Life Itself
Phenomenon of Complicity-Remediation Paradox #1174
Replies: 5 comments 23 replies
-
|
Great piece Martin, thanks for sharing....some solid complexity principles and hyper-object type themes in there! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm curious why you use the word "obsessing" here Martin, and if you think it is a reasonable and neutral word? Of course, if you say "obsessing" it looks as if you have already prejudged your answer, which I don't see as a helpful line of argumentation. Could you be more careful about your choice of words perhaps? Another completely different line that is possible is the Daoist line, which talks more of non-action being the way, and letting things be. Could you step back from just stating the right way of doing things ("one needs to ...") and look at this from a range of perspectives? I could imagine you saying something like "looking at things from a range of perspectives is just a recipe for inaction --- what we need is to be bold and take a particular perspective and act on the basis of that --- that's the way to get things done". True enough. It is also the way that dictators through the ages have acted (and appear to be acting right now), and I think we would agree that the outcomes have often not been what one would want. How do you, Martin, free yourself from the charge that you are supporting dictators (or indeed emperors like Alexander "the Great" who cut the Gordian Knot)? Are you an admirer of Ayn Rand, perchance? Nietzsche? I hope you see that you are at least running the risk of being seen that way. (Aside, I'm happy to credit Nietzsche with some very interesting ideas, but not so keen on Ayn Rand.) I'm not at all praising vacillation or inability to decide. Two things, though, or maybe three. One: I do believe that collective "intelligence" (or use a better word if you prefer) has much more potential than individual intelligence, and to assemble collective intelligence can take some time. That time is not wasted. Two: knowing when to act and when to refrain from acting is a decision in itself, and deciding not to act, or perhaps to put one's energy in a different direction and leave a certain matter alone, is a decision in itself, and there is wisdom in knowing when to act, where to put one's energy, when not to act, when to leave well alone. Maybe that was number three? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Morning Simon. I don't feel like my authentic expression should be sanitised by "reasonable" and "neutral" words. I'm very much in-line with the Daoist non-action paradigm, but at the moment I'm presenting another perspective - because I can hold multiple perspectives and choose when to appropriately employ them. "Running risk" to be seen as an admirer of Ayn Rand? Honestly, I can't relate to your line of thinking. Evaluating ideas based on the people these ideas are associated with is IMO a worthless exercise. Judge ideas on their own virtues. Finally, I respect that you think that "collective intelligence" has more potential than individual intelligence. I think it depends whether the collective that does the thinking taps into synergies or not. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
For a conversation which is supposed to be all about 'getting down to brass tacks' this one is surprisingly void of any concrete examples and it is therefore possible for us to fling opposing general principles back and forth to no effect. Martin, I think you are misinterpreting what Simon says, either deliberately, or in the heat of emotion. It is a risk to be seen as a supporter of Ayn Rand if you are not, in fact, a supporter of Ayn Rand. "You are at least running the risk of being seen that way," does not mean "you are guilty of thought crime," it means "either you support these ideas or you are making it seem like you do - so which is it?" It is a request for clarity. Be aware that the follow-up question is likely to be 'how do you free yourself from the charge that you are supporting dictators?' Perhaps you do not. Perhaps you support dicators. Perhaps, rather, you do not want to support dictators but you have a horrible feeling that maybe there is no other way. These are all possibilities that are left open by what you have said so far. Perhaps you simply do not know. These are all possibilities. You are not forbidden from any of them. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I disagree - I can have everything and cut through that Gordian knot like a hot knife cuts through butter :-) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
the point of a knife cutting through butter, is to have butter, not a knife. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Do I have to "suggest an answer" in order to comment? I am not suggesting an answer! ...The main thing that stands out to me in this argument is that it suggests that this 'complicity-remediation paradox' is as aspect of belonging to modern societies. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'd say that "complicity-remediation paradox" is just another example of manipulation designed to attack certain pressure points and exploit certain inadequacies in people who are not "self-realised" - let's say according to Maslow's descriptors. The lack of awareness, inability to detect phoney or dishonest perceptions of what exists, not having an accurate grip on reality, low tolerance to ambiguity and inner conflicts, paralysis when faced with paradoxes and uncomfortable truths. Calling it human condition or blaming complexity for it sounds like sweeping it under the carpet. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Just because people can say something with bad motivations, doesn't mean it isn't true. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm a bit confused by the claim that grassroots organizations are the ones less likely to challenge structural values. The obvious claim in the environmental field is that, for a large movement, the more 'grassroots' it is - whatever that means - the more likely it is to challenge the deep structure. Extinction Rebellion vs WWF on the other. I'm not sure that's actually a very meaningful way of seeing things, but it's how I tend to see it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
