Reader’s Comments on “New Homepage and Preface”
Larry Walker
All the Best for Your New Website Approach
I read your piece in Wade’s Wire describing your new approach. It sounds promising to me, so all the best as you go down this path. Cheers
Wade: Good to hear. Thanks much for the feedback.
Freddi Fredrickson
I just read your “Wire” and Preface which I enjoyed. It is hard trying to get people to organize for a better society. I don’t know if it ever will happen as a large movement. I guess I think that the goal will be for more and more people who care about others to infuse their ideas in smaller groups, and then have this spread.
I wanted to tell you I bought the new book by David Brooks on how to really get to know people. I saw him on a couple of shows and thought he reminded me of what you have said about people knowing other people. I’ll let you know if I think it’s useful. Take care and many hugs, Freddi
Wade: Yes, I believe small groups can help educate and inspire each other to be more proactive. My hope is that somehow someday these groups, and issue-oriented organizations, will unite and accomplish more together than they can alone…. I look forward to hearing what you think about Brooks’ book, including points that resonate with you most strongly.
Mary Hudson
Great job! Would this picture work as a replacement for the Cultural picture?
Wade: I think it works well. What do you think? Thanks.
I think it looks great! I’ll look for a replacement for the “Political” picture.
Wade: Sure.
Yahya Abdal-Aziz
I appreciate the countless hours you have put into thinking and writing about how to achieve “a global society that’s fair and kind,” which is exactly what I’d love to see on the global scale, mirrored at every scale in communities both large and small, physical and virtual, that are also both kind and just.
We may have different perspectives on how to get there. You talk of unity, and I hear a faint whisper of conformity. Because, as we all know, people can be coerced into following an easier path when loaded words make them feel guilty for wanting to go their own way. Still, I trust, that you’re really talking about “unity in diversity”. I value diversity much more than I do unity. So, it appears, does nature, as countless varieties of organisms evolve into ever-new and unexpected forms.
We all have overlapping circles of family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, and other practical relationships, such as business, medical, official, political, etc. Every one of us is a member of at least two distinctly different kinds of community, and it would be impractical to combine or unite these communities in any meaningful way. However, all these communities do intersect, and we, individual persons, are the points of intersection.
I remember the fun I had at my 21st birthday party, introducing dozens of people from very different circles to each other, and enjoying observing their interactions. The musicians, the chess players, the linguists, the mathematicians and scientists, the literary people, the politicians, and family members all received a present at my party: a chance to meet and converse with people they’d never normally bump into. Some received their gifts gratefully and gracefully; others were bemused. To this day, I still enjoy a smorgasbord better than a three-course set dinner!
Let’s compare the two formats: online encyclopedia vs. book. The second offers us a set menu of courses. The first offers us endless, web-like hyperlinks. Very much as envisioned by Vannevar Bush, in his prophetic article “As we may think”, the source document for the notion of hyper-text and a direct inspiration for Wikipedia.
Guests circulating at my party weren’t tied to their previous decisions; they could sample a little here, nibble a little there; and feast on what they found to their taste and abilities. I guess you can sense which way this analogy is heading, right?
Yes, I do prefer the collaboratively-edited, somewhat amorphous, potentially chaotic, and patchy structure of the encyclopedia, to that of the carefully curated, architecturally-designed, and professionally-constructed book.
Not that I don’t appreciate the design and construction skills behind the book format! But it does throw too much responsibility on its architect, to see the project through to a usable state. Whereas the other approach lets everybody muck in. So what if somebody gets it wrong? Others can jump in to fix any problems that arise.
How many readers of Wikipedia know the name Jimmy Webb? How many of its editors do? But does it matter? No. Wikipedia wasn’t built by Jimmy Webb; an impossible undertaking for one person. It was started by him, for which I’m extremely grateful. And his effort deserves to be recognized as the great game-changer it is. Yet the value of what he started has been amplified many thousand-fold, by his slipping the reins and letting the horse follow its head. (Mixed metaphors, perhaps!)
So, I hope that I’ve left you something to chew on. (As if you were the horse!) It may be nutritious oats; it may only be chaff; taste it and see. Regards.
Wade: I, too, prefer collaboration.
+++++
Does “the System” exist?
References to “the system” are common in advertising, political commentary, popular culture, and elsewhere, but few people define what they mean by the phrase.
