Skip to content

ned.com

Sections
Personal tools
Not yet a member?
Sign in
Email address
  
Password
  
Forgot password?
No SSL support?
RSS: Comments

<Ned> Front Porch

Subsections

The Shock Doctrine

Posted to: <Ned> Front Porch by John Powers (139), Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:11:09 PDT
Edited: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:15:18 PDT
Feedback score: 0 +|-
Tags:  doctrine globalism klein naomi shock
Comments:
66 by 9 members
Viewed: 765 times by 39 members

I don't know how to embed a Youtube video into pages here at <Ned> but I think this video a film by Alfonso Cuaron and Naomi Klein, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" is so important to discuss. Please embed it in the threads if you know how.

I also know that many people here cannot view videos. A transcription of the beginning part of this film would be very difficult. Here is the link to Naomi Klein's pages at her Web site. From there there are links to reviews of the book.

In particular is a review at MacLeans which is an interview of Klein by Kenneth Whyte (It's easier to read the article on Klein's Web site). Whyte begins the interview with this:

"There's a school of thought that free markets and democracy go hand in hand and together they make people free and prosperous. You're arguing that free-market ideology has triumphed around the world not because people have embraced the market but because the ideology has been imposed on them, often in moments of distress. Furthermore, these moments of distress have sometimes been created by governments as a pretext to bring in free-market policies. To top it all off, the policies haven't really worked. They've just enriched the people who introduced them. How's that for a summary?"

Vic Wagner in a review in The Toronto Star makes the point:

"In other words, instead of being consigned to pointy-headed discussion in unread academic journals, it is a book that has the potential to become a lightning rod of controversy and debate."

I hope others here will watch the film, or part of it, or explore some of the press around the book. The book itself will be released in the USA on Sept. 18th. The substance of Klein's study is very much worthy of debate.



Comments « prev page  [1] 2  3    next page »page 1



By Jim Carroll (70), Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:30:01 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

It's a disturbing 6 minutes. It touches on the idea that people are impressionable when they're vulnerable ...and vulnerable when they're in shock. Beyond that, I didn't get much out of it.

By John Powers (139), Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:42:01 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

Yes the film is disturbing.

The links between the use of electro shock therapy in the 1940s, the CIA Handbook to reduce captive adults to child-like states, and then to Milton Friedman's free market economics seems a bit of a stretch. But I'm inclined to believe that Klein is right about how powerful and pervasive the metaphor of shock treatment really is.

It was eerie listening as the narrator read from the CIA handbook as the film projected drawings of torture techniques we know that agencies of the US, including our military, and contractors of the US have employed in Iraq.

One of the most shocking aspects of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been how quickly and how totally so many Americans have come to embrace torture as an instrument of policy. It's been very puzzling to me how many of my fellow Americans who have embraced torture are very nice and often religious people. Not to seem self-righteous but I really do wonder how they sleep at night.

The power of metaphor is that metaphors exist as sets of interlocking ideas. In Christianity the story of Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus is familiar. For many Christians conversion is a central event, a kind of shock; not so different from the old psychiatry film footage of electro shock therapy in the film put it: to wipe clean the mind to allow a new healthy person to emerge.

Americans entered Iraq knowing full well that the operative idea was "Shock and Awe." We had gone through the whole period of the collapse of the former Soviet Union. We know that Jeffery Sachs is associated with the term in economics. We've heard a lot about shock treatments.

Looking at the comments at YouTube it seems what offends people the most is connecting Milton Friedman to torture. I'm willing to stipulate that Milton Friedman was a nice guy, and Jeffery Sachs too; as with my nice religious friends who are pro-war and pro-torture. But that's exactly the question: how did we become so ruthless as a people? Klein's connection of all of this to a metaphor of Shock, fits much more tightly than is comfortable.

Harpers has a piece of Klein's up on the Website for subscribers which will be in the October issue. I was at the site to look for the link to a piece she did in the September 2004 edition Baghdad year zero-Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia It's a good piece about how Americans got themselves into Iraq. Military theorist John Robb recently wrote UNLEASHING THE DOGS OF WAR about why Americans won't be getting out anytime soon. And his reasons mirror Klein's, which is remarkable given the apparent political distance between them.

I'm ready to be convinced that Klein is not onto something important with this powerful metaphor of Shock Therapy, but so far I find the observation convincing. We are often unconscious of the metaphors we use to negotiate the world. Drawing attention, raising our consciousness is one way to adopt more constructive actions for the future.