What does it mean to "challenge structural values"? A certain quality of courage? You'll know that someone is effectively challenging by the reaction of the challenged. Trump is a great example - the extent to which the interconnected world systems launched a co-ordinated reaction was very indicative of the threat he was posing. not ideological threat, but operational threat There are no true "grassroots" movements. All of them are top down. The ideas might come from anywhere, but the art of effective movement building is a highly specialised work for people gifted with capacities (in the broadest possible sense). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
agree. agree. disagree due to lack of evidence and poorly-defined terms in any case. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Looking back, this is a good point @farandfew Maybe we should start another thread around what are helpful and useful intellectual strategies and tactics, and what we would like to avoid, as they tend to lead to polarization and entrenchment rather than creative dialogue. I'm also reminded of arguments around "free speech". In my experience, just making emotionally laden statements as if they were intellectual really doesn't help. No harm, and often good (again in my experience) with expressing feelings and emotions in a respectful, clear and owned way, such as NVC. And if we were to follow the NVC path, what is likely to come up are our needs around respectful and helpful dialogue. When we can share a set of these "needs" (just using the word in NVC context) then we have the basis for great conversations. Thus I'd like to get beyond a feeling of "I don't like the way someone is communicating" to identifying just what the conditions are for fruitful dialogue between us. By "dialogue" I am referring to the tradition of David Bohm, William Isaacs et Al. It is possible that different people find different conditions optimal, but for anything collective it can't be one person imposing on another. If we really disagree, it would perhaps be time to split into different fora. Maybe that's what's happening out there with X/Twitter etc. Let those who want the freedom to be disrespectful and uncivil do that among themselves. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
this struck me as a highly intelligent piece relevant to the original subject line https://psyche.co/ideas/disappointment-is-not-just-a-feeling-its-a-political-force |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
"The optimistic position is tempting, but lends itself to a reactionary justification of things as they are, placing the blame not on the object itself (political economy, global markets, etc) but on our experience of the object. Disappointment, on the other hand, recognises the role of the object (of a system, a government, a social apparatus) in producing a subjective experience. " I'd say that disappointment is the default position and its associated blaming the object itself. The opposite is an attempt to transcend the "obviousness" of this comfortable perspective. However, there's (at least) one instance in which I could see the disappointment giving way to a birth of a transcending twist - through the complex perspective shift of self-deprecating humour. It's ever present in the prose of Saul Bellow. I couldn't find the quotation I was looking for, but this hopefully illustrates what I'm hinting at. "They disliked my style entirely. They hated it. But then why should they like it? Suddenly I saw the thing from their viewpoint. And I was extremely pleased. In fact i was illuminated. Maybe these sudden illuminations of mine were an effect of the metaphysical changes I was undergoing. Occasionally I saw myself with exhilirating objectivity, literally as an object among objects in the physical universe. One day that object would cease to move and when the body collapsed the soul would simply remove itslef. So, to speak again of the lawyers, I stood between them , and there we were, three naked egos, three creatures belonging to the lower grade of modern rationality and calculation. In the past the self had had garments, the garments of station, of nobility or inferiority, and each self had its carriage, its look wore the sheath appropriate to it. Now there were no sheaths and it was naked self with naked self burning intolerably and causing terror. I saw this now, in a fit of objectivity. It felt ecstatic." |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
In the paradoxical constellation of modern paradigms and situations, there's one hidden phenomenon that fascinates me. Until someone suggests a better term - I'll call it Complicity Remediation paradox.
It's a paradox that highlights the dual role played by us, the members of the society and the institutions that represent us - as both perpetrators and healers within a system that perpetuates certain harms.
The key aspects of the Complicity Remediation Paradox are:
Involuntary Complicity - individuals unknowingly complicit in contributing to negative outcomes due to not being able to fully evaluate the impacts of the government's decisions making or because the systemic structures are beyond immediate control. There is often a significant gap between the information available to policymakers and the general public. This asymmetry can lead to a lack of understanding among citizens about the full implications of government projects and policies.
Political Incentives - Politicians are often incentivised to make decisions that will make them appear performant and boost their chances for re-election. This can lead to short-term thinking and a focus on visible, immediate results rather than long-term systemic change. The invisible gets hidden in the system that is sub-optimally transparent.
Remedial Altruism - individuals willing to engage in altruistic actions to mitigate the negative impacts
Systemic Dissonance and Feedback Delay - dissonance from living within systems that are misaligned with our personal values and the desire for social and environmental well-being. The consequences of harmful policies may take time to become apparent, and by the time they do, the damage may already be significant and the causal relationship obfuscated. This delay can make it challenging to address the root causes promptly.