Wikipedia says, “A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole.”
This description leaves open the question of whether any one element controls or dominates a particular system. Concerning human societies, for instance, who rules? Who’s to blame?
In its “Jungles” episode, Our Planet declares “No one species can ever dominate, protecting the jungle’s incredible diversity.”
But don’t humans dominate nature? The Oxford Dictionary defines the “Anthropocene” as the geological age. “during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.” Dominant means “ruling or controlling.”
However, “The irony of the Anthropocene: People dominate a planet beyond our control,” argues, “It appears that nature…may have some tricks up its sleeve. Despite humans’ pervasive influence on the planet, our actual control over natural systems remains limited.”
In “The Limits to Human Domination of Nature,” Steve Cohen writes,
There is little question that human activities have damaged and sometimes dominated nature. But dominating nature is proving to be a little more difficult than some might have thought. The forces of natural environmental systems have proven to be more than current technologies can handle…. What is missing from our economic system and its technological base is humility and reverence for a universe that may, well, in some measure, always be beyond scientific understanding.
National Geographic likewise takes a more qualified position. It states, “The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems (emphasis added).”
Whether human society functions as a system is another question. In its introduction to sociology, Lumen reports:
Functionalists view society as a system in which all parts work — or function — together to create society as a whole. In this way, societies need culture to exist. Cultural norms function to support the fluid operation and continued stability of society, and cultural values guide people in making choices.
As summarized by Graham Scammbler, Talcott Parsons and other sociologists have seen society as a system composed of interconnected parts, where each part has a specific function that contributes to society’s overall functioning. Specialized institutions that perform specific functions help maintain social stability. Society socializes individuals to internalize norms and values, which guide their behavior, constrain their freedom, and reinforce social order.
If successful, this socialization results in norms and values becoming internalized by individuals. When people pursue their own interests, they also serve the needs of society as a whole. Unity with diversity sustains stability over time. Otherwise, societies fall apart.
Whether one element controls or dominates is a related question. In the February 5, 2020, Ezra Klein Show podcast about Klein’s book, Why We’re Polarized, Jill Lepore comments, “In some big structural way in the book there’s a quite notable absence of villains,” and asks Klein, “Why no villains?” He replies:
I’m trying to tell you how a machine works. I’m just trying to tell you what happens to almost everybody in it… I wanted to call some players and institutions villains, (but) I had trouble figuring out a chain of causality… Every time I tried to trace [blame] down to the place where I could prove it, I would fail… I have trouble assigning the causality or even figuring out where it begins. All these things seem to be in a dynamic relationship with each other. It’s hard to figure out how if you replaced a player or even the institution how different of a result you would get… The thing I’m trying to build an idea of is a machine with different pieces all working together.
In the Introduction to his book, Klein talks about “the system” and writes, “We collapse systemic problems into personalized narratives.”
Commentators most often merely refer to “systems” that are not integrated into a single social system. I’ve concluded, however, that our society weaves together all sectors — social, cultural, personal, economic, environmental, and political — into a single self-perpetuating social system — the Top-Down System.
The next question is what is the Top-Down System’s function? As I see it, its driving force is programming people to selfishly climb social ladders, look down on those below, and try to dominate and exploit them — and submit to those above. Our institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals are woven together into this social system. As individuals, we reinforce it with our daily actions.
Whether you call it hyper-meritocracy, rankism, elitism, technocracy, or some other label, this Top-Down System assumes that a select few with superior abilities should rule society.
Domination and submission can be justified as a means to a higher end, but when they become the goal, the be-all and end-all, structural reforms are needed to establish a Bottom-Up System that holds leaders accountable to those they serve.
Bob Anschuetz, a former college English teacher, told me:
I think all references to “the system,” whether within or without quotes, should be changed to “the System.” That’s because you use the word in a special sense, as developed in your booklet. You need to distinguish that special sense for the reader by, in effect, representing it as a “proper name” — which in turn requires an initial capital letter…. This still represents my opinion on the use of an upper-case “S” in “the System.”
Proper nouns are capitalized words for a particular person, place, organization, or thing. The Top-Down System is a specific thing.
How to reform it into a Bottom-Up System is a challenge. This website suggests methods for how to move in this direction and grow our society into a compassionate community.
Whether this systemic focus is the wisest path is uncertain, but it’s the best I can do so far. Suggested course corrections are welcome.