By John Firth (26), Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:23:40 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

John, I think the film does more than stretch the links between shock therapy, torture and economics and even as a metaphor I'm not convinced that the connections are useful. In fact I think they're laughable.

The film is almost a parody of its subject. It's trying to shock in order to stop us thinking just so that it can make its case. But then, maybe that's the intention, the looping ironies of post modernism ? :)

The film is also wrong. It talks about torture victims - i.e. individuals - subjected to shock and then equates this with terrorist attacks in which we are all victims.

This is nonsense. Clearly we are not all victims in the sense that torture victims are helpless victims in the hands of their torturers. The comparison is almost offensive to the torture victims.

Whilst we may be shocked by terrorist attacks - we are not passive victims of the attack. We have the power as groups or as a societies to organise and resist in a way that individual victims of torture do not have. They only have their own individual powers of resistance.

I get the point that governments might use our immediate 'shock' to introduce policies that we dislike or to lead us where we don't want to go but we also have the power to resist that as well.

Surely, the problem here is not our lack of resilience in the face of 'shock' but the inadequacy of our so-called democratic systems ?

I would agree with the basic thesis that governments have exploited 'disasters' (political, economic or physical) to introduce policies and projects that have previously been on the back burner and I would also agree that this becomes very seriously problematic when governments are as uncontrolled and as ideologically driven as the Bush government.

I also think we can rightly make the case that Jeffrey Sachs has a huge responsibility for handing Russia over to the oligarchs and the mafia.

I might also equally consider criticisms of Milton Friedman as a pathological bean counter with the social conscience of a peanut - if anyone really wants to get that carried away :) - but I don't think you would need to delve into electro shock therapy or old CIA handbooks to make that point.


By Linda Nowakowski (230), Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:41:27 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

I wonder if she dis a statistical analysis on the date correspondence between the introduction of certain kinds of legislation and "disasters" that would "shock" the population?

By David Braden (59), Mon, 10 Sep 2007 06:39:22 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

John Powers said:

I'm ready to be convinced that Klein is not onto something important with this powerful metaphor of Shock Therapy, but so far I find the observation convincing.

To me, both Klein and Rumsfeld speak from a two dimensional point of view and it is our inability to think in three dimensions that is the cause of conflict and scarcity. So long as we think of Our problems being caused by someone else, we abdicate Our responsibility to make decisions for Ourselves. In Matrix or Star Wars I talk about two ways to look at capitalism and thinking about that led me to propose Better Maps and Using a Better Map.

We must take charge of our own lives and help other people take charge of theirs - if we are going to build a future conducive to human life. Every group of people thinking in two dimensions (and considering themselves separate from other groups) is pursing change to the system without regard to how that change affects other groups - and that is the base cause of conflict in the system.

How can we get past that?


By John Firth (26), Mon, 10 Sep 2007 06:59:22 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

Are you sure about that David ?

I would have thought that Cheney and Rumsfeld, for example, would quite happily pursue policy changes with complete and conscious regard for the beneficiaries of their actions and as to those groups who might suffer or lose as a result of their action it is also self-evident that, quite frankly m'dear, they didn't give a damn !

As you say: How can we get past that ? :)


By David Braden (59), Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:55:12 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

John Firth said:

Cheney and Rumsfeld, for example, would quite happily pursue policy changes with complete and conscious regard for the beneficiaries of their actions

Yes, this part is entirely true. Each group assigns supreme importance to those "connections" into the "value flows" that are necessary to the continued existence of the group - in this case we are talking about access to oil. Osama bin Ladin is also thinking two dimensionally - we need not endorse or justify his actions anymore than we need endorse or justify the actions of the US citizenry through their elected representatives. Both are stuck in a good vs. evil paradigm where it is necessary to struggle over scarce resources - always framed as the struggle of good (us) vs. evil (them) - and Klein fits right in there - assigning evil to (?) and good to (whom?) - (government vs. the people?).

Conflict only reduces total value in the system - the goal of Three Dimensional Networking is to build the additional connections that we need to produce abundance and prevent conflict. We have not yet scratched the surface of the potential productivity locked in unrealized human potential and unrealized biological potential.

Through the blindness caused by our two dimensional paradigm, and, like the Somali warlords, we seem to be content to struggle over what is left in the rubble caused by our conflicts.

I consider myself a political progressive and I believe in "effective" government - but my toughest audience is liberal apologists and conspiracy theorists.


By John Powers (139), Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:06:40 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

Thank you Jim, John, Linda and David for watching the film and responding. If you are at all interested in debate about the book, more so than the film, The Guardian is debating The Shock Doctrine all this week.

