Thanks, Thomas, for a well considered response. I don't think our
differences of opinion on this matter can ever be resolved by reason, they
can only be tempered by experience. My opinion is that debating governance
remains just that -- debating. I would recommend that you get ahold of a
1977 book titled _Sabotage_ by Geoff Brown for one account of the vagaries
of micro-governance and counter-strategy. My own views on the potential for
change at the top are very much influenced by Charles Lindblom's discussion
of policy incrementalism and the science of "muddling through". And I might
add that Lindblom's influence on my thinking has itself been incremental.
Subject: Re: FW - Debating goverance
Thomas Lunde wrote,
Now as I have noted on FW before, when you start to examine the concept of
Future-work, it soon passes beyond, shorter work weeks and other technical
changes into a study of the ideas of economics and from there we find that
it is the laws and directions of governments that actually will determine
what the future of work will be.
Tom Walker said:
I agree with Thomas' observation that this is what happens. But I disagree
with his conclusion that the "top of the heap" is the proper starting place
for the debate. What Thomas casually refers to as "technical changes" are
the substantive conditions under which different structures of governance
might be possible. In our society, paid work is the microstructure of
governance. Perhaps people find top of the heap questions easier to talk
about because they are harder to do anything about.
Tom Walker
Thomas:
Governance is a structure, if I can presume to build a picture in your mind,
in which the apex consititutes a very small number of individuals whose
actions create a framework in which the majority - literally all of us -
play out the drama of our lives. It is like a pyramid. Within the lower
99.999% of the pyramid, we, the majority are constrained, directed and
guided by legalistic forms, much like parking our automobile at a Mall is
controlled by the designers of the mall. One example that comes to mind is
the lineup at the local bank. It used to be a series of linear lines, you
chose which line you thought would get you to the teller quickest. Then it
was changed to one long line in which the first person took the first
available teller. Then if became a line that was controlled by little
chrome posts that had us stand in a snake like lineup which conserved floor
space for the bank. Now, if you walk into a bank, even if there is no one
ahead of you, you are forced by the arrangement of the chrome posts to
follow the snake like path to get to a teller. Whenever I am forced to do
this, I get angry, as I feel I am responsible enough to just walk in a
straight line to the nearest teller.
The same control has been imposed on us through Voice Mail. You dial up
Bell Telephone and you are forced to wait through a pre-recorded message
that lists your options according to the doors they want you to go through.
Should you have a request that can only be answered by a human, you finally
learn you can select that option which throws you into a waiting pattern and
forces you to listen to their advertising while waiting for the operator.
The operator then comes on and starts interrogating you, your name, your
phone number, your address, finally after 5 to 7 minutes of wasting your
time, you are finally allowed by the structure to ask the question you
originally wanted to ask.
Slowly but surely, we are being strangled in our choices as they impose
their options on us, not for our convience or needs but for their convience
or needs. This is governance in operation. Now, I can spend a year of my
life arguing with Bell or the Bank or the designer of a Mall and perhaps I
might get a small change in their procedure - a technical change - or I can
ask that a law be passed by the small number at the apex of the structure
that would outlaw the controlling of consumers by corporate controls.
However, under the current governance, the chances of me, an individual
impacting them to make a change is really remote because they have designed
a governance structure in which the needs of people are not important,
rather the need to retain power through re-election is the primary
consideration.
Tom Walker wrote:
Conversely, bottom of
the heap questions are harder to talk about because they indicate courses
of
direct action that have personal consequences. It is the "sanctions"
involved in those personal consequences that keep most of us
micro-governing
ourselves on behalf of the status quo.
Thomas:
You intuit this by the last sentence and of course that gentle word
"sanctions", while I might use the word penalties. If I do not follow the
Mall designers instructions, I may get a ticket, or the bank would refuse to
serve me, or the Voice Mail will refuse to process my questions. And yes,
you are righ
