Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE FUJI DECLARATION
About the Fuji Declaration
THE
FUJI
DECLARATION
AWAKENING
THE
DIVINE
SPARK
IN
THE
SPIRIT
OF
HUMANITY
For
a Civilization
of
Oneness
with
Diversity
on
Planet
Earth
A new phase in the evolution of human civilization is on the horizon. With deepening
states of crisis bringing unrest to all parts of the world, there is a growing need for
change in our ways of thinking and acting. We now have the choice of either spiraling
into deepening peril, or breaking through to a world of dignity and wellbeing for all.
Throughout its history, humanity has been guided primarily by a material
consciousness. Fearing scarcity, we have continued to pursue material gain beyond
necessity, taking from others and depleting the Earth’s natural resources. If our
aspirations continue to focus only on what is material and finite, our world will face
inevitable destruction.
What is our true nature?
In order to make more enlightened choices and change the course of our history, we
need to return to the basic question concerning human life. Each and every one of us
must ask, “What is our true nature?” and seek a meaningful and responsible answer.
The great spiritual traditions of the world have always been telling us that, at its root,
human life is inextricably linked to its universal source. Today, the latest advances in
the physical and life sciences reaffirm this perennial insight. When we rediscover our
connections to nature and the cosmos, we can re-align our life with the universal
movement toward oneness and harmony in and through diversity. We can restore the
divine spark in the human spirit and bring forth our innate love, compassion, wisdom,
1
and joy to live a flourishing life. The time has come for every one of us to awaken the
divine spark that resides in our heart.
What is the purpose of our existence?
We have been born at a critical juncture in history, in a world in transition, where it is
possible to guide the advancement of humankind toward peace on Earth. Living peace
and enabling peace to prevail on Earth is the ultimate purpose for all of us. We can and
must embrace it in every sphere of our existence.
By living consciously and responsibly, we can draw upon our inherent freedom and
power to shape our destiny and the destiny of humankind. Our task is to
collaboratively create a world of dignity and compassion that unfolds the full potential
of the human spirit—a world in which every individual gives expression to his or her
highest self, in service to the human family and the whole web of life on the planet.
Toward a new civilization
It is imperative to bring together individuals from diverse fields—scientists, artists,
politicians, business leaders, and others—to create a solid multidimensional
foundation for catalyzing a timely shift in the course of history. The time has come for
all people to become courageous pioneers—to venture beyond their personal, cultural,
and national interests and beyond the boundaries of their discipline, and to come
together in wisdom, spirit and intention for the benefit of all people in the human
family. By so doing, we can overcome the hold of obsolete ideas and outdated
behaviors in today’s unsustainable world and design a more harmonious and
flourishing civilization for the coming generations.
The paradigm of the new civilization
The paradigm of the new civilization is a culture of oneness with respect for diversity.
Just as the myriad cells and diverse organs of our body are interconnected by their
oneness and work together in harmony for the purpose of sustaining our life, so each
and every living thing is an intrinsic part of the larger symphony of life on this planet.
With the conscious recognition that we are all a part of a living universe consisting of
great diversity yet embracing unity, we will co-evolve with one another and with
nature through a network of constructive and coherent relationships.
We, as individuals responsible for our and our children’s future, hereby declare that:
—We affirm the divine spark in the heart and mind of every human being and intend to
live by its light in every sphere of our existence.
2
—We commit ourselves to fulfilling our shared mission of creating lasting peace on
Earth through our ways of living and acting.
—We intend to live and act so as to enhance the quality of life and the well-being of all
forms of life on the planet, recognizing that all living things in all their diversity are
interconnected and are one.
—We continually and consistently strive to free the human spirit for deep creativity,
and to nurture the necessary transformation to forge a new paradigm in all spheres of
human activity, including economics, science, medicine, politics, business, education,
communications and the media.
—We shall make it our mission to design, communicate and implement a more
spiritual and harmonious civilization—a civilization that enables humankind to realize
its inherent potential and advance to the next stage of its material, spiritual, and
cultural evolution.
List of Endorsers as of 2015
THE FUJI DECLARATION
LIST OF ENDORSERS
As of January 26, 2015
Yasushi Akashi (Japan) Former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Oscar Arias Sánchez (Costa Rica) Former President of Costa Rica, Nobel Peace Laureate, Goi Peace
Award 2004 Recipient
Muhammad Abdul Khabir Azad (Pakistan) Grand Imam and Khateeb, Badshahe Mosque Lahore,
Chairman of Interfaith Council for Peace and Harmony - Pakistan
Anna Bacchia (Swiss) Cognitive Researcher on 'ÌNIN Holographic Intuitive Intelligence'
Constantin von Barloewen (Argentina)Professor of Anthropology and Comparative Cultural Studies
Michael Beckwith (USA)Founder, The Agape International Spiritual Center, Minister
Linda Bender (USA) Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, Author, Animal Advocate, Co-founder of From the
Heart Nonprofit
Michael Ben-Eli (USA) Founder, The Sustainability Laboratory
Mohammad Bhuiyan (USA) Entrepreneurship Professor, CEO World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates -
Atlanta 2015
Joan Borysenko (USA) Medical Scientist, Psychologist, Spokesperson for Integrative Medicine
Gregg Braden (USA) Author of New Age Literature, Science/Spirituality
3
Sesto Castagnoli (Swiss) Evolutant and Entrepreneur, Founding President of WSF World Spirit Forum
Raffi Cavoukian (Canada) Musician, Founder of the Centre for Child Honouring
Matteo Ceccarini (Italy) Artist, Figurative Painter
James Channan (Pakistan) URI-Pakistan Regional Coordinator, Catholic Priest
Robert Chase (USA) Founding Director, Intersections International
Deepak Chopra (USA) Holistic Medicine, Goi Peace Award 2010 Recipient
Anwarul K. Chowdhury (Bangladesh) Former UN Under Secretary-General and High Representative
Tracy Cochran (USA) Editor, Parabola Magazine
Patricia Cota-Robles (USA) President, New Age Study of Humanity’s Purpose
Jude Currivan (UK) Cosmologist, Author
Stephen Dinan (USA) CEO, The Shift Network
Larry Dossey (USA) Physician of Internal Medicine, Writer of "Healing Words"
Gordon Dveirin (USA) Organization and Human Development Consultant
Riane Eisler (Austria/USA) Author, President of the Center for Partnership Studies
Duane Elgin (USA) Author, Futurist, Goi Peace Award 2006 Recipient
Barbara Fields (USA) Executive Director, The Association for Global New Thought
Linda Francis (USA) Co-founder, Seat of Soul Institute
Hideaki Fujio (Japan) President, Chichi Publishing Company
Marc Gafni (USA) Founder, Center for Integral Wisdom
Jagdish Gandhi (India) Founder of City Montessori School, UNESCO Prize for Peace Education
Jim Garrison (USA) Author, Theologian, Founder and President of Ubiquity University
Charlie Stuart Gay (Mexico) Entrepreneur and Social Enterprise Humanitarian
Maximilian Gege (Germany) Co-founder and Chairman, The Board of the German Environmental
Management Association (B.A.U.M. e.V.)
Charles Gibbs (USA) URI's Founding Executive Director
Jane Goodall (UK) Primatologist, Former UN Messenger of Peace
Jonathan Granoff (USA) President, Global Security Institute
Nicole & Alexander Gratovsky (Russia) Founders, The Dolphin Embassy
Stanislav Grof (USA) Psychiatrist, Founding President of the International Transpersonal Association
Rod Hackney (UK) Former President, The Royal Institute of British Architects and International Union of
Architects
Mussie Hailu (Ethiopia) Regional Director of URI to Africa and Representative of URI to the United
Nations Economic Commission for Africa, African Union Commission, UNEP and UN-HABITAT
Hazel Henderson (USA) Economist, Top 100 Thought Leaders in Trustworthy Business Behavior 2010
Helena Norberg Hodge (Sweden) Pioneer of the Localization Movement, The Economics of Happiness,
Goi Peace Award 2012 Recipient
Jean Houston (USA) Author, Advisor to UNICEF in Human and Cultural Development
4
Barbara Marx Hubbard (USA) Futurist, President of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Takashi Imazato (Japan) Architect
H. H. Swami Isa (India) Founder of the Global Energy Parliament, the Charitable Isa Viswa Prajnana Trust,
the Isa Viswa Vidyalayam School, and the Isalayam Ashram
Masato Ishikawa (Japan) Shinto Chief Priest, Morooka Kumano Shrine
David T. Ives (USA) Executive Director, Albert Scheitzer Institute
Hildur Jackson (Denmark) Co-founder of Gaia Trust, Denmark; GEN - The Global Ecovillage Network
and Gaia Education.
