    
|
|
11 June 2005 | Draft
Playfully Changing the Prevailing Climate of OpinionClimate change as focal metaphor of effective global governance- / - Reflections inspired by the Trajectories conference at the Centre
for Alternative Technology (Machynlleth-Wales, May 2005) of which this is
a playfully partial interpretation in the spirit of the transformative approach
advocated here.
Introduction IntroductionThere is rapidly rising concern regarding the effects of climate change -- and their imminence. This has been accompanied by a range of initiatives to deny or minimize the evidence and the nature of any consequences [more]. Seemingly unrelated to the issue of climate change has been the widespread rising concern about the need for "new thinking", "paradigm shifts", and changes away from dangerous "patterns of consumption". These are understood as being essential to sustainable development and to more effective responses to the many actual and latent conflicts around the world. The following is an exploration of the preoccupations of a recent conference at the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) with climate change. Given the unusually self-reflexive emphasis of the event, climate change is understood self-reflexively here as a metaphorical template for new approaches to global governance based on changing the climate of opinion as a means of effectively engaging with climate change. At the time of writing, the urgency of a response to climate change is expected to figure in the declaration of the forthcoming G8 summit (Gleneagles, July 2005). But the leaked draft text for the July summit at Gleneagles was denounced by environmental groups for lacking substance. It was described by Greenpeace as "a mush of warm words carefully crafted by civil servants to make sure no one is committed to anything" [more]. Indeed the politics are such that it is expected that the only outcome will be ineffectual pious intentions and tokenism -- with little genuine strategic direction and implementation. Furthermore it must be said that, although global civilization has a capacity to articulate and implement strategic plans with a technical focus on material construction (or destruction), it has very limited proven capacity to undertake projects with a psychosocial or behavioural dimension. The incapacity to invest in new approaches to dialogue with those who disagree is an example -- and terrorism is an extreme result. It could be argued that thinktanks and policy-makers are unnconsciously recognizing their incapacity to respond to the complex challenges of global governance -- and that reducing them to simplistic threats, such as terrorism, is then a convenient way of claiming to do so effectively and responsibly. The argument below builds on a recognition of a polarization of social processes into two forms of playing. On the one hand, there is the game-playing that is so characteristic of political processes and strategic initiatives, and the mind sets associated with competitive business and sport. On the other hand there is the pursuit of pleasurable play in its many forms, framed as irresponsible hedonism by some with incompatible social change agendas. In both senses it might be said that humans have already evolved from Homo sapiens into an unfortunate variant of the Homo ludens foreseen by Johan Huizinga (Homo Ludens: a study of the play element in cultures, 1938). The merit of this approach might be summarized by the adage "if you cannot beat them, join them". Rather than "pushing the river", and bemoaning the predilection for playing, there is the possibility of "guiding the canoe". The argument being that the increasingly evident phenomena of climate change can provide a carrier for fundamental insights into actions that are increasingly vital -- provided that these are understood as offering scope for a more psychologically engaging form of playfulness that would facilitate deployment of resources in ways responsive to the challenge. Rather than use threats (such as terrorism) as both a guiding principle for global governance and as a dubious justification for repressive directives by the few, there is a case for transforming the "threat" of climate change in ways that engage meaningful action by the many alienated by current approaches to governance. The focus here is therefore on what currently engages the many, rather than on what the few believe the many should be engaged by. In the regretable absence of a verb form, "climate" is mistakenly understood as a noun -- as daily adaptation to the dynamics of changeable weather indicates. Treating it as such is strategic oversimplification relying on statistical aggregates and averages (which have proven so methodologically inappropriate in socio-economic response to the marginalized). Similarly "play" is most meaningfully understood as a verb. Engaging playfully with climate is therefore more consonant with its dynamics and dimensionality -- and the strategic opportunities they offer. How this might be fruitfully achieved in relation to "climate change" is what is tentatively explored here. Denial: the "elephants in the living room"Those concerned with the evidence for climate change have caricatured the political and scientific denial of the phenomenon as a case of having "an elephant in the living room" that is carefully ignored in a conspiracy of groupthink by all concerned. It might be seen as a reverse case of the Emperor clothed in invisible (namely