Agency Dilemma - dilemma regarding agency where it feels like people have very little control over the contributory aspects of the problems, but are fully empowered to participate in the remedial actions.
There is a stark contrast of "no control" over decisions but "full empowerment" when it comes to remedying them!
The Current Model
The current model often operates on a remedial approach, where the government undertakes or supports projects that, while economically beneficial in the short term, create negative externalities that charities and non-profits must then address. This creates a feedback loop that is both inefficient and ethically questionable.
The moral hazard in this scenario is that decision-makers in government may not be sufficiently incentivised to prioritise long-term social and environmental outcomes (or focus on the substance instead of appearance), as the immediate economic gains are more tangible and politically rewarding. This may result in the inefficient use of public funds, as the true cost includes the lost benefits that could have been gained from investing in sustainable and equitable practices from the beginning."
Democracy Angle
While not limited to democracies, the dynamics of this paradox may be more visible and pronounced in democratic societies due to the expectations of citizens of common good orientation and government accountability.
The link between the citizens and the government is established through our power to both elect the government and influence it through advocacy and public discourse. This paradox emerges when there's a disconnect between the collective will of the people and the actions of our elected representatives and it's defined by the opposing action, seemingly internally generated. Taxpayers might be unwilling participants behind government's actions, but still fully legitimising them.
Examples
Wars and Military Conflicts
Complicity:
We, as taxpayers of democratic nations, pay taxes that are used to fund military operations. Some of these operations may result in civilian casualties, material damage, refugee crisis and destabilisation.
Remediation:
The same citizens may donate to humanitarian organisation and charities that provide aid to affected war-torn regions to offset the damage caused by the conflict that their taxes helped finance.
Environmental Destruction:
Complicity:
Consumers purchase goods and services that contribute environmental harm - deforestation, biodiversity loss, polluting industries.
Remediation:
The same consumers invest their time and money to contribute organisations fight climate change or mitigate damage caused to the nature.
Social Injustice:
Complicity:
Societal structures and institutions may be perpetuating systemic racism, various discrimination or other forms of social injustice. People participate in these systems through daily interactions, employment or consumption patterns.
Remediation:
Citizens may volunteer their time or materially contribute to social justice organisations or initiatives. They can participate in advocacy campaigns to combat the very injustices that they are, through the taxation and representative leadership, standing behind.
In each of these examples, the paradox lies in the fact that the same individuals or collectives, through their action or inaction, are contributing to systemic problems while at the same time trying to alleviate the consequences of those problems.
Externalising the Cost - Internalising the Benefits
Complicit Remediation paradox offers a good explanation of how governments benefit from positive aspects of decisions and how they avoid or dilute their accountability and responsibility for the bad ones.
Externalising the Costs
When a government undertakes or supports activities that lead to negative outcomes without bearing the full cost of the remedial action - it's externalising the costs. These costs are instead borne by the public, whether in the form of remedy costs, degraded environments, poor health or social injustice. So the government's mistakes and negative impact get cushioned and hidden by the good effort of "non-governmental" collective of people, allowing the government to continue behaving recklessly and take risks that it wouldn't otherwise.
Internalising the Benefits
At the same time, governments may internalise the benefits of such activities by taking credit for immediate positive impacts that came on the back of the negative aspects that remained hidden because of the offset of the cost externalisation. This shines a positive light on the elected representatives who are then encouraged to risk more and potentially further increase the effect of cost externalisation.
It's difficult to evaluate what percentage of society engages in remedial actions and it probably differs significantly from one country to another. Still, it's only a segment of a society that donates to charities, volunteers for social, environment or humanitarian causes, participates in related activism, makes lifestyle changes or supports businesses that engage in ethical practices.
This points at another injustice - that the contributing minority is also externalising the cost for the individuals that don't make personal sacrifices in this accountability deficit re-balancing act.
Are Grassroots or Bottom-up Approaches to Systemic Change Perpetuating the Complicity-Remediation Paradox?
Grassroots and bottom-up approaches face challenges in affecting systemic changes due to the factors related to their relative capacity compared to top-down or direct system interventions.
They suffer from resource constraints and less access to powerful networks than the top-down efforts. Political influence that is required to make the right impact at the top is not readily available to often ideologically opposed activists.
Grassroots movements can be extremely fragmented and suffering from the narcissism of small differences. Their collective impact is reduced by not presenting a unified front needed to challenge the established systems.
While grassroots activists have knowledge about local issues, they may lack the broader perspective and expertise, which can make their efforts seem naive and lacking pragmatism.
All of these reasons make grassroots movements more likely to adopt a remedial focus such as cleaning up pollution or providing services to marginalised communities, rather than challenging the systems that create these issues.
Comments welcome.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions