|
Certainly we cannot just transpose the structures of those
small, homogeneous societies to our own. What I suggest is that we study them in
order to help us develop ideas about how we might structure our own society in a
way that will allow as much of that synergy as possible to exist.
In some ways we have more of an opportunity to do that
precisely because of the civilization we have with its technology and all the
wonderful things we have developed: the music, art, architecture, science,
libraries, museums-the list could be endless.
Selma
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 4:17
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Workloads
Selma:
> And, as you all have heard me say over and over again,
I believe it is possible to create a society in which there is a synergistic
relationship between the individual and the group such that when the group
acts in its own interests it is acting in the interests of the individual and
vice versa, when the individual acts in her/his own interests s/he is acting
in the interests of the group. I use Ruth Benedict's work and that of Dorothy
Lee to support the argument that such societies have existed and therefore can
exist for humans.
I guess I'd wonder about the size
and circumstances of the groups Benedict and Lee are talking about. I
encountered groups that behaved this way in my work with Aboriginal people in
northern Canada. But could you transfer that kind of behaviour to a
large and complex nation state?
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 3:10
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework]
Workloads
I would like to make a couple of points: (which I have
made frequently in the past)
> There are many views of human nature and no way, as
yet, has sufficient evidence to support it for anyone to argue that it is
the one that is most likely true. I believe most views can be lumped into
three categories: negative, neutral and positive. Thomas Hobbes and Freud
are among those who advocate that human nature is basically negative; the
behaviorists in psychology support the neutral view and Maslow and
Rogers, I believe, support the positive view.
> Since there is probably as much evidence for any
position as there is for any other position, I choose to believe in the
positive view but with a huge caveat that that nature will not develop
except in an environment that provides for the biological, psychological
sociological and spiritual needs (and I use that word very advisedly because
I believe that most of what we think of as needs are culturally
determined-we need to talk about it).
> And, as you all have heard me say over and over
again, I believe it is possible to create a society in which there is a
synergistic relationship between the individual and the group such that when
the group acts in its own interests it is acting in the interests of the
individual and vice versa, when the individual acts in her/his own interests
s/he is acting in the interests of the group. I use Ruth Benedict's work and
that of Dorothy Lee to support the argument that such societies have existed
and therefore can exist for humans.
> So we need to think about what that would look like
and try to formulate ways to bring it about. To talk about positive change
when we have no idea what we want to change TO is an exercise in futility.
Again I refer to Erich Fromm who made the distinction between freedom FROM
and freedom TO. We may be free from tyrrany and other evils, but with
freedom comes the responsibility TO do what? Freedom can be absolutely
terrifying if there is no idea what to do with it.
Selma
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:46
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework]
Workloads
Ed,
Are you advocating "From each according to
his/her abilities to each according to his/her needs?"
REH
I don't think so, Ray,
though I'm not really sure. My vision of an ideal society is one
which guarantees everyone housing of a reasonable quality, food for the
family, access to education, and access to health services. These
things should be provided as rights whether people work or not.
People should not be demeaned or stigmatized if they have to access
them.
To achieve such a world,
certain values and ethics would have to be in place. Very important
would be valuing work as a contribution to society and a corresponding
work ethic, instilled from childhood. Another would be valuing human
life and a recognition that we are our brother's and sister's
keepers. And, of course, the world would have to be
affordable.
I don't know if such a world
is possible, and it may be that people are too self-interested or cynical
to buy into it if it were possible. I know lots of self-interested
and cynical people and very few who put altruism and the value of their
fellow man to the forefront. By viewing my own behavior, I'm not
sure of where I personally fit in all of this. If it were to come
about, it would probably have to be imposed from the top, and I wonder if
any government would have the courage to do it without resorting to smoke
and mirrors, trying to convince people that they were getting something
while giving them very little.
Anyhow, that is where I'd
like to see things go, whether or not they ever do get there.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003
4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework]
Workloads
Ed,
Are you advocating "From each according to
his/her abilities to each according to his/her needs?"
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 06,
2003 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework]
Workloads
UNIFEM, the United Nation's Development Fund for Women lays out
the road to
progress in greater detail:
*
Women's share of seats in legislative bodies should reach
50%
* The ratio between girls' and boys' school
enrollment rates should be
one to one
*
Average female weekly earnings as percentage of male weekly
earnings
should equal 100%
* Women's share of
paid employment in the non-agricultural sector
should be
expanded
* Men and women should spend an equal
number of hours on unpaid housework
Political power, education,
type of work all these factors have an
influence on women's
economic power....
Gail, I don't like
this. It strikes me as the tryanny of absolute equality.
What if, as may be possible, all of the women were geniuses and all of
the men morons? Or, can you think of the difficulty and fallout
of a husband and wife keeping tabs on each other to ensure that they
did an equal amount of house work? "No, no, dammit! I
cooked dinner yesterday! It's your turn!" What I would
most like to see is equal access to education, to careers, to the
income hierarchy, and everything else that people do outside the
home.
When it comes to inside
the home, partners have to work it out themselves. He likes
cooking; she doesn't. Or she likes cooking; she doesn't.
Or however the household goes. What would seem most important in the home is the
kids. Neither male nor female should feel they are restricted
from becoming what they want to because of their sex.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 07,
2003 12:15 PM
Subject: [Futurework]
Workloads
Speaking of work and and
trade, here is an item
posted this AM to another list.
I'd be interested in comments. Do
you think these are reasonable objectives for the World Bank and UN?
Do you see around you or in your own life evidence of their
accomplishment?
The fourth objective of
UNIFEM gives me some trouble, at least until the third and
fifth are advanced -- otherwise it seems to me that we get wage
distortions that affect international trade, possibly reducing
rather than enhancing the general welfare. Wage inequities
produced by "discrimination per se" carry a continuing odour of
slavery? Nor, I think, is the problem confined to women but is
conspicuous there and links with other issues, e.g. caring
for children, health, population, etc.
What think you? How is the issue
developing in your own surroundings?
Gail
This Friday's NOW with Bill Moyers focused on how women are
faring in the global economy, with Vandana Shiva explaining in a
live interview how globalization increases women's workloads. For
those who missed the show, the NOW site on pbs.org http://www.pbs.org/now/ is
worth a visit. cheers, Penney Sample: Rich World, Poor
Women: Women and Work There is an old saying that you can
judge a society by the way it treats its women. In the last
several decades many world organizations have signed on to that
belief making improvements in the status of women among
their highest priorities. The World Bank's Millennium Development
Goals put it broadly: "Goal Number 3: Promote gender equality and
empower women." UNIFEM, the United Nation's Development Fund for
Women lays out the road to progress in greater
detail: * Women's share of seats in
legislative bodies should reach 50% * The
ratio between girls' and boys' school enrollment rates should
be one to one * Average female weekly
earnings as percentage of male weekly earnings should equal
100% * Women's share of paid employment in the
non-agricultural sector should be expanded
* Men and women should spend an equal number of hours on unpaid
housework Political power, education, type of work all these
factors have an influence on women's economic power....
|