Ross Jackson (Denmark) Founder and Chairman, Gaia Trust, Denmark, Author of “Kali Yuga Odyssey”
Bawa P. Jain (USA) Secretary General, World Council of Religious Leaders
Ernesto Kahan (Israel/Argentina) Physician & Writer, Academician of Honor-International Academy of
Sciences, Technology, Education and Humanities, Former Vice President of IPPNW (International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War - Association awarded the Nobel Peace Prize)
Mikinosuke Kakisaka (Japan) Shinto Chief Priest, Ohmine Hongu Tenkawa Daibenzaitensha Shrine
Noriyoshi Kashima (Japan) Shinto Chief Priest, Kashima Shrine
Fumihiko Katayama (Japan) Shinto Chief Priest, Hanazono Shrine
Bibi Guru Inder Kaur & Singh Sahib Bhai Sahib Hari Singh Khalsa (Italy) Co-founders and Directors,
Yoga Dharma Community, Rome, Italy
Tim Kelley (USA) Global Change Agent
Sada Anand Singh Khalsa (Japan) Master of Kundalini Yoga & Meditation, Leader of the Sikhs in the
West
Ashok Khosla (India) Chairman of Development Alternatives, Co-chair of International Resource Panel
WindEagle Kinney-Linton (USA) Co-founder and Director, Ehama Institute
Jayanti Kirpalani (UK) Director for Europe and Middle East of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual
University and their NGO Representative to the United Nations, Geneva
Audrey Kitagawa (USA) Attorney, Head of Light of Awareness International Spiritual Family
Takashi "Tachi" Kiuchi (Japan) Chairman, E-Square and the Future 500, Former Chairman, Mitsubishi
Electric America
Eve Konstantine (USA) Leadership Coach and Trainer
Philip Kotler (USA) S. C. Johnson & Son Distinguished Professor of International Marketing Kellogg
School of Management, Northwestern University
David Krieger (USA) Founder, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Ietaka Kuki (Japan) Shinto Chief Priest, Kumano Hongu Taisha Shrine
Chung Ohun Lee (USA) Executive Director of UN Affairs and Interreligious Work at Won Buddhism
International
Joaquin F. Leguia (Peru) President and Founder, Association for Children and the Environment - ANIA
Princess Irene van Lippe-Biesterfeld (Netherlands) Princess of Netherlands, Social Reformer
5
Bruce Lipton (USA) Cell Biologist (Epigenetics), Goi Peace Award 2009 Recipient
David Lorimer (UK) Executive Vice-President of Wrekin Trust, Spiritual Educationalist
Lilou Mace (France) Journalist, Host of the Juicy Living Tour
Donald Mackenzie (USA) Former Minister, The United Church of Christ
Joanna Macy (USA) Environmental Activist, Author, Scholar of Buddhism, General Systems Theory, Eco-
philosophy
Datin Paduka Mother A Mangalam (Malaysia) President, Pure Life Society
Chinta Mani Yogi (Nepal) Founding Principal - Hindu VidyaPeeth-Nepal (HVP), Founding Chairperson -
Shanti Sewa Ashram (SSA)
Marianne Marstrand (Denmark/USA) Executive Director, The Global Peace Initiative of Women
Howard Martin (USA) Co-author of "The HeartMath Solution"
Koichiro Matsuura (Japan) Former Director-General of UNESCO
Shunkai Matsuura (Japan) Chief Priest, Mibu Temple, The 85th Senior Priest of Toshodaiji Temple
Avon Mattison (USA) Peace Building, Peace Messenger of UN
Dorothy J. Maver (USA) Project Director, Kosmos Associates
Patrick McCollum (USA) Spiritual Leader, Founder of Patrick McCollum Foundation
Lynne McTaggart (USA / UK) Science-based Programs for Health and Growth, Media
Nipun Mehta (USA) Founder of Service Space, Jefferson Award for Public Service, the President's
Volunteer Service Award and Wavy Gravy's Humanitarian Award, Project Incubator
Dena Merriam (USA) Founder and Convener, The Global Peace Initiative of Women
Nina Meyerhof (USA) President and Founder of Children of the Earth, Evolutionary Leaders
Edgar Mitchell (USA) NASA Astronaut, Lunar Module Pilot of Apollo 14
Takahiro Miwa (Japan) Shinto Chief Priest, Hiyoshi Shrine
Kamran Mofid (UK) Founder, Globalisation for the Common Good Initiative (GCGI)
Lady Fiona Montagu (UK) Philanthropist, International Advisor to Nobel Peace Laureate Betty Williams's
World Centres of Compassion for Children
Humayun A. Mughal (Japan) Islamic Sufi Faith Leader
Tolegen Mukhamejanov (Kazakhstan) Co-chairman of the World Forum of Spiritual Culture Organizing
Committee, Senator of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Composer, Poet
Kazuo Murakami (Japan) Geneticist, Emeritus Professor of Tsukuba University
Hiroshi Nakahigashi (Japan) Shinto Chief Priest, Hiraoka Shrine
Honnen Nakamura (Japan) Professor, Koyasan University
Norihiko Nakamura (Japan) Shinto Chief Priest, Fujisan Hongu Sengentaisha Shrine
Włodzimierz Nast (Poland) Bishop, The Holy Trinity Evangelic Augsburg Protestant Church (Warsaw),
Protestant Priest
Roger Nelson (USA) Director of IONS, Coordinator of Research at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies
Research, Collective Consciousness
6
Ryoko Nishioka (Japan) Chief Priest, Anzenin Enmanji Temple
Claes Nobel (USA) Author of “Global Declaration of Earth Ethics,” Founder of United Earth
Tomoyo Nonaka (Japan) Chairman,NPO Gaia Initiative
Shunyu Noto (Japan) Chief Priest, Keirinji Temple, Representative of Maizuru Religious Association
James O'Dea (Ireland / USA) Former President, The Institute of Noetic Sciences
Mitsuo Ohashi (Japan) Senior Advisor, Showa Denko K.K.