Linda wonders whether Klein did a statistical analysis between legislation implemented immediately after disasters. I don't know, I haven't read the book--it isn't even available in the USA yet. I doubt that she did such statistical analysis. However as I understand it the 500 page book includes 85 pages of end notes.

In the debate over at The Guardian, several commenters note that what constitutes a "disaster" and what qualifies as a shock isn't so easy to define and find her generalizations lacking.

David wrote: "I consider myself a political progressive and I believe in 'effective' government - but my toughest audience is liberal apologists and conspiracy theorists."

Are you talking about me?

I'll admit that "conspiracy theorists" rather jumped out at me; it's a term that often amounts to "fighting words." At the YouTube site one of the commenters called Cuaron and Klien, the filmmakers, FASCISTS. I noted that the person registered just to submit the comment and that was the only video watched. I wondered how Godwin's Law applied, if it did in this situation?

I'm very interested how you think David. Figuring out where we diverge and where we converge will obviously take some time. Loaded expressions get me in trouble all the time. I think my my use of the word metaphor requires a bit more unpacking. In any event, I do not believe I've advance any conspiracy theory.

I'm not sure how as John avers that the film by using shock value to make a cause about shock as a tactic it becomes "almost parody?"

Clearly a 6 minute film is not the same as a 500 page book. I don't agree that the film equates torture of individuals with the societal effects of a terrorist attack or some other wide spread trauma. What Cuaron and Klein suggest is there is an idea of shock, and ideas about shock which connect them, in turn these ideas are connected to certain psychiatric ideas which became prevalent in the 1940's, and Klein identifies the thread of shock in economic ideas as well.

There does seem to me to be a continuous thread, it's not just that the word shock is used in all of these contexts, but ideas about what can be accomplished during temporary states of shock which connect them.


By John Firth (26), Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:21:03 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

John, I understand what was being said.

I am simply disagreeing because I don't think that the shock received by an individual under 'electro therapy' or torture is the same as the way that we might be shocked as a society by terrorist attacks or even natural disasters.

Also, I didn't get the impression that David was talking about you when he said that his toughest audiences were "liberal apologists and conspiracy theorists".

Although, I must admit I have a problem with conspiracy theorists as well because I tend to subscribe to the 'cock up' theory of history but I'm not even sure who or what 'liberal apologists' are - which made sound odd because I think the term 'neo-conservative apologist' would be perfectly clear. :)


By David Braden (59), Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:20:13 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

Don't take offense. Matrix or Star Wars was drafted specifically for Larry Victor - who I admire greatly - but who believes that there is a "power elite" that controls government decisions - in light of his and my discussion about David Korten's work (who I also admire but who blames all our problems on unregulated international corporations).

I see Naomi Kline as a liberal apologist - who seems to believe that government would work better for those of us without power and influence if only "the masses" would wake up to how they are being manipulated - instead of realizing that the "liberal message" has been rejected by "the masses".

I am now intrigued by what the 'cock up' theory of history might hold.

John Powers said:

I'm very interested how you think David. Figuring out where we diverge and where we converge will obviously take some time. . . In any event, I do not believe I've advance any conspiracy theory.

No, you have not advanced a conspiracy theory and even if you do I would then consider you a part of my toughest audience and still wish to see where in our thinking we diverge and converge . . . we are, after all, all in this together.


By John Firth (26), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:19:45 PDT
Edited: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:21:02 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

David, the term 'cock up' is commonly used in 'English English' but I nonetheless looked it up and it derives from one of several senses of cock i.e. to bend at an angle, as in — for example — cocking a gun or turning up the brim of one’s headgear so producing an 18C naval officer’s cocked hat.

The use of 'cock-up' to mean a blunder or error was originally British military slang dating from the 1920s.

Generally speaking, a 'cock up' theory of history would hold that people really aren't smart enough to get away with successful labyrinthine conspiracies.

The theory expresses a common scepticism towards both intellectual and personal pretension and takes the view that behind most 'great men' there is a far more mundane mixture of idleness and incompetence.

'Cock up' theorists would probably also further denigrate their own theory by saying that it is not a 'theory' simply an observation.

The 'theory' is a useful brain and time saver because, whilst it does not deny that conspiracies happen, it warns us that where conspiracies are suspected the answer is more usually found in a series of human errors, blunders or 'cock ups'.

As Bernard Ingham (once Margaret Thatcher's Press Secretary) put it: "Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory."


