Eco-democracy 101: Seeing society whole

The title in this third installment of our reflections on The Road from Empire to Eco-democracy comes from the third part, which seems presumptive in that we never really are able to see anything in its entirety as suggested by the word “whole.” But the task of being human is precisely the activity of looking at existence in its wholeness (from which the word “holiness” comes from BTW), and though we exult at the Herculean effort to be comprehensive, honesty invokes humility. There is never any completion of wisdom to claim any perspective to be whole. Acknowledging that we see things incompletely is being truthful.

What the title does suggest is an invitation to see the social process as dynamic, a perspective modern science already holds, understanding that underneath atoms is an energy field described more as waves rather than substance. The Road and our pedagogy use a similar lens that emerged at a research assembly of the Institute of Cultural Affairs in Chicago in 1971. The same is used by many planning agencies that follow the iterative process of vision, contradictions, proposals, strategies and tactics, including United Nations, World Bank, area development banks, government and NGO supported projects.

The screen as a tool of understanding and analysis (see Saipan Tribune Opinion page, Monday, April 26, 2010) is only a mental map, not the actual geography.

Briefly, there are three distinct processes in any social unit: the sustaining, organizing, and meaning-giving poles we label “economic, political, and cultural” respectively. Current economic specialization at the micro and macro levels grasp the basic processes that characterize every society through the triune poles of the Keynesian model of fiscal policy, labor, and money supply. Econometrics of aggregate supply and demand in its various algorithms influence public and private sector policies. This is sadly insufficient.

For example, the social process triangles look at the economic pole to include natural, human and technological resources, the production instruments, forces, and systems, and the distribution areas of claims, exchange, and consumption. Using the three/nine categories enriches conversations on the economic future of the CNMI, moving away from a consumption plans solely supported by Uncle Sam’s and local revenue allocations to the development and production outputs of natural and human local resources already in the Commonwealth, as Tony Pellegrino weekly heralds.

This takes the current state of partisan and contentious political process in maintaining order, promoting justice, and ensuring equitable services of welfare out of the hands of politicos into the broad deliberation of the many. Electoral politics as practiced is archaic (e.g., it used to take 25 days for a congressperson from California to return to D.C.; now one is only a click away by text or voice); it also often arrogantly and willfully disregards the mandate of the people (e.g., casinos in Saipan), or sell itself to vested interests that fund election expenses.

The point is, looking only at politics as securing the defenses of our borders (our Homeland Security expenditure is horrendous) and mapping out strategies on how to extract at least cost global resources (oil, minerals, and nutrients) regardless of ecological impact and effect on local population violate the democratic sensibilities that undergirds the 235-year-old experiment on governance called the United States of America! We in the U.S. have created and are subservient to corporations that rule the world, earning a condition where 1 percent of the population owns more than 50 percent of the wealth.

Small circles of relationships nurturing a network of trust are the political modes of our time. Frank Stewart’s visioning group quietly goes about its business, and more such informal gatherings and informal visits (e.g., Tina Sablan’s campaign mode) need to occur. Participatory democracy needs to flourish.

The Road identifies the cultural pole as the loci of possible radical change, which when dealt with impacts the political and the economic poles as well. The cultural pole involves communal wisdom (skills, knowledge, meanings), styles (roles, procreation, structures), and symbols (language, art, and religion).

Briefly, our communal wisdom is helplessly dated, resisting organic growth and insisting on recalling past wisdom (e.g., the civil service exams of China and standardized exams around the world) rather than developing practices of critical and transparent thinking. Social style is hopelessly patriarchal (demeans women and exploits minorities) that practices domination and control, and our symbol system idolize all forms of imperial theocracies at the expense of earthly human integrity and promise.

Seeing society whole avoids the divisiveness that preoccupies our blame games and dualistic moralism (“its the other guy’s fault”). The question of change is not a matter of whether or not. Change is the constant in the evolutionary picture of the universe. It is more a matter of deciding whether one is carried by it, or decide to participate in the process. The choice is ours.