The Blog which keeps on giving…

Most of the mail I receive is from impersonal feeds – mainly from journals.

A letter from friend or family makes the day worthy of celebration. 

But every now and then there is a welcome post from one of my favourite bloggers eg Michael Robert’s Blog; or Mainly Macro – both of which specialise in economic commentary which I tend to skim very quickly – and another 4 I picked out for special mention in a recent update of my blogroll also focus on specialised subjects – as do, indeed, 99% of the blogs I know about…… I’ve occasionally wondered about this – once in 2014 and again last year in the post A Musing Decade when I asked 

What exactly do I mean when I say the blog is one of the longest-running “of its “kind”? Simply that the majority of blogs specialize in a particular topic - whether political commentary (yawn), book reviews (a popular subject), economics (ditto), Brexit, EC Law etc

Mine, however, darts like a butterfly to a variety of flowers. 

One blogpost which arrived this morning is always worth a close read – namely Canadian Dave Pollard’s powerfully-named “How to Save the World” and indeed is one of the very few other blogs which defies classification and which could be grouped in the “perennial” category I tried this week to claim for my own blog.

Having said that his blog defies specialisation, I then found myself immediately putting Pollard into categories by calling him both a “survivalist” and “radical non-dualist” (admittedly the phrase he uses to describe himself) And his blog certainly encourages such a labelling by grouping the people he follows into “others who write about collapse” and “radical non-dualists” 

His latest post was a typically thoughtful one sparked off by a recent interview with Frederic Laloux whose book “Reinventing Organisations” (2014) I summarised some years ago.

I would normally be pretty cynical about books with such titles – after the fiasco of the “reengineering movement” in the 1990s - but Laloux’s book looked to be a sober taking of stock of the literature on organisational excellence. And, unlike most business books, it clearly rated the notion of self-management very highly…..Laloux has been fairly quiet in the 6 years since his book was first published but, as this site and videos show, he has actually been very active   

Pollard’s post poses ten important questions which Laloux is now raising for the 2020s 

Frédéric is now asking himself and others to consider ten “revolutionary” questions to deal with the terrible crises now facing us, and the growing likelihood of large-scale collapse. All of these questions apply at both a personal and societal level:

·         Accepting unhappy truths: How can we recognize the wilful blindness we each have to “inconvenient” truths, and how can we re-train ourselves to appreciate and accept what is true even if it is not what we want to believe? It takes some intellectual courage, honesty, openness and patience to move to such a mindset.

·         Sitting with not knowing: How can we learn to admit we don’t know, and that there are no simplistic answers, so that we can then create a safe space to just sit with not knowing, with incomplete understanding, with uncertainty and ambiguity, and let possibilities emerge as we learn more, think more, and interact more, instead of rushing to resolution?

·         Admitting our powerlessness: How can we allow ourselves, especially if we’re in positions of authority, to admit that we are simply unable to solve the complex predicaments we are facing — that they are larger than all of us. That also entails breaking the co-dependency between “powerful” decision-makers (parents, bosses, preachers, and presidents) who thrive on that power and the fame and self-satisfaction it provides, and the “powerless” rest of us (who are often content to let the “powerful” shield them from any sense of obligation to make any decisions or take any actions to address what is happening).

·         Moving to blamelessness: How can we train ourselves not to blame complex predicaments on others’ actions or inaction, and to acknowledge that we’re all doing our best and that no one (and no group) is “responsible” for the crises we face? This requires letting others, and ourselves, off the hook before we start to work to address these crises. And it requires the terrifying acknowledgement that firing the boss, or the president, will not fix the predicament that has seemingly arisen under their watch.

·         Overcoming the fear of failure: How can we enable ourselves to push forward and not be paralyzed by the fear of what could go wrong and the potentially awful consequences? This need not require either exceptional courage or indemnification, but rather a collective shift in what we define as failure and how we assess others’, and our own, value, intentions and actions.

·         Giving ourselves permission: How can we move past waiting for the permission of “authorities” to take whatever action we (individually and collectively) feel must be taken to address big scary issues we care about?  [And do that while still recognizing that others are scared, conflict- and confrontation- and risk-averse, and that’s OK.]