By John Firth (26), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 02:10:15 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

That explained, I would like to pick up on David's assertion that he sees (quote)

Naomi Kline as a liberal apologist - who seems to believe that government would work better for those of us without power and influence if only "the masses" would wake up to how they are being manipulated - instead of realizing that the "liberal message" has been rejected by "the masses".

I'm picking up on this because, after lecturing us about "the blindness caused by our two dimensional paradigm" he then lapses into his own two dimensional paradigm when it comes to dealing with whoever he chooses to label as a 'liberal'.

I say label because it looks like David is simply setting up a circular definition of 'liberal' (without defining the term) in order to reject Noami Klein's views in particular and the 'liberal' viewpoint in general.

I don't see how this fits with David's claim to be a political progressive.

I also find it difficult to understand where the sweeping assertion that the masses (however defined) have rejected the liberal message comes from.

Classically, 'liberalism' would define itself through a number of principles which include support for freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.

Generally speaking - and, again, classically - liberals support (and indeed provided the political thought and framework) for the form of government we know as 'liberal democracy'.

Is David suggesting that 'the masses' have rejected these principles and this form of government ?

A case could possibly be made which supports that view but I'm sure David is running in two dimensional paradigm mode here and saying something else. :)

Maybe he could clarify.


By Linda Nowakowski (230), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:06:17 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

Having been in this kind of discussion before....let's get a little something out of the way early and save ourselves a lot of headaches.

Liberal in the US is not the same as Liberal in Europe and Britain. This might get everyone talking with the same terms.


By John Firth (26), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:54:33 PDT
Edited: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:56:31 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

Linda, in the classical sense, the term 'liberal' in both the USA and the UK is broadly the same.

The Wikipedia entry that you link us to even confirms that:

In general we can say that the Democrats support civil-rights (and therefore social liberalism), the Republicans support free-market (and therefore economic liberalism)....

The partisan use and different emphasis of 'liberal ideas' between right and left might vary - but not a great deal - between parties in the USA and the UK.

The differences are probably most marked by the injection of 'social democratic' or even 'democratic socialist' thought into the UK and European political mix.

As a result, both of the main American parties would be considered to be, at very least, right of centre in the spectrum of electable European politics.

However, that does not address the point as to why the perfectly respectable (and, in the UK, very mild) political description of someone (or a party) as 'liberal' has been allowed to acquire such derogatory and dismissive overtones.

Surely, to use 'liberal' as nothing more than a dismissive pejorative is to close off and limit political and social thought - to limit permissible thought.

Of course I understand that - like labelling something as 'socialist' - it is the intention to be dismissive, to close down and maybe even to condemn as 'un-American' and therefore not worthy of consideration.

But I was making a different point.

David was talking about "the blindness caused by our two dimensional paradigm" and I guess I'm saying that by succumbing to the use, or rather the misuse, of political labels to dismiss and abuse that he seems to be falling into the very trap that he warns us against.

In passing defence of Naomi Klein I would also say that - while she does have a tendency to overcook her message - I think it would actually be difficult to simply classify her as a liberal - whether intended in the American sense or not and whether intended pejoratively or not.

There are many interesting and often exciting political ideas that have emerged - particularly over the last decade - out of grassroots urban movements, social movements in the developing world, the anti-globalisation movement and the eco-movement.

Naomi Klein reports on these ideas, movements and actions and in most instances their precise political location on the old left/right ideological spectrum is difficult to define. That's what makes some of the ideas so interesting.

I would suggest that to simply blank those ideas off with labels is to close our eyes to what is actually happening in the world.


By David Braden (59), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:32:36 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

John Firth said:

David was talking about "the blindness caused by our two dimensional paradigm" and I guess I'm saying that by succumbing to the use, or rather the misuse, of political labels to dismiss and abuse that he seems to be falling into the very trap that he warns us against.

Sorry, John - yes I can see how you would view "liberal apologist" as a misuse of a label. Seems I hit a nerve though :).

I did not intend to condemn liberalism or the liberal tradition - and I am not particularly interested in debating the niceties of those definitions. Rather, I want to point out a class of opinion that holds that problems could be solved if only the "common man"? was smart enough to understand things the way I understand them. I find that point of view elitist and out of touch with reality. These are the people I am closest to politically - and part of my toughest audience - along with conspiracy theorist.

What I am really interested in talking about is the difference between plans developed based on the assumption of conflict between groups in the system - and those we might be able to develop understanding the seamless set of flows through the system.