Gunter Pauli (Belgium) Founder of ZERI (Zero Emissions), Author of “The Blue Economy”
Franz Josef Radermacher (Germany) Mathematician, Economist, Co-founder of the Global Marshall Plan
Initiative
Jamal Rahman (USA) Muslim Sufi Minister, Co-founder of Interfaith Community Church in Seattle
Ocean Robbins (USA) CEO and Co-host of the Food Revolution Network, Founder of YES!-"Young
Leaders Connect, Inspire and Collaborate"
Nancy Roof (USA) Founder, The Kosmos Journal
Peter Russell (UK) Physicist, Futurist, Study of Consciousness and Contemporary Spirituality
Shodo Sakai (Japan) Chief Priest, Nanto Fukuchiin Temple
Elisabet Sahtouris (USA) Evolution Biologist, Futurist, UN Consultant on Indigenous People
Kocho Sasaki (Japan) Permanent Director, Principal of Enryakuji Academy, Highest Priest of Hieizan
Enryakuji Temple
Teiichi Sato (Japan) Honorary Executive Director, Tokyo National Museum, Former Ambassador and
Permanent Delegate of Japan to UNESCO
Hans-Martin Schempp (Germany) Founder of the One World Family, Social Reformer
Marilyn Schlitz (USA) Founder and CEO of Worldview Enterprises, President Emeritus and a Senior
Fellow at the Institute of Noetic Sciences
Walter Schwimmer (Austria) Former Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Chairman of the
International Coordination Committee of the World Public Forum - Dialogue of Civilizations
Genshitsu Sen (Japan) Former Grand Tea Master
Master Sha (Canada) Spiritual Master, Author of "Soul Healing Miracle Series", Founder of World Love
Peace Harmony Movement
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (India) Spiritual Master, Founder of the Art of Living Foundation
Jagdish N. Sheth (USA) Charles H. Kellstadt Professor of Marketing at Emory University Goizueta
Business School
Mitsuhiro Shibata (Japan) Consultant, Ambassador of the Club of Budapest International
Katsuyuki Shimamoto (Japan) The 15th Chief Priest, Ryukozan Shosenji Temple
Hiroko Sho (Japan) Member of the Board of Governors and Councilors, Okinawa Institute of Science and
Technology School Corporation, Former Vice-governor of Okinawa Prefecture
Karan Singh (India) Politician, Member of India's Upper House of Parliament
Franco Sottocornola (Italy) Founder, The Shinmeizan Center for Interreligious Dialogue
7
John Steiner (USA) Networker, Creative Consultant, Occasional Philanthropist
Bob Stilger (USA) Co-president, New Stories
Bill Strickland (USA) President and CEO of Manchester Bidwell Corporation, Goi Peace Award 2011
Recipient
Edward Suzuki (Japan) Architect
William E. Swing (USA) Founder and President of the United Religions Initiative, Retired Bishop of
California
Ryukei Takizawa (Japan) Chief Priest, Byakkosan Monjyuji Temple
Riten Tanaka (Japan) Secretary General of Kimpusen Shugenhonshu, Kimpusenji Temple
Tsunekiyo Tanaka (Japan) Shinto Chief Priest, Iwashimizu Hachimangu Shrine
Hiroshi Tasaka (Japan) Professor at Tama University, Founder and President of Think Tank SophiaBank,
President of the Club of Budapest Japan
Tenpa Tashi (India) Professor of Religion and Culture of the Tibetan Medical and Astrological Institute
Jin Tatsumura (Japan) Film Director
Katie Teague (USA) Documentary Film Maker, Thoughtful Monetary Pioneer, "Money & Life"
Michael Tobias (USA) Author, Filmmaker, Parabola Magazine Focus Award
Lynne Twist (USA) Global Visionary, Founder of the Soul of Money Institute
Moriteru Ueshiba (Japan) Aikido Doshu
Takeshi Umehara (Japan) Philosopher
Steve Valk (Germany) Director, Institute of Social Choreography
Jeff Vander Clute (USA) Co-founder, Sourcing the Way
Neale Donald Walsch (USA) Author of "Conversations with God"
Jean Watson (USA) Nurse Theorist and Nursing Professor, Theory of Human Caring
Ken Wilber (USA) Integral Theory, Mysticism, Philosophy, Ecology, and Developmental Psychology,
Writer
Diane Williams (USA) Founder and President, The Source of Synergy Foundation
Girma Woldegiorgis (Ethiopia) Former President of Ethiopia
David Woolfson (Canada) World Wisdom Alliance (WWA), Business
Keizo Yamada (Japan) Jesuit Priest, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Sophia University
Lily Yeh (USA) Artist, Founder of Barefoot Artists
Muhammad Yunus (Bangladesh) Social Entrepreneur, Nobel Peace Laureate, Grameen Bank, Economist
Gary Zukav (USA) Author, Co-founder of Seat of Soul Institute
Frederick Tsao (Shanghai) Chief Executive, IMC Group
Fred Matser (Netherlands) Humanitarian and founder of Fred Foundation a.o.
8
Article on the Fuji Declaration in Kosmos Journal
Awakening the Divine Spark in the Spirit of Humanity
By Masami Saionji and Hiroo Saionji
The Fuji Declaration
Almost a decade ago, the Goi Peace Foundation, together with our partners including the
Kosmos Journal, launched an initiative for ‘Creating a New Civilization,’ envisioning a
peaceful planetary civilization based on four pillars: Sustainability, Systems, Science and
Spirituality. So, how far have we come in attaining our goals? While environmental, social
and economic crises continue to bring unrest to all parts of the world, many of us are sensing
that a new phase in the evolution of human civilization is on the horizon. We are connecting
with one another with accelerated speed, and more and more people are awakening to what
we may call a ‘divine spark’ that resides in us all.
We have arrived at a critical point in time when each and every one of us must rediscover the
sacred spirit—our innate goodness, love, compassion and wisdom—and express it in our
being and in all spheres of human activity. With this aim, the two of us, along with systems
philosopher Dr. Ervin Laszlo, are inviting all people to endorse and embrace a new document
called the Fuji Declaration (printed on back cover).
The Fuji Declaration calls attention to the infinite potential that dwells within every human
being, and reminds us that we are part of a living universe that exhibits boundless diversity
yet embraces oneness. It calls on us to co-evolve with one another and with nature in a
constructive and coherent relationship.
There are an increasing number of people working in various fields—authors, activists,
scientists, spiritual leaders, politicians, business leaders, and others—who share the kind of
consciousness the Declaration calls for. They have deep insight into the nature of humanity
and the world, and are dedicated to contributing to a better future for the whole planet.
Encouragingly, almost a hundred such globally-minded leaders in all fields—including Oscar
Arias Sánchez, Deepak Chopra, Duane Elgin, Jane Goodall, and Muhammad Yunus—have
joined this initiative as Founding Signatories, contributing their words of wisdom to the
Declaration.
In addition, Ervin Laszlo will direct and coordinate in-depth research studies in key areas,
including the economy, business, politics and media, to report on practical measures for
reaching the goals and objectives that the Declaration articulates.
9
Events in Tokyo, Copenhagen and Mount Fuji
The official launch of the Fuji Declaration will take place in the framework of a historic East-
West celebration in May 2015.
In Tokyo, on May 15th, a public forum will be organized bringing together leaders and
experts from various fields to build upon the aforementioned research studies and explore
how we can nurture the necessary transformation to forge a new paradigm in the various
spheres of human activity.
In Copenhagen, on May 16th, a live event featuring world-class artists and visionaries will
take place at the Danish Radio Concert Hall. Under the theme “Connecting the World,” we
will explore the basic nature of the interconnectedness and unity of all things, and offer a
glimpse into the miracle and magic of who we really are. As we embark on a journey through
time, we will trace our evolutionary history and perceive that, for the first time in history, we
have the ability to connect with each other across continents and cultures, share information
and become actively engaged in shaping the future.
10
Danish Radio Concert Hall in Copenhagen, one the greatest concert halls of the new
millennium designed by the French architect Jean Nouvel
The evening event in Copenhagen will overlap with the sunrise on May 17th at the Sanctuary
at the foot of Mount Fuji in Japan, where peace-loving people have been gathering for
decades to pray for world peace. Here, thousands of people will gather for the annual
Symphony of Peace Prayers event, to celebrate the launch of the Declaration with a day of
intense prayer and meditation led by representatives of various faith traditions. Transcending
all differences of religion and culture, we will pray with one voice for peace on earth, creating
a positive energy field filled with vibrations of love and healing. This high-dimensional
energy will be anchored in the Fuji Declaration to awaken the divine spark in all people
touched by its message.
Connecting the world in oneness with diversity, these events will be broadcast through the
Internet and other media. Similar events of varying scales will also be organized by volunteers
in many locations worldwide.
Our vision is to create a world that gives expression to the highest potential of the human
spirit—a world in which every individual manifests the very best in themselves in service of
the human family. The time has come for all of us to become courageous pioneers—to
venture beyond our personal, cultural, and national interests and come together in wisdom,
spirit and intention for the benefit of all. We sincerely hope you will join us. (For more
information or to get involved, please visit fujideclaration.org beginning in January 2015.)
11
1
T H E F U J I D E C L A R A T I O N
AWAKENING THE DIVINE SPARK IN THE SPIRIT OF HUMANITY
For a Civilization of Oneness with Diversity on Planet Earth
A report on practical steps for achieving the goal stated in the Declaration
by Ervin Laszlo
This Report is based on the finding of research teams headed by:
Sandor Kerekes: research on practical steps in the economy
Ferencz Miszlivetz: research on practical steps in politics
Chris Laszlo: research on practical steps in business
Bente Milton: research on practical steps in the media1
1. The goal stated in the Fuji Declaration
The context
A new phase in the evolution of human civilization is on the horizon. There is a growing need for
change. If we continue to focus only on what is material and finite, our world faces inevitable
destruction. We either spiral into deepening peril, or break through to a world of dignity and wellbeing
for all.
The basis for reaching the goal
The spiritual traditions of the world have been telling us that human life is inextricably linked to its
universal source. Today the latest advances in the physical and life sciences reaffirm this insight. When
we rediscover our connections to nature and the cosmos, we can re-align our life with the universal
movement toward oneness and harmony in and through diversity and can bring forth our innate love,
compassion, wisdom, and joy to live a flourishing life.
The goal
“To collaboratively create a civilization that unfolds the full potential of the human spirit in service to
the human family and the web of life by co-evolving with one another and with nature through a
network of constructive and coherent relationships.”
1 The author of the Report takes full responsibility for the assessment and interpretation of the findings.
12
2
2. Problems and opportunities connected with taking practical steps to achieve the
goal stated in the Fuji Declaration
in politics,
in the economy,
in business,
and in the media.
2.1 Problems and possibilities for taking practical steps in politics
2.1.1 Obstacles
We do not know what the new world political system and its structure will look like. But it is probable
that major impact will be exercised by individuals and collectives in civil society, since they are
interconnected not only through political systems but through flows of money, trade and goods, and are
not directly constrained by the present system. The outcome of a major shift cannot be predicted
because it will be shaped by the input of many diverse actors. The world political-economic system is
exposed to multiple forms of intervention and initiative.
The dominant players and stakeholders—national and regional political leaders including prominent
social scientists acting through institutions of knowledge-creation and distribution—exhibit a serious
lack of responsibility. This institutionalized irresponsibility and indifference, supported by a tacit
consensus about separations and divisions as unchangeable features of the contemporary world,
endanger the future of human life on the planet. The recent return of the nation-state and the
accompanying nationalistic slogans and prejudices within Europe and around its borders brought the
rise of rightwing and religious extremism and populism, and an increasing rejection of
multiculturalism. Xenophobia, racism and anti-semitism have been growing not only in the peripheries
but also in the core countries of industrialized societies. Common to these movements is insistence on
historic divisions and cultural differences, as well as a complete lack and rejection of a holistic
approach to current social, political, and ecological problems. Threatened in their existence and
legitimacy, obsolete institutions, interest groups and powerful global, regional and national
stakeholders entrench themselves and fight to secure their interests and their survival.
2.1.2 The challenge
There are as many as 114,000 international NGOs and roughly 65,000 international organizations
operating at the global level. In the private sector there are an estimated 43,000 globally operating
transnational corporations. These entities represent an enormous scope and potential for driving and
implementing change. A new stage in history, the transformational stage, is dawning. In this phase new
conflicts are arising, but also solidarity/cohesion/onenness is increasing on local as well as global
levels. Old ideologies, systems and structures are contested and partially replaced with a new
worldview. The process of replacement, however, could take decades to achieve. An awareness of
increasing interdependence in the various spheres of economic existence is a slow process; it has to be
speeded up. A revolution is needed to enable new economic, technological and social models to replace
the macro-economic “machine model” with a model of organic-regenerative-holistic development
based on the recognition of the interdependence of the major actors and processes.
