a completely different place on our planet directly responds to our influence. In no time broke the monoideologische regime of the real socialism and we are just witnesses to his, his back as he left his brother-hostile world, the capitalist system, from sheer grief alone on the stage ideology, on the cliff of the story after jump.
may therefore we are not even the current state of politics and its wonderful people involved. The solid Basis of their ideologies, and thus deprived incapable of rational discourse on the really crucial problems of social development, they do nothing else than we do when we "know" are not: they rely on their "feeling". But there is no unifying "the future Again", a feeling that the vacant chair can take the general definition of progress. Rather, there are feelings that warn us against certain directions of development: the fear! And so there is currently a substitute for ideology, I would like to "Emologien call": a set of emotions, especially fear that in the political arena is used for negotiation. Just as ideologies are not Emologien questionable and they are used for political identity. The political discourse is so ostensibly led to the profound emotions and paralyzed by substantial disorientation. Our political systems are like a rabbit before the snake: Paralyzed by fear, with no real plan to take to survive and too cowardly to the decision for the future.
could again we go here into the trap of this state, its effects and possible solutions to this "crisis of political" debate. As I said, the state is not nice, but it is only a transitional stage (And hopefully not take too long). We should therefore employ more so, because what has caused this profound disorientation and how we can put "the evil at its root."
This helps us your forward last post: A major root is in need of spatial and temporal system boundaries to be redefined. Governance has always had a very strong spatial component. "Sovereignty" as an essential sign of the scope of power in the political context was always tied to space, to area. Within the region, which is dominated sovereign decisions could be enforced. The sovereign territory of the State was "inviolable", ie not subject to direct control of another power. From this view of the exercise of power are our borders, our counties, our communities, indeed all political arena, where we play! Space and politics are inseparable twins!
The rigid hierarchical target areas, we have created with this kind of political "space-power continuum" are totally inadequate today major problems to solve. This will also simultaneously the political authorities in these "old masters", be they states, federal states, administrative districts or other administrative units disavowed. This also helps no "more democracy", not a direct democracy, and no new parties: the wrong blank space is simple, the identification of citizens with these units is gone and thus its capacity solution.
This breaking up of political space comes from two sources. On the one hand, the old identification reasons are being eroded. People are more mobile, the historical connection to a place becomes weaker, as well as the social ties in a radically changing society. As much as our Emologen wind and even reluctant, belonging to an ethnic group or religious group now ranges as a basic identification with a room too small. There is no going back to an agrarian society with strict space bond by birth, society and tradition!
On the other hand, the "old masters" often have little relevance for today's key relationships between society and nature. With the exception of island states are most of these areas from developments in society, through political expediency or for administrative needs (think of the rule that reach a judicial district in Austria in the necessity, the court in a few hours on foot, was bound! ) born out. The nature, its resources and life support processes have played a role in the demarcation. For a modern society, crawling slowly out of the hole on fossil natural sunlight as the driving force of the economy, this political space structures are simply old-fashioned and irrelevant.
addition, there's an additional effect of self-organization: the "Organismierung. Also, again as an invented word from me, but easy to understand. Self-organization leads not only to the fact that individuals organize optimal in ecological niches. At the level of human society which is about the (global) division of labor progressed very far. Self-organization leads to a particular brand-new assemblages, in complex organisms. My theory now is that we as human society just a process of "Organismuswerdung", namely the "Organismierung" are going through.
Let's look at an organism. Of course, there is division of labor: The organs in the human body are indeed excellent examples for this. We also have a penetration of the individual systems in spatial terms. Think of as a blood vessel in the liver: Spatially it is part of the liver, but at the same time it belongs to the vascular system. This breaks the strict exclusivity organisms in the (spatial) mapping, it breaks the spatial "sovereignty." Our vein in the liver has to serve two masters, the liver and blood vessels, she needs to communicate between these two gentlemen, it excludes the liver to the "international" body.
This picture is certainly very simplistic and should indeed not be more than just a picture. But what is important here is the breakdown in the hierarchy of space, is the complexity of organisms that arose by self-organization. We just are not citizens of a region, we live simultaneously in many regions. These regions are not hierarchically structured, they are not mutually exclusive at the same level. They overlap penetrate, of course. But the essential thing is: The regions in which we live and act, is defined functionally, as just The liver has a function and the blood vessel system.
And here we are at a very substantial deficit in the existing political systems: these different functions generally not considered cutting your room! On this basis can not develop self-organizing society!
for any future political order of the "space-power continuum" must apply to them, "form follows function", the spatial layout, in which decisions are made must be appropriate to the functions. What is a good region for the administration of renewable resources must not be a good region for the organization of education for a long time. What is a good region to manage of social influence on life support water system is has nothing to do with the optimal region for the organization of the legal system. This is your last post in the future invoked "self-organized Europe" and a "Europe of regions" almost interchangeably, when viewed in today's political view, the region still hierarchical and medieval benefice oriented.
If we see democracy as the "political core culture of self-organization" (and I am sure!) Are of course equal to a number of very interesting questions of political democracy. I will answer today is not really you but a "cut Ball "on the table play, and a little provocative.