(Now that I know about it - I also subscribe to the 'cock up' theory:

The existing set of relationships is the accidental result of the historic interaction of conflicting groups of individuals from an ignorant species.

and the first step to a future conducive to human life is to realize that we are all ignorant.)


By John Firth (26), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:16:32 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

David, I take your point (and agree) that there is a class of opinion that holds that problems could be solved if only the "common man" was smart enough to understand things the way "I" (the writer, politico, whoever) understand them.

You say that you find that point of view elitist and out of touch with reality. I agree.

But I don't think that's where Melanie Klein is coming from In fact, I think the reverse is true.

Melanie Klein reports on the lives and struggles of the dispossessed and the exploited and also on the 'politics of questions and tentative answers' of the politically and socially excluded around the world.

Indeed, if you look closely and cast your net wider than the strangled and limited ideological confines of American partisan politics, I would suggest that you might find more of your "seamless sets of flows" - which reject many of the old dichotomies - in some of the social movements and experiments which Klein (and others) report.


By David Braden (59), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:59:43 PDT
Edited: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:05:15 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

John Firth said:

Indeed, if you look closely and cast your net wider than the strangled and limited ideological confines of American partisan politics, I would suggest that you might find more of your "seamless sets of flows" - which reject many of the old dichotomies - in some of the social movements and experiments which Klein (and others) report.

Is that Naomi Klein? (or Melanie don't mean to pick - I see I spelled her name wrong above) and others? Is there a place where I can follow that type of reporting - or do I need to wade through the "smarter than thou" reporting?

I am also interested in Thomas Friedman's opinion (in "The World is Flat") that American politics really needs to realign

  • with the social conservative wing of the republicans joining with the labor interest wing of the democrats
  • leaving the fiscal conservative and business focused republicans to join with the environmental and social justice wing of the democrats

Friedman's point being that one must be a "compassionate flatist" because, if we do not make provisions for those left out of globalization, then there will be a backlash of local barriers and a new balkanization of the world.

In another discussion with David Frayne, I was talking about anti-globalization as a Luddite response - ineffective and counterproductive - when what we really need are systems of localization to balance globalization - or in Korten's terms convert financial resources back into living resources - completing a production and consumption cycle - in the seamless set of flows.

I am also interested in how Ned sees itself in the restructure of how the world works.

So how do we bring these ideas down to the local level where groups of people can begin implementing systems of production in which everyone can participate - ending poverty - that cooperate with natures processes - healing nature?

edit: fix link


By John Powers (139), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:07:30 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

It's true that the meaning of Liberal/liberal really causes confusion in discussions. In the Ayittey thread an interesting distinction came up based on Ayittey's point that in the West the fundamental starting point is the individual but in Africa it is the family.

In Western Liberal tradition freedom means individual autonomy. It's a rock bottom tenant. But Ayittey points out that lots of Liberal values the West assumes for the Liberal tradition are also traditional African values. The whole discussion gets a little muddled, but I recommend the thread highly.

For the purposes of this thread David makes some interesting points in regards to seeing things in dimensions. I'm not sure that I fully understand them, but my sense is he's getting at this rock bottom assumption of individual autonomy at the base of the Liberal tradition. That in order to advance we must come to understand how much depends on the qualities of relationships between one another.

Naomi Klein is a controversial figure even on the left. The relationship between individual autonomy to constructs of freedom are a part of what Klein is exploring. I think that this is a very important part of what David is exploring too. So I don't think it really useful to dismiss Klein as a Liberal apologists. Klein's Web site is an easy place to read her writing-she's prolific.

Francis Moore Lappe seems one of the smartest writers for Western audiences exploring the fundamentals of the Liberal tradition from a perspective of valuing the tradition, but also seeing fundamental inadequacies.

In the Ayittey thread I linked to a piece by Ghanaian Dr. Kofi Abrefa Busia "Is Democracy of Universal Application." Partly I wanted to show that there are real African leaders in the past and now who are a looking very closely at the fundamentals.

Ayittey points to Black Americans rejecting Western values. It seems the implication is that he's embracing Western values in the context of traditional African values. I think he's being a bit slippery. Although I applaud his rhetoric in so far as it gets us closer to thinking about fundamental human values.

But at base the meat of the debate is at the level of fundamentals. It's here where David Braden is looking, and I hope he'll take a deeper look at Naomi Klein to see she's looking their too. Of course I think Ayittey is looking at fundamentals too. But the conversations always get confused, and the idea of the Liberal tradition seems asource of that confusion.


By John Firth (26), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:10:04 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

Apologies, I must have been multi-tasking - also thinking earlier about child-centred education - and obviously swapped my Kleins. In this context I'm obviously referring to Naomi and not Melanie.

By David Braden (59), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:52:42 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

John Firth - no apologies necessary - I am also interested in how we can include child-centered education in new systems of production.

John Powers - I looked at Naomi Klein's web site - all the blurbs seems to be about the struggle between citizens and their government - not saying that's not important - just that I am interested in systems in which citizens take charge of their own lives so that they do not have to rely on government. I read "Diet for a Small Planet" a long time ago. And again, pointing out those things that we cannot do as a species is important work - it's just that I am more interested in what we can do - and my investigation leads me to believe that we are facing "limits" only in the sense of systems that fail to cooperate with natural processes.

I also think that you are right in that many of us are exploring the basic relationships between our individualism and our responsibility for the whole. I guess I am promoting the view that individualism is an illusion.


By John Powers (139), Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:13:32 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

David wrote:

And again, pointing out those things that we cannot do as a species is important work - it's just that I am more interested in what we can do

I just don't see how Naomi Klein and Frances Moore Lappe are in the business of point out "things we cannot do."

Klein reports on anti-capitalism. She is hardly and ideologue and what people can do--as opposed to what governments can do--seems very much her beat as a reporter.

Moore Lappe's "Diet for a Small Planet" was published 36 years ago. In the intervening time, she's been quite busy in the work of inventing ways for people to come together to solve problems ourselves.

I don't have a problem with David Braden being incurious about Naomi Klein and Frances Moore Lappe. The problem is in stereotyping their views in order to dismiss them from consideration.

John makes an good point in re Klein:

Naomi Klein reports on these ideas, movements and actions and in most instances their precise political location on the old left/right ideological spectrum is difficult to define. That's what makes some of the ideas so interesting.

This observation seems quite relevant for David Braden's project:

What I am really interested in talking about is the difference between plans developed based on the assumption of conflict between groups in the system - and those we might be able to develop understanding the seamless set of flows through the system.

Part of Naomi Klein's reporting is precisely about developing systems "understanding the seamless set of flows through the system."

As I say there's no problem in choosing to ignore Klein. But I think you've got a wrong view of what she does.

Likewise about Frances Moore Lappe, she is a talented student about the way things work, but she's not primarily a theorist, rather actively engaged in the work of bringing people together to solve problems.

Both Klein and Moore Lappe have large networks. As a network weaver with the interests David Braden has, being caught in the same networks with them is inevitable. Sterotypical thinking about Klein and Lappe may well be a hindrance working together with those David weaves.


By David Braden (59), Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:04:04 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

John Powers said:

Both Klein and Moore Lappe have large networks. As a network weaver with the interests David Braden has, being caught in the same networks with them is inevitable. Sterotypical thinking about Klein and Lappe may well be a hindrance working together with those David weaves.

Point taken. Let me put it another way. Each of us must choose were we will spend our time - there is so much information out there that we could all spend all of our time taking in information - meaning that we would never have time to do anything.

I have explained why I will not spend more time reading Klein and Lappe. I agree that my choice means that I will potentially miss information that might be important to my work and opportunities for connections across networks. A network weaver is not someone who is knowledgeable about what everyone else is doing it is someone who knows who knows what someone else is doing.

Perhaps you and I can compare notes about what each of us is following and then we can be network weavers for each other.


By Mark Grimes (222), Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:36:27 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

>>Perhaps you and I can compare notes about what each of us is following and then we can be network weavers for each other.<<

Another reframe could be: What is it you both would like to accomplish over the next 7 days, one month, 90 days. Measureable actions and how do you see them getting done.


By David Braden (59), Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:13:13 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

What is it you both would like to accomplish over the next 7 days, one month, 90 days. Measureable actions and how do you see them getting done.

Easier said than done in my case. I have any number of potential activities leading in the direction I want to go - all of which depend on what other people want to do - so I am still writing about what I see as possible - and lending support where I can to the projects of others.

One of my favorite things to do is engage in discussions like this one where people like John Powers and John Firth challenge the way I express my ideas - and I find that an important accomplishment in and of itself. The materials linked to 3DN Introduction are the substance of this type of conversations over three years participating at O.net.


By Chris Cook (7), Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:02:38 PDT
Comment feedback score: 0 +|-

It's always been clear what Naomi is AGAINST.

But what is she FOR?


Comments « prev page  [1] 2  3    next page »page 1



Sign in or Join now to add your own comment.
top back to top of page