non-existent) clothes. The challenge of such denial is explored by Rosemary Randall (A New Climate for Psychotherapy? Outwrite, Journal of the Cambridge Society for Psychotherapy, 2005). But a similar analysis, and conspiracy of groupthink, applies to unsustainable consumption patterns -- currently exemplified by mass air travel and 4x4 SUVs. The degree of awareness may be quite indirect, as is partly reflected in the nature of concern with obesity. Ironically the mindsets appropriate to responding to this "elephant" may be emerging in the living room of policy-makers -- under their noses -- through the insights acquired by their young in assiduously playing interactive internet games. A second "elephant" -- but in a real rather than a virtual living room! As a self-reflexive event, the CAT Trajectories conference of technologists was necessarily inspired by the kinds of second order cybernetics with which Gregory Bateson has become associated. As recorded by his daugher, he concluded a conference with the statement: "We are our own metaphor." (Mary Catherine Bateson. Our Own Metaphor; a personal account of a conference on the effects of conscious purpose on human adaptation, 1972; also We Are Our Own Metaphor, Whole Earth, Fall, 1999). The conference therefore called for recognition of its own operation as a metaphor of the challenge it was intended to face. The approach there involved exploration of the possibility of activating new metaphors which could enchant, empower, explain and orient approaches to the problematique through the user's own comprehension of each metaphor's significance, whether amongst the governors or the governed. Participants recognized that they had over-identified with impoverished metaphors and had been unable to see themselves in perspective. In that spirit, and rather than an elephant, the challenge for the CAT conference was to recognize the nature of the MOUSE -- initially understood as Meaningless Over-Use of System Energies -- with which they were playing, and then to transform that game. Contrasting conventional foci: technology vs gardeningThe Centre of Alternative Technology has put a great deal of effort, over the 30 years of its existence, into "alternative technology" -- as a basis for alternative, sustainable lifestyles and consumption patterns. However the focus has only been incidentally on the psychology and people patterns fundamental to any shift in the climate of opinion regarding sustainability. As with the philosophy of architects, the technology is seen as adequately conditioning and determining appropriate behaviour. Architects have been obliged to digest a number of bitter lessons associated with this assumption, but this has only marginally affected their own behaviour. A more radical approach is called for -- perhaps implicit in the titles of periodicals by which the participants at the CAT conference had originally been inspired (Undercurrents: the magazine of radical science, 1972-1984; Radical Science Journal, 1974-1987). In the CAT environment, and at similar places around the world, the focus is on developing, testing and implementing technologies in relation to:
These technological preoccupations, significantly conditioned by climate, translate in practice into concerns familiar to gardeners everywhere. It is therefore natural for CAT to be attentive to the plants, gardens, and ponds that provide habitats from which its own residents and visitors can derive foodstuffs and pleasure -- as is the case with even the most modest gardens. There is however a contrast between the psychology of gardeners and the psychology of those approaching the same phenomena from a technical perspective. The distinct psychologies may be co-present in the same individual -- but this may well not be the case, or the relation may be denied or treated as incidental. Bridging metaphoric focusUnderlying both the above perpectives, it is argued here that there is a third perspective that may provide a bridging metaphor -- vital to the approach to both changing patterns of consumption and in response to climate change. Whilst the perspective of a gardener may emphasize a higher degree of empathetic engagement with the processes of the garden, that of the technical perspective necessarily stresses a more cognitively disciplined, instrumentalist approach to those processes. Both envisage possibilities of skilled intervention and innovation -- processes of change and development. There is widespread recognition that preoccupation with external phenomena has psychological implications:
Many do not have access to gardens and the experience of gardening -- but they may well project their acknowledgement of certain psychological processes into competitive sport. It is however significant that for a variety of sports, emphasis has been placed on the "inner game", whether as a key to conventional success in the outer game or as an experience of significance in its own right (cf the Inner Game of: Tennis, Golf, Frisbee, Chess, Poker, Billiards, Fencing, Go, Sumo, Skiing). The insight has been adapted to competitive economic activity (cf the Inner Game of : Business, Investing, Wealth, Work, Management, Trading, Entrepreneurship, Selling, Prospecting). The same is true of gardening (cf Diane Dreher, Inner Gardening: A Seasonal Path to Inner Peace, 2002; and notions of an "inner garden", or a "secret garden"). It is worth reflecting on the extent to which "gardening" corresponds to the "agricultural" phase of human community development in contrast with the "hunting" phase more appropriately corresponding to competitive sport. These therefore reflect contrasting dispositions between which some form of "marriage" is called for -- to enable a coherent new response to the challenge of the times. At present "gardening" corresponds to the kind of strategic process that sustains "business as usual", whereas "sport" (notably in the form of competitive ball games) corresponds to the kind of strategic process characterized by "point scoring" and "fast footwork". It might be argued that any "marriage" between them has so far proved to be infertile. The question in what follows is whether gardening and/or sport, as processes with which people everywhere have a degree of psychological engagement, may not prove to be the key to changing the climate of opinion at this crucial period in the history of humanity and the planet. If a technical justification for the argument that follows is necessary, this may be found in the isomorphism in the systemic relations between these phenomena and processes in different contexts, as understood in terms of general systems theory (cf James Grier Miller, Living Systems, 1978). Possibly more pertinent is the extent to which the role of metaphor is now considered fundamental to technological creativity and innovation -- metaphor has itself even been considered as a technology (cf Laura Mandell, Metaphor as Technology, 2003). But in addition, technology is itself considered as a powerful source of metaphor (cf Robert D Romanyshyn. Technology as Symptom and Dream, 1989; David Weinberger, Technology as Metaphor). It is from these perspectives that the alternative technology explored at CAT can be fruitfully used as a template for alernative insight. "Playing" with interrelated metaphorsFor the success of this approach, it would appear vital that there be a playful quality to its implementation. People are weary of being told what they ought to do and how they ought to do it -- whether by religious, political, scientific, commercial or other authorities (cf Liberating Provocations: use of negative and paradoxical strategies, 2005). The credibility of these authorities is now fundamentally suspect through their complicity in unfortunate initiatives which have not been of benefit to the planet or to the species on it. A playful approach is essentially participative and interactive -- with a high degree of personal initiative and choice, however much people engage in groups to enhance the ludic quality. The case for playfulness has been argued in detail elsewhere (Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens: a study of the play element in cultures, 1938; James Carse, Finite and Infinite Games: a vision of life as play and possibility, 1986). It is a feature of neurolinguistic programming (cf L. Michael Hall, The Inner Game of Frames, 2000; Michael Hall. Meta–States and the Inner Game, 2003). With respect to the environment, there is a recognition of distinct processes involving "water", "air", "soil" and "energy". These each have their psychological counterparts -- even their traditional symbolic counterparts for some (notably the multitudes intrigued by astrology). The scope for play in the "inner game" relating to the environment is therefore indicated by the characteristics of:
Biometeorologists have noted that morale and state of mind can be affected by changes in the weather, with a recognzied range of weather-related phobias [more | more], one extreme being seasonal affective disorder. Alan E. Stewart (Assessing Human Dimensions of Weather and Climate Salience, 2005) concludes that human experience of weather and climate conditions may affect attitudes and behaviours on issues such as global warming and climate-change. John Fraim (Symbolism of Place : the hidden context of communication, 2001) provides, in a chapter on the Place of Phenomena, a valuable review of examples from literature and symbolism of the way in which climate and weather (specifically: clouds, rain, snow, wind, hurricanes & tornados, thunder & lightning, fog, shadow, cataclysmic phenomena) affect mood. In a chapter on the Place of Elements, Fraim argues that:
Fraim notably points to one of the greatest studies of the correspondence between the basic elements and internal psychological states as undertaken by French philosopher Gaston Bachelard in a succession of books (Water and Dreams: An Essay on the Imagination of Matter, 1942; Air and Dreams: An Essay on the Imagination of Movement, 1943; The Earth and the Reveries of the Will, 1948; The Earth and the Reveries of Rest, 1946; and The Psychoanalysis of Fire, 1938). Another valuable source, from a strategic perspective, is that of Miyamoto Musashi (Go Rin No Sho or A Book of Five Rings): The Ground Book, The Water Book, The Fire Book, The Wind Book followed by the The Book of the Void. Such sources are notably cited by technopaganists in their enthusiastic use of symbolism in internet games [more]. J Wyatt Ehrenfels (Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun, 2003), on the assumption that the life of the individual has similarities to the weather, sets out to identify the recipes for life's "weather events" and climatological shifts through a discipline named as experiography [more]. With respect to governance, such perspectives may be consistent with advocacy of aikido activism and aikido entrepreneurship as explored by Reed Burkhart. Depth