- between change and transiency
This month we look at change: opportunities for it, attitude towards it, and implications of denying it. But first:
We have recently been witnessing the signs of a return to ‘normal’ with regard to banks and financial institutions. The talk over the last six months of the chance to ‘learn lessons’, and how it can ‘never go back to how it was’, has turned out to be empty rhetoric.
There had been a real chance to trammel banking to a more equitable course, but that door is now firmly closed - an insult to the thousands whose lives have been deeply affected by the events of the last year.
But to dwell on this will get us nowhere. If there had of been change, what would the nature of it have been; what changes do we need to make to make our society less polarised and more sustainable across social, environmental and economic means?
We have recently been witnessing the signs of a return to ‘normal’ with regard to banks and financial institutions. The talk over the last six months of the chance to ‘learn lessons’, and how it can ‘never go back to how it was’, has turned out to be empty rhetoric.
There had been a real chance to trammel banking to a more equitable course, but that door is now firmly closed - an insult to the thousands whose lives have been deeply affected by the events of the last year.
But to dwell on this will get us nowhere. If there had of been change, what would the nature of it have been; what changes do we need to make to make our society less polarised and more sustainable across social, environmental and economic means?
MYOPIC EXPERIENCE
The recently missed chance by the UK Government to re-trammel banks when they were on their knees could have sent a clear message with a couple of de-capitations. Now they are back on their feet, we are seeing a return to the bad old days of inappropriate bonuses, and business as usual. But bonuses are not the worst; merely the most salient aspect of a much deeper cycle of bondage which has resulted in the ongoing suffering of 1000’s of people led into severe debt, now trapped into a dark corner, as well as the collapse of 100’s of ‘real’ companies, further adding to the unemployment. So, as unbelievable as it may seem, we are heading for a situation even worse than we have been experiencing, as such an extreme swing of a pendulum will inevitably swing very far the other way.
BACK ON TRACK
If we accept that our global operating practices have been increasingly un-sustainable, there is therefore a need think outside existing mechanisms; to at least de-structure and re-configure. If so, what are the objectives and focus of restructuring?
Focus solely on growth and profit is divorced from how we live – it encourages blinkered thinking. If a company pays its rent, salaries, research, insurances, etc, then it is a viable company. So when we hear of profits 'plummeting' by X%, we are misled; any profit at all means a company is still a going concern, yet falling profits throw us into a panic with real consequences because we only focus on that aspect of the business due to shareholder priorities.
How can we draw back together the key strands of society, and what has changed in the meantime? How can we limit knock on effects of ‘investment' activity, and re-trammel un-sustainable practices?
Perhaps if we focus on activities and industries that relate to subsistence, not in a Neanderthal survival way, but to the quality of life that is right and appropriate to now, and should be shared by all. This way we move towards modes of living that relate more directly to how we live, and systems may become more circular, rather than linear, so it will be harder to ignore problems and implications of how we live. This would hopefully lead us to a more sustainable existence, and we would be less susceptible and be able to mitigate better against the extremes of vicissitude we are currently experiencing.
OUT OF SIGHT
Perhaps the lack of appetite for change is, at least partly, because we do not look far enough ahead to see the possible benefits of change, we only see the short term costs.
The period of time by which we tend to think ahead, and consequently implement measures accordingly, has been gradually reducing since around the mid-twentieth century. And this trend is accompanied by a shift to a more purely commercial outlook.
We passed the four year mark some time ago (political cycle), and even the financial cycle (one year), and have now reached the point where political will looks no further ahead than the next peak or trough of the media circus – sometimes as little as a few days.
This affects thinking and policies in a fundamental way by not considering the longer term and skewing the shorter term with knee-jerk reactive decisions, but, unfortunately, with long term consequences.
TRANSIENCY
One of the effects of ongoing political short term thinking and being increasingly commercially minded is fractured neighbourhoods and impoverished communities.
One of the most salient causes is oft quoted as small flats - too small for a decent quality of life. Both as built and also when operated as private rental accommodation means people have less sense of connection to it or the place in which it is situated. But it is easy to project problems on to physical receptors; there are some much deeper reasons: we increasingly live, commute, and socialise in different places, further disconnecting us from a sense of connection to one place or a cohesive realm of existence.
Affordable housing is now substantially delivered by the private sector, under duress, as part of private developments. Governments and councils are pushing for 40 – 50% affordable housing, with developers resisting through a whole range of excuses and hurdles. But does this just create parallel worlds? Is it actually cruel to place someone with significantly less means – not just financial, but in terms of opportunities and actual wherewithawal – cheek by jowl with very wealthy homes in some cases? These people will never mix in any meaningful sense, and so does it just create two parallel existences, with the worst off probably not able to shop in many of the local facilities, further highlighting the differences? There are only ever degrees of difference; it is by no means black and white.
This polarised situation can be seen in the extreme with some of the council built estates from the 60s and 70s in ‘better’ parts of London, for example, although many of these now are presumably fully private. However, places such as Sao Paulo, Brazil or certain parts of China take this difference to another level entirely – shanty towns next to shiny new apartment towers.
London has a large degree of distinction of the physical fabric, so the difference is very obvious, compared to somewhere like, say, Madrid. Madrid has its different neighbourhoods, the same as anywhere, but because the typical typology is the apartment block the difference is much less marked.
This is not an argument for ghettoes, but an enquiry in to how we actually live now, and how this situation can be integrally catered for the general benefit of all. To get beyond the notion of ‘pepperpotting’ social homes, and making it tenure blind. All this achieves is that people cannot tell, so all looks well, but we have smoothed over the more significant underlying sociological issues.
Maybe this overlaying of larger and wider personal networks that further divorces us from a small number of physical places is how we live now. Maybe we should just accept it, and work with that in terms of how to improve quality of life for all, rather than hanker for the idealised urban that does not, nor probably ever did, exist. What are the nature of links in this kind of world? How do we connect with people in such an environment?
COLOUR BY NUMBERS
Perhaps better run cities, towns and villages would have less stark differences; a smoother transition from types of place or even people. This is dangerous territory. Is it always a good thing to be confronted by different people from ourselves, to broaden our horizons, decrease our ignorance? But when does too much difference build up and overspill into hate and even violence?
We all make unconscious judgments of people, be it by where they live, colour of their skin, or sexual leanings. It is human nature. With ever more information overload this is further exacerbated, so we forget that using such markers are only guides, not actually how people are.
AND FINALLY ...
Time often brings experience, but sometimes people demand respect simply because they have been around for a long time, but there are many that merely repeat the same year over and over, and have not gained significant experience as such or perceptive insights from them, although they may have logged a lot of facts of things that have occurred over a life time, but really have only consumed other’s experience from the armchair of their life.
Change is not something we can stem. Even if we stand still metaphorically, things around us will shift, so our relative position has moved, so the people’s perspective of us will have changed, so we just become more anachronistic unless we derive learning from our previous experiences and give them relevance. The only certainty is change.