·         Appreciating that waking people up isn’t enough: Now that many people are aware of the existential crises facing us, what more will it take to get all of us actually working on addressing these crises? It’s been a decade since Al Gore showed us beyond all doubt that merely waking people up to the reality of an “inconvenient truth” is not sufficient to lead to any meaningful action.

·         Understanding what we long for: Personally and collectively, how can we come to a better appreciation of what really matters to us, what on our deathbeds we will be most proud, or rueful, about, and why it matters, so that we can’t not act on achieving it?

·         Consciously and continually reassessing our role and purpose: How can we keep considering, every day, what else we could, individually and collectively, be doing right now that would be more useful, more joyful, more “on purpose” than what we’re currently doing? And, of course, then, why aren’t we doing that?

·         Reimagining our future as the journey of a lifetime: How can we overcome our resistance to thinking and acting on plans for a better future, when it seems so scary and hopeless, and see our future instead as a great adventure? If we’re inevitably into the sixth great extinction of life anyway, why not approach it with gusto and give it everything we’ve got? What have we really got to lose? What’s really holding us back? 

Asking these questions, first at a personal level, and then collectively, in our communities, in our workplaces, and as citizens of a world in collective peril: It’s a lot to ask!

We might well add an eleventh, meta-question: How can we learn to craft great questions? Great questions can help us, personally and collectively, engage in the conversations (the word conversation literally means “turning with”) needed to help the system (at whatever scale/scales possible) to self-correct. In other words, sometimes it’s enough just to ask the right question. 

You can listen to the interview itself here.

Between the Lines - IV

Drafting the brief intros to the series of this year’s posts I’ve been rerunning this week has been a useful exercise – at least for me. It’s encouraged me to express more clearly the philosophy behind the blog viz –

-      Reflective – taking distance from “current affairs”

-      Sceptical

-      Open – to deeper analyses

-      questioning the nature and effects of (social) media 

It’s interesting that the blog has taken recently to using the title “Whatever happened to??” to explore the sudden (and strangely unremarked) disappearance of a topic which used to be on everyone’s lips… 

We need to think more deeply about who’s pulling the strings of such intellectual fashions 

Today’s batch of posts somehow resonate with me– they may seem a bit fixated on the irrelevance of most books written by social scientists (except generic ones) but this serves only as a contrast with those written by David Graeber whose death has been such a tragedy for anyone with common sense.

 

Post Title - just click the title to get the post	Inspired by	The basic message
whatever happened to governance?	Realisation that no one was talking anymore about what was once a hot topic	did we actually learn anything from this abstract debate of the past 2 decades??
"Governance" as New Kid on the Block	Some material on networks	A reluctant concession that governments actually have to share power
why are political scientists so irrelevant?	Trying to find useful books	Penis envy has made academics in the field of political studies avoid interesting topics which are of public concern
Le Trahison des Clercs	Asking the same question today which Benda did in the 30s	How few good non-fiction books there are
Expectations	Untypically short, almost poetic post	Keep them low
Fiddling while Rome is Burning	Continuing disappointment with non-fiction books	Ban the specialists who have never tasted other worlds
The Americans take no prisoners	US libertarian article goes over the top	and accuses all progressives of being Marxists
Some Advice for social activists	Street protests in Sofia	A great reading list
Links I liked	Includes review of  the “Hope Gap” film; and powerful excerpts from Martin Hagglund’s “This Life - secular faith and spiritual freedom”	This “scooping up” of odd hyperlinks is proving less easy than I thought? Why? Too scrappy?
Why do Economists talk Gibberish?	More people need to take this question seriously	Recommendations for those who want economics explained in clear language
David Graeber RIP	We lose one of our clearest prophets 25 years too early	Most of Graeber’s work can be read online free
Strategies for Governing	My most inspiring book of the decade	We need more skills of statecraft
So Isst die Welt – und musst nicht so sein	I try (again) to explain my fixation on public admin	Most of the literature is useless – a mere handful of books are worth reading
Links I liked	The German model; meritocracy; democracy by lot?	Some great reading recommendations
Another Landmark	The blog hits 400,000 clicks	9 justifications for why blogging is good for you
Crowds and Power II	Another blog invites me to do a guest post about protests in Sofia – and I offer 4,000 words	The title is from a famous book by a Bulgarian émigré written in 1960 and the post looks at the varying success of street protests in the region
Crowds and Power !!!	how the past has 30 years have treated Bulgaria and Romania	Go back to Some Advice for social activists
Whatever Happened to Planning?	A dream; John Friedmann’s “Insurgencies – essays in planning theory”	It’s been absorbed in strategic thinking

Le Temps Perdu – part III

Why do I persist with this little conceit of mine – pointing back to “Posts Past” – like Marcel Proust’s A La Recherche du Temps Perdu? Not just posts of previous years’ (see top right-hand corner of blog for list of titles you can access) – but even those I’ve inflicted on you so far this year? 

The answer is simple – this blog posts on “perennial” issues which repay study even years later. Very few of the 1,500 posts have dealt with “current affairs” – and then it has to be a pretty major issue eg the two UK Referenda - the 2014 one on Scottish Independence and the 2016 one on Brexit 

“Current Affairs” is like a conjuring trick – our fixation on the action distracts our attention from the real levers of power. Indeed one of the French words for entertainment is “distraction” and, since the times of Celine and Guy Debord, the French have recognised the dangers posed by the “society of the spectacle”.

Americans have seen such disdain as elitist – with only Neil Postman’s “Amusing ourselves to Death” (1983), Jerry Mander’s “Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television” and Douglas Kellner’s various books daring to voice it 

This is the third in a series of this year’s posts I am listing this week in celebration of hitting the 1,500^th post earlier in the month. It’s a fairly typical selection…. Starting with scepticism, moving on to groupthink, John Berger, capitalism, Human nature, intellectual history, hyperlinks to the world’s best English-speaking journals, the learning process, the role of the state…to…extinction…

Each post with a brief summary to tempt you in…

What more could you ask for???

 

Post Title - just click to access the post	Inspired by	The basic message
Musical interlude	Gavin Bryers	To soothe our souls
Scepticism and moral panic	courageous posts from a fellow-blogger	Newspaper headlines about Covid19 need to factor in deaths from normal flu; economic lockdown could be counterproductive
Critical Masses, naked Emperors and freebies	a question left hanging in a previous post	What happens when groupthink takes over – a popular post this one
Visual and other Links I Liked	images and spectacle - the weekly roundup	John Berger, Guy Debord and George Galloway (and an amazing mag resource) all figure in this whimsical collection
Back in the saddle	PC issue causes blog silence for a few weeks	Some important Covid19 analyses
Links I liked	A book explores a century of foretelling the end of capitalism; Bregman’s “Humankind”; and intellectual history	We need to think more about what and why  we think
My Day	a (rare) video conference; and a tabular presentation of the structure of a book I’m drafting	How young and self-confident academics are these days
Learning to Learn	A video on the learning process takes me back to my memories of lecturing and training	A polyglot reveals her secrets
Journals worth reading updated	A desire to share goodies	Although newspapers are in deep trouble, small mags seem to be thriving
Links I liked	A richness of links	Podcasts and videos
A Challenge to Financial Thinking	Robert Skidelsky is pouring the books out!	Political economy is the only useful way to approach economics
Money Talks - why we need a new Vocabulary of social change	“Capital Rules OK” – why can’t we come up with an acceptable word for our condition – neoliberalism? The Beast? Minotaur?	Capitalism is undermining what’s left of democracy
revised blogroll	Recognising the few deep, consistent bloggers	It was a bit invidious to select only 6 blogs – all 50 are worth a look!
We need to talk about...the state	Long Pankaj Mishra article in LRB	Covid has demonstrated that only a few states are strategically governed
Who's having a good Covid19 War?	Some political scientists actually giving us useful assessments of government performance	Neoliberalism has stripped the state of its capacity
Covid19 as a warning shot	some Reflections/Lessons from the Future	We face extinction

Mapping the Common Ground

More in Common is an interesting Think Tank set up very recently with teams in France, Germany, the UK and the US. It's concerned to explore the 

“underlying drivers of fracturing and polarization - and to build more united, resilient and inclusive societies.  

 In its short life, it has commissioned a lot of survey work to try to understand what is going on in Europe and North America and issued a number of reports including, in April, this interim survey Hidden Tribes; Covid19, polarisation and the pandemic which, by September, produced these slides

This week, its British office produced a quite fascinating book-length report which I am still trying to read Britain’s Choice – common ground and divisions in 2020s Britain based on research it commissioned from the prime Yougov survey team.

The report suggests that Britain is not quite as polarised as we might think and can be divided into seven distinct groups - 

– Progressive Activists: A powerful and vocal group for whom politics is at the core of their identity, and who seek to correct the historic marginalisation of groups based on their race, gender, sexuality, wealth and other forms of privilege. They are politicallyengaged, critical, opinionated, frustrated, cosmopolitan and environmentally conscious (13%).

 – Civic Pragmatists: A group that cares about others, at home or abroad, and who are turned off by the divisiveness of politics. They are charitable, concerned, exhausted, community-minded, open to compromise, and socially liberal (13% of the total).

 – Disengaged Battlers: A group that feels that they are just keeping their heads above water, and who blame the system for its unfairness. They are tolerant, insecure, disillusioned, disconnected, overlooked, and socially liberal (12% of the total).

 – Established Liberals: A group that has done well and means well towards others, but also sees a lot of good in the status quo. They are comfortable, privileged, cosmopolitan, trusting, confident, and pro-market (12%).

 – Loyal Nationals: A group that is anxious about the threats facing Britain and facing themselves. They are proud, patriotic, tribal, protective, threatened, aggrieved, and frustrated about the gap between the haves and the have-nots (17% of the total).

– Disengaged Traditionalists: A group that values a well-ordered society and prides in hard work, and wants strong leadership that keeps people in line. They are self-reliant, ordered, patriotic, toughminded, suspicious, and disconnected (18%).

– Backbone Conservatives: A group who are proud of their country, optimistic about Britain’s future outside of Europe, and who keenly follow the news, mostly via traditional media sources. They are nostalgic, patriotic, stalwart, proud, secure, confident, and relatively engaged with politics (15%).

 The Britain we find in this study is not divided into two opposing camps. Britons come together in different formations depending on the issue at hand – 

much like the pieces of coloured glass in a kaleidoscope which cluster in different patterns as the instrument rotates.

This is a strength that may inoculate the UK against one of the most dangerous dimensions of polarisation, which experts describe as ‘conflict extension’ – when members of a group converge across a range of issues. Because the segments come together in different formations depending on the issue at hand, Britain is less likely to become divided as a society into two opposing camps.

– On issues of immigration and race, “Loyal Nationals”, “Disengaged Traditionalists”, and “Backbone Conservatives” come together, while “Progressive Activists”, “Civic Pragmatists”, “Disengaged Battlers”, and “Established Liberals” form another coalition.

 – On issues that involve social trust and institutions, we may see “Established Liberals”, “Civic Pragmatists” and “Backbone Conservatives” coming together on the one hand, while on the other hand “Disengaged Battlers”, “Disengaged Traditionalists” and “Progressive Activists” often align similarly because of their distrust of institutions.

– On issues of inequality and economic policy, Progressive Activists, Loyal Nationals, Civic Pragmatists, Disengaged Battlers, and to a lesser extent, Disengaged Traditionalists, are united.

 – There is widespread agreement on climate issues, led by a strong coalition of Progressive Activists, Civic Pragmatists, and Loyal Nationals.

I said, in the last post, that I was proud to be called a sceptic – but that is not the same as a “contrarian” of whom the sadly-missed Chris Hitchins was the most celebrated exemplar. I have, several times in this blog, bemoaned the failure of progressives to make common cause – or seek “common ground”. It remains an important concept for me

I need a separate post to explain the difference between these distinct aspects of strategic thinking….In the meantime, let me refer to another section of the report which pursues this theme …..

      We find common ground in Britain on many issues, with large majorities which:

– share a sense of national pride in many similar things – such as the NHS, our countryside, and our volunteer tradition

 – feel proud of Britain’s progress on gender equality and becoming a more tolerant and diverse nation – are committed to gender equality and racial equity

– believe that as a society we need to focus on responsibilities as much as rights

 – believe in closing the unfair gap between the haves and have-nots, and making sure that the hard work of key workers and others is better rewarded – want Britain to protect our countryside and lead on climate change

– believe we should strike a balance on difficult issues such as immigration

– feel decision making is too centralised in London

– want political leaders to compromise rather than just sticking to their positions and fighting.