psychologists, for example, have recognized the psychic importance of the symbolism of such "elements" to individuation processes. Weather metaphors are frequently used to characterize moods or individuals ("sunny", "icy", "glacial", etc). Ecopsychology is a prime focus for reflection on the relationship between mental and physical well-being and the natural environment, provides insights into how to reconnect with innate abilities to live in harmony and balance [more]. Dennis Merritt (The Dairy Farmer's Guide to the Universe: Jung, Hermes and Ecopsychology, 2004) uses archetypal motifs of the weather, climate and seasons -- together with land forms, water resources, flora and fauna -- to this end. The International Community for Ecopsychology explores the synergistic relation between planetary and personal well being -- the needs of the one as relevant to the other. Ecopsychology Online defined its focus as:
Andy Fisher (Radical Ecopsychology: psychology in the service of life, 2002) specifically explores the psychological roots of the current ecological crisis. This perspective is endorsed by David Abram (The Spell of the Sensuous, 1997) who argues that:
As a philosopher, and from a phenomenological perspective, Don Ihde (Whole Earth Measurements) makes the point in a different way, contrasting arguments of Husserl and Heidegger, with regard to detection of the greenhouse effect on the climate using technoscientific enhancement of human imaging capacity. It is worth recalling that the four elemental systemic phenomena above are fundamental to many symbol systems, including some that have been embodied in interactive game-like devices (cf Tarot, astrology, I Ching). These have the considerable advantage over official policies -- in response to climate change and sustainable development -- that they continue to engage the attention of people at all levels of society around the world. Whilst such devices have no formal role in official policy-making in the West (in this period), concern with the auspiciousness of a moment of decision remains a preoccupation in many cultures -- even at the highest levels. Given the apathy and cynicism with which official initiatives are currently confronted, the potential role of such devices in engaging attention in relation to climate change should not be neglected. There is even the possibility that they reflect psychological phenomena that have been marginalized -- aggravating the apathy that is so widely deplored. Psychological engagement -- excitement?The challenge of the times in official eyes (reinforced by the perspective of economists) is that of "energy" -- especially in the light of the depletion of oil resources and the controversies over nuclear power. But curiously the challenge of the times for most people is not energy but "excitement". Energy resources are notably depleted to sustain the pursuit of excitement in all its varied forms. Air travel and the use of private vehicles provide obvious illustrations; drug and alcohol use provide another. Game players tend not to respond to the preoccupations central to politics. Young people respond in significant numbers to the successors of Dungeons and Dragons and other games (see John Borland and Brad King. Dungeons & Dreamers, 2003). Through the imaginative and mythological content of games, it might be argued that young people are training themselves for Armageddon -- after the enraptured have left [more] -- rather than for the implementation of the United Nations Agenda 21 and its Millennium Development Goals. Curiously they are activating, and connecting with, cultural symbols that otherwise would be largely considered meaningless in modern civilization. This suggests that for the climate of opinion to change, excitement of some kind needs to be a focus; hence the call here for new kinds of game and play. But for this to have any effect on climate change, then such playing needs to "connect" psychologically with consumption patterns at the personal level and with policy processes at the collective level. It might be said people are stuck in bad or impoverished "games" that are in many ways a reflection of the inappropriateness of consumption patterns and official policies:
From this perspective, planetary and psycho-social challenges need to be designed into games. But, the games available to people may be increasingly inadequate to the degree of excitement required to sustain their engagement in society. Why are some better nourished by "SUV games" than by "Agenda 21 games"? If official games were as exciting as they need to be to engage people, then surely more people would play them. There is therefore a basic distinction to be remembered between:
Developing playful insightThere is a curious irony to the fact that it is academic and military disciplines concerned with strategic policy-making that lay claim to serious examination and implementation of game theory in pursuit of strategic advantage -- especially through the thinktanks on which they depend. Complex models are used to simulate some strategic decisions. It is far less evident that models are used to explore the participatory processes through which democratic support for comprehensive strategies is sought -- or for constitutional innovation as in the case of Europe (cf Practicalities of Participatory Democracy with International Institutions: Attitudinal, Quantitative and Qualitative Challenges, 2003). The irony comes from the extent to which young people -- under the noses of their elders -- explore games calling for strategic thinking in spaces of greater complexity than those explored in such official initiatives. As noted by Steven Johnson (Everything Bad is Good for You, 2005) with regard to computer-mediated games:
Widespread interactive internet games involving many players provide a form of training in group dynamics to respond to shadowy opponents variously organized. One might ask whether the mind sets developed are of greater or lesser relevance to such opponents than those of accredited experts. Policy-makers care little for what the young (possibly including their own) consider to be relevant, but the reverse is also true -- and the young are indeed the future. According to Steven Johnson (Everything Bad is Good for You, 2005):
There is every possibility that computer games -- beyond "shoot-em-ups" -- may be providing the first steps towards giving form to a template, or model, fundamental to more complex and richer modes of interpersonal interaction (cf James Paul Gee and Tashia Morgridge. Video Games, Mind and Lerarning, 2004). Elsewhere, Gee (2003) sees:
This trend may be vital to effective responses to the strategic challenges of the future. The UN World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002) effectively raises the question of whether it was a meeting of people who thought they ought to have been playing "Agenda 21" but had found other games they preferred to play. The challenge is to determine what makes available games that people ought to play so boring. Is it possible that for many their boredom relates in some way to what some find particularly boring in games such as tennis, bridge, scrabble, etc.? It is also important to recognize that the game for some includes getting others to play their game -- to play with them. Why is it that some:
Why and how may depend on where the person is centred when they play the game, namely what aspects of their psyche are engaged in the space in which the game is played. What then is the space or centering that would transform a game perceived as boring into one that is perceived as exciting? (see Apathy and quenching, below) It is also useful to recognize that it is less frequently the case that a person would want to play the same game all the time. Rather than preferring a single game, the pattern seems to be to shift between a set of games from which excitement is derived. This compensates for the tendency of excitement to wear out when a game is played for too long -- when do we stop playing tennis and shift to scrabble or bridge? Perhaps such a set of games should be understood like a set of vitamins vital to psychic health. Vital distinction: gaming vs playingGames are necessarily strongly associated with "playing". But there is an important distinction between "playing" and "gaming". "Play" may only be understood as the curiously missing verb "to game"; "game" as the rules governing any resulting form of "play". Some games are played very "seriously" and may then not involve much, if any, "playfulness". A different attitude is evoked by playfulness from which serious game players may wish to be somewhat, if not completely, dissociated. Part of the distinction is captured by the notion that games are play that is formalized -- possibly to a high degree. Playfulness may be characterized by a relative lack of rule-based formalization. Key theories in this respect are those of Jean Piaget (Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood, 1951) and Lev Vygotsky, as reviewed by Celia Hoyles and Richard Noss (Playing with (and without) words, 1999):
In the case of Vygotsky:
The above table may be seen as a representation of two orthogonal axes (Winning-Losing I, Winning-Losing II) and may be compared with the system developed by Edward Haskell (Generalization of the structure of Mendeleev's periodic table, 1972) to map pairs of interacting biological species in terms of the nature of their transaction or "game". This gave rise to a "coaction cardioid" discussed elsewhere (Cardioid Attractor Fundamental to Sustainability: 8 transactional games forming the heart of sustainable relationship, 2005). This approach may be used as the basis for distinguishing "playing" from "gaming" in Table 2.
The above table may be seen as a representation of two orthogonal axes (High Play -- Low Play, High Gaming -- Low Gaming). It may be used to position any combination of play and game. For example, in the bottom right quadrant might be found highly competitive games typical of business or diplomacy -- low on playfulness and fun. On the other hand the top left quadrant is high on playfulness with a low level of competitive gaming. There is however the question of different perceptions of the degree of play or game in any game-play combination -- in the eyes of the beholder. As shown in Table 3, the axes might be compared with cooperation vs competition.[more] Game theory is the systematic study of decision-making given a set of rules and opponents whose interests are more or less adverse. In a zero sum game the winner takes all; thus it pays to be competitive. In a nonzero sum game, the players end up better off, on average and over the long run, if they adopt a cooperative strategy. Robert Wright (Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, 2001) takes game theory and embeds it in a Darwinian framework. He proposes a kind of meta-game the | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||