13
3
It will not be easy to bring down the mental, political, and physical walls of division and separation and
replace them with a holistic view and the corresponding behaviors. In our deeply divided world the
ideology and practice of ’absolute sovereignty’ and the security of states (not of societies) dominates
the realm of politics. Democracy is restricted to some spheres of existence and activity within the
geographical domain of nation-states. Democracy does not exist in institutionalized forms on global,
regional and transnational levels. In the world of politics, the idea of nation-states as actors possessing
equal rights is overwritten by a system created by the biggest and most powerful actors. The political
system is unbalanced and has reached the point of a bifurcation.
In order to unseat the existing power holders, marginalized groups and communities, women’s
movements, racial-ethnic and religious minorities, gender and age-based groups and indigenous
populations need to be consolidated into alliances at the grass-roots level. A movement in this direction
has been under way for the past forty years, but it has not developed far enough. The current crisis
requires a fundamental paradigm shift to move the human community toward a new international
political system with a new mind-set.
2.1.3 Developments
There are significant signs of change in the functioning of the world system. From the late 1970s
onward, the world has witnessed the emergence of new social movements, civil society networks, and
protest and resistance movements against dictatorships and authoritarian systems. Since the outbreak of
the global crisis in 2007, there has been a new set of social and political movements, protests,
networks, and individual initiatives and these may form the core of a new, democratic global civil
society. The new way of thinking and strategy in civil society is based on nonviolence and open,
rational, and continuous dialogue with the representatives of the dominant powers. The emerging
family of anti-systemic players is not yet crystallized but is gaining a higher level of self-awareness and
self-confidence. The new paradigm of a more democratic and just world order can already be perceived
in the thinking, behavior, networking, and associations of the new actors.
Dissenting groups mobilize and form, submerge, and re-emerge in new, diverse and innovative
morphologies. The new social formations include environmental and social justice movements and
movements of indigenous peoples and cultures. Something profound and pervasive is happening in
regard to social organization at the local, national, regional and international levels. This is not a
“movement” in the traditional sense, because it does not coalesce around a particular ideology, or even
have a topical focus. The world has become too complex for these developments. But the breadth,
scope and scale of protest is unprecedented in history. Elements of this form of activism extend to all
parts of the globe. It cannot be divided because it is already diverse at the grass-roots level. Despite its
diversity, it shares basic values and ideas regarding how the world functions and what people’s role is
in it.
The values of organized structures are changing, especially in regard to a participatory form of
democracy. The assertion “Nothing about us without us” heralds the effective voice of previously
marginalized or excluded groups. On the basis of the new thinking, global strategies could be built for
creating a new social contract on local, regional and global levels. The spread of protest the world over
signals a new impetus for civil society, a new demand for a fair and functional social contract between
citizens and power holders. This could be the path toward achieving inclusion and mutual tolerance
based on respect for the diversity of individual cultures and the integrity of the natural environment.
14
4
2.1.3 Preconditions for taking practical steps
Although the number of alternatives to the neoliberal paradigm is limited, the movements that seek and
wish to adopt the alternatives are growing, and growing fast. They are seldom connected to a
hierarchical structure and are not necessarily articulated as anti-capitalism or anti-globalization. They
are attempts to create feasible alternatives that transcend the current system of relations and create
parallel micro-systems.
The emerging systems could be the seeds of a transnational democracy. If their activities become
coordinated, they could become effective controllers of today’s uncontrolled and nontransparent
decision makers, holding them accountable for decisions that define the human destiny.
New frameworks and strategies need to be developed to guide and order the confrontation and
management of complex and interdependent crises with a coalition of stakeholders that includes
government, business, as well as civil society. These conditions must be attained before practical steps
could be implemented toward a civilization that could unfold the potential of the human spirit for
service to the human family and the web of life.
2.2 Problems and possibilities for taking practical steps in the economy
2.2.1 Obstacles
Between 2000 and 2030 the world population will grow by 2.5 billion; the demand for food will nearly
double, industrial production and energy consumption will triple, and demand in developing countries
will quintuple. The gaps will keep growing. There are countries with a GDP per capita over $100.000
(Qatar, Luxemburg), and there are very poor countries with a GDP around $1.000 (Bangladesh, Sub-
Saharan Africa). In 1970, the income of the richest 20 percent of the world’s people was thirty times
more than that of the poorest 20 percent. By 2005 this gap had grown to seventy-five percent and it
keeps growing. At the same time the global population is increasing. Demographic growth is an
endemic characteristic of the poor regions.
The concept of sustainable development had an important impact in the economy, for example, by
spreading environmentally friendly consumption habits, clean technologies, the valuation of renewable
resources, and in defining development in qualitative rather than quantitative terms. But renewable and
non-finite resources, the natural capital of the economy, still keep decreasing because there are hardly
any efforts to replace what has been used up.