First of all I want to give our discussion a framework: Democratic systems are based upon the principle of representation (ie the posting of political actors by a people) can be described on three parameters:
• Who sends?
• How is posted?
• As the representatives negotiate with each other?
start with the first point. In a defined space based on functional blanks political system needs to be addressed by the principle of universal representation. Not everyone can decide on everything. It would also not particularly helpful in the organism, when the liver cells to the vote that the blood has to be from now blue!
Rather, democracy must be seen as an "offer of participation of stakeholders. This means that those who are interested in a particular functionality a say, are planned. Here comes the big break with the current systems: This only works if you follow two principles: voluntary participation and openness.
voluntariness means that (in contrast to today's democratic systems), the "people" unconstitutional solely by where they live or their membership of a particular group (such as in Austria in the case of many social partner associations) defined will, but through active participation in the co-determination. In this case, not only the process of decision-making is the subject itself but is also equal to the structure of governance!
voluntariness requires identification. Only those who identify with something that is seen as "belonging", is voluntarily participate in the decisions in a corporation. Here the spatial cut takes effect. The room is a territorial nature, as it is man after all, one of the most important (if not the only one) identification tag. Hence the above-described "space-power continuum" that dominates our politics. This will also change in a self-organizing non-society. We see this already very strong in regional development processes: The identification is the crucial step in Regionswerdung. We should discuss in a forthcoming post future broadcasts again in detail!
voluntary but must be supported by the principle of openness. No person who wants to participate actively, may be excluded. This is to prevent the whole thing degenerates into a clique economy and only those who want to implement something specific to take power.
Overall, the course is a complete departure from the previous conception of democracy: It has indeed the securitized Right to a say anywhere can you purchase his "right to vote" but just by participating. Participation in decision-making thus becomes a street '.
That sounds pretty revolutionary, first of all, it is not at all. Even today based on the most functional regions (those in which what really goes on) on this principle. Not to mention those areas where people actually take responsibility, such as in the many clubs which forms the backbone of our society (at least here in Austria).
now briefly to the second point, as for the representatives to be determined. I believe that this point is not fixed in general can and should do. The election shall be collected as well as the setting of the other rules of decision, be left to the individual entities. Functionality, but also cultural aspects have significant impact and will lead to a diversity in the solutions.
important than the question of the selection mode is the respect the principles of trust and commitment. We are used to that in the political game always talk about responsibility and then complain loudly to the irresponsibility of the political actors. We forget that this principle must always remain unattainable. No society can act by one person "Responsible" are not the death of a soldier who was sent on the basis of political resolve in the war, not the disease because many of the environmental burden that we allow in our laws (or penalize not only). Who would take responsibility for this and what would that mean to this person? So we let the responsibility cinnabar away safely! A self-organizing
Society must be more on the trust and the resulting liability. Trust must be the social capital to bring the representatives for their work. This confidence must be nurtured, of course, through transparency and the maxim, With stakeholders (which make up so each "people") and not over rule them.
trust must not only between representatives and those they send to rule. There must exist also between the individuals themselves. Only then can develop binding and can only be traded and held.
I let that thought even acting as a "construction site" stand for our further discussion. Only so much I still want to say this: It is clear that we do not prescribe such a self-organizing society. You must arise, organize it myself. Trust and commitment are the result of a process. For both, that local Near an important catalyst. The no more and no less, than that such a self-organizing society are built up "from below" must mean.
Now for the third and most sensitive point: How should the representatives to negotiate with each other? Here we must first define two different discourses. On the one hand, the discourse between regions with the same functionality (such as two or more "water areas" or "energy regions"). Functionality within their regions will have little to no overlap, in this case will prevail even after such a hierarchical order. This discourse will therefore proceed on the principle of subsidiarity, which we already been in hierarchical political systems (should!).
but much more interesting is the second form of discourse: The between different functional regions of decisions in the same room. So the discourse between vein and liver cells, such as should it go in our shared environment. Or the discourse between a "water region" and an "energy region" on the future of a particular wetland.
I do not solve political science in the strict sense. But I would also provoke a bit: I think there are something like an "invisible hand" of self-organizing societies, namely, space-bound visions. These visions will take over in much the role of ideology (or even the Emologien the current policy). You will be guided and scale of development.
Those regional body which generates the strongest vision, will also exert the strongest force identification. Again, I would "three talk" of self-organization do not like, I would create from case to case, from region to region it myself. This body will assume leadership of the themes in this discourse.
The methodology of discourse will be strongly influenced by scenarios. Each region that participates in such a discourse is, futures (and the acts of these to achieve) but do from their perspective. The comparison of the "guiding vision" will eventually lead to a comprehensive and holistic approach "in space" that can be shared by all.
Dear Willy, forgive that this time it's become a little longer. I, of course, as is my nature, a very broad brush used for my picture. Much has yet to be completed, but that is indeed the subject of our future post further. I'm looking forward to your next post!
Your
Michael
