24 May 2009 | Draft
Global Solutions Wiki
***
-- / --
Global Solutions Wiki
On the site of the State of the World Forum, a case is made at some length for a Global Solutions for Global Challenges: a proposed International Consultation and Global Solutions Wiki. The articulation could be understood as one indicator of the psycho-social "state" of the World Forum. The proposal calls for the following comments:
- There is indeed a strong case to be made for a Wiki-solutions,
or a Wiki-strategies, in
the light of the success of Wikipedia. One proposal, additionally
addressing the challenge of memorability through song, had previously
been made in Participative
Development Process for Singable Declarations: applying the Wikipedia-Wikimedia-WikiMusic
concept to constitutions (2006).
Arguably "strategies" encompasses
advocated approaches and possibilities without necessarily predicting closure
on "solutions" -- or implying any guarantee that they will solve
the problem at which they are directed.
- A significant challenge in relation to any "strategies/solutions" approach,
is that every solution advocated or implemented can be seen as a problem
in its own right from some other perspective, or can give rise to problems
or aggravate existing problems. It cannot be assumed that solutions are
free of problematic outcomes. Making that assumption would be indicative
of a very optimistic mindset unfamiliar with the complexity of which it
is necessary to be aware if matters are not to be made worse. Of course
many geo-engineering proposals in response to climate change are currently
made on the basis of just such assumptions (Geo-engineering
Oversight Agency for Thermal Stabilization (GOATS), 2008).
- The proposal appropriately points to various precedents in order to position
its focus. Curiously, although noting various recent sector-specific UN
initiatives covering a handful of issues, it fails to note longer-term
initiatives such as that of the Global
Strategies Project providing
online profiles of 32,547 strategies and solutions (with 284,382 links)
advocated by international constituencies (singly or in collaboration).
The background
section of
the extensive commentary on that initiative identifies a number of other
endeavours -- including those at the local level (used to enrich the profiles).
These profiles are systematically linked to those of the corresponding
database of the World
Problems Project providing online profiles on 56,564
issues (with 276,791 links). Profiles in both databases are linked to
those on 62,463 international organizations (with 952,987 links) -- the
"international constituencies" (including UN bodies) whose documents
were consulted to elaborate the profiles in all the databases. The problems
and strategies databases form part of the online Encyclopedia
of World Problems and Human Potential,
first published in hardcopy form in 1976, funded privately and latterly
by the European Commission.
- Irrespective of the failure by the researchers of the State of the World
Forum to detect the above initiatives, it might be asked whether this was
an indication of a questionable framing of a needed Wiki-solutions.
Is it the case that it is conceived in the light of the current framing
of climate change being the "most
urgent problem facing humanity" -- all other issues then to be treated
as secondary or irrelevant, irrespective of their importance to particular
international constituencies, or peasants short of water? What does this
imply about the constraints on the "global" framing
of the proposal? Is this an indication of some dangerous form of tunnel
vision or silo thinking?
- The proposal rightly points to the challenges of enabling and filtering
input, especially delicate in relation to strategies which arouse considerable
ideological and other objections. The Wikipedia project has considerable
experience of the challenges this poses with respect to much less problematic
material. However the challenge remains as to who has the right to input
and edit "solutions" and who has the right to mark them for deletion,
as in the Wikipedia process? Furthermore with what transparency
is this done and to what extent do profiles have to be "protected" on
a daily basis against problematic revisions? A case
study of such Wikipedia handling of biographic profiles,
argued that unidentified editors could effectively act unchecked like the
religious police of sharia law. The methodology of the above databases
is instructive on many of these challenges.
- The proposal indicates that "We" (presumably the State of the
World Forum) are currently in the formative stages of 'the
largest social movement in history'. It states:
- This is reflected in the 'one -- and maybe two -- million organizations' working on ecological degradation, climate change, and 'social justice' issues around the world as well as the roughly 30% -- 35% of the populations in the US, Europe, Canada and Japan which may be categorized as Cultural Creatives. This new and emerging population is 'paying close attention to world events and global trends' and is also 'fed up with politics and politicians.'... as many as 60 million adults in the US alone.
- This massive 'social movement' does not currently 'match the scale of the problems' we are currently confronting and it has not been 'mobilized into a cohesive political force' or a 'united front that can counter the massive scale and power of the global corporations and lobbyists that protect the status quo.' In addition, the immediacy and urgency of the challenges we face suggest that we must act quickly and together and now if we are to ameliorate rapidly deteriorating conditions.
Briefly put, why does the set of organizations in any such case not respond coherently to calls for mobilization in support of any defined initiative or strategic priorities? (cf Collective Learning from Calls for Global Action, 1981; Cooperation and its Failures (from the 1960s through the 1980s): 12 metaphors towards understanding the dilemma of the 1990s, 1989). Perhaps more striking is the case of the "cultural creatives". The proposal fails to recognize that labelling a category, such as cultural creative, does not automatically signify that those so identified::- identify with the label
- respond to calls framed in terms of the label
- are amenable to being directed or orchestrated by those formulating
or using the label
The challenge in practice might be compared to that of "herding cats". It is a feature of that profile that cultural creatives have an unpredictable take on conventional presentations of challenges and proposals for action. It is also significant that there are few examples of gatherings of a representative range of disparate cultural creatives which can be said to have engendered new insight or new action -- in which they have then collectively engaged. In fact many avoid dialogue with each other -- a principal reason for the multiplicity of organizations they individual inspire.
Many international initiatives might well be considered as memorials to individual cultural creatives and their disciples -- and to the outcome of bitter "turf wars" (possibly as bitter as those of the Middle East). Any new efforts at their "mobilization" needs careful attention. As cultural creatives they may well have a radically different view of priorities and be resistant to questionable declarations that climate change is the most important challenge facing humanity. From their perspective any such declaration recalls the purported dangers of the weapons of mass destruction purportedly held by Iraq (as affirmed to the UN Security Council) -- back when the USA aspired to imperial leadership.
- Any focus on a particular (elite) group and a multiplicity of associations
(deemed relevant) raises a major issue regarding those who do not buy into
that framing or those initiatives, and do not act according to the requirements
of any "mobilization". The issue is that of the "left behind". Whilst they
may indeed appear, from one perspective, to be irrelevant to the challenge
of "saving civilization", many are unlikely to be passive, will have other
agendas, and may actively resist being "targeted" in any way by those who
have been successfully mobilized -- even if such targeting is framed as
"saving their souls", as in the past.
- The particular framing by the State of the World Forum of the valuable initiative towards a Wiki-Solutions of some kind is unfortunate. It runs the risk of duplicating or undermining other efforts. Other initiatives will be developed to compensate for its inadequacies, selectivity and blindspots -- whether or not they are recognized. More curious however is the seeming transition from a focus on "America as Empire", as envisaged some years ago, to one where the imperial ambition, of American cultural inspiration, relates to millions of associations with "relevant" objectives and to a particular understanding of "cultural creatives". There is considerable experience of this pattern in a number of sectors. Some even have a century of experience of the pattern (Celebrating an Institutional Century of the UIA, 1907-2007). It cannot be said to have worked and typically engenders alternative initiatives by those considered irrelevant or who design themselves out. The State of the World Forum should learn from this or be condemned to repeat history.
|
For further updates on this site, subscribe here |