Sustainable development means ensuring the continuous existence of the necessary resources. This
calls for radically new thinking. Development does not necessarily bring about the growth of wealth,
and even less the increase of wellbeing. Wellbeing calls for the development of education, increases in
levels of health and in life expectancy, the improvement of social security and growth in the level of
personal freedom. Environment-conscious consumers are ready for some “self-limitation” (selective
waste collection, turning off the tap, disconnecting the telephone recharger, etc.) but these have only
marginal effects on their ecological footprint. While one would expect that the footprint of
environment-conscious people will be smaller than those of non-environment-conscious individuals,
empirical studies show that the ecological and carbon footprint of so-called brown (least environment-
15
5
conscious) and green (most environment-conscious) consumers does not differ significantly. The
ecological footprint correlates with income, but its correlation with environmental awareness is not
demonstrated.
Taking feedback delays into consideration, without timely and radical change, the current economic
system faces global disaster.
2.2.2 Alternative conceptions
Optimism in the belief in the power of economic growth to overcome environmental problems has been
overshadowed by the fact that, even by 2030, most of the world will not reach the per capita GDP
where the quality of environment could be expected to start improving. It is clear that in the case of
easily externalizable pollution with little chances to establish the polluter’s liability (greenhouse gases,
waste), or contamination that produces irreversible degradation (e.g. the accumulation of heavy metals
and stable organic contaminants with their collateral effects), economic growth remains incapable of
overcoming environmental pollution. The data show that without a radical change in the conditions of
distribution, squalor will remain an obstacle to creating the necessary demographic and environmental
changes.
There are economic models where economic growth serves sustainable development: these are models
of structural economic growth. Eco-efficiency can be increased in ways that contribute to the increase
of employment in society. Supported by the increase in labor, the consumption of services in the
economy can develop while material consumption decreases. This would signify the gradual
replacement of a stock economy with a flow economy.
In order to foster and encourage the implementation of the alternative models, the concept of ecological
footprint may have to be replaced by the concept of “celestial” footprint. One of the great dangers of
using GDP is that, as it is now widely recognized, it is not connected to wellbeing, which is a different
and more complex concept. This can be avoided if we measure subjective wellbeing, which is a more
important indicator than GDP, given that humans need more than material resources to achieve a state
of wellbeing.
The resources that enter into the calculation of the size of the celestial footprint are not necessarily
purely spiritual, although spirituality could be an important element. The celestial footprint measures
the non-material content of wellbeing in a person or community. The higher the celestial footprint, the
smaller is material consumption at the given level of wellbeing. The challenge is to be happier with the
same ecological load; or decrease the ecological load without diminishing happiness. Of course, in
these equations the numerator and denominator may change singly or simultaneously.
The measure of the celestial footprint is important in a materially limited unsustainable world, for the
celestial resource pool is not limited. Using celestial resources does not depend on their availability,
only on the skills and creativity of the users as shaped and promoted by their culture and their values.
2.2.3 Conditions for taking practical steps
There are thousands of ways to increase or maintain happiness but they all have common elements: (1)
they use either earthly or “celestial” resources; and (2) these resources are used either via markets
(price tagged resources) or their use is outside the monetary system. There are three basic approaches
to creating a long-term sustainable economy.
16
6
The first approach: using non-material (“celestial”) and non-price-tagged resources such as a warm
family atmosphere, a high level of social capital, the enjoyment of natural beauty, and conditions for
personal and community peace and empathy.
The second approach: using nonmaterial resources via the market mechanism. Eco-efficiency as a non-
material source of GDP is an example of this, and so is economic development without material growth
as well as livelihood gained through licenses, and legal or other cultural artifacts.
The third approach: using material resources not mediated by market mechanisms, that is, resources
that are free in monetary terms. Breathing fresh air and drinking free and clean water are examples of
such use.
(A fourth approach would correspond to the classical understanding of the economy. Material resources
are used via market mechanisms for acquiring foods, clothes, etc. The critics of economic growth
assume that (1) this way of pursuing happiness is the most typical and yet it is unsustainable in a
materially limited world, and that (2) dollars in GDP (or any other category of indicators of economic
performance) correlate with the ecological load of humanity. This approach is dominant, but it is not
sustainable.)
The above approaches can be combined in a large variety of ways, offering many alternative
development paths. There are, of ourse, both monetary and nonmonetary trade-offs in the various
approaches, but market- and GDP-friendly economic scenarios can be delineated. According to these
scenarios, the focus of the economy should be creating employment rather than profit, fulfilling needs
rather than owning things, and producing durable and safe products and services rather than products of
planned obsolescence. Implementing such scenarios can help to maintain and increase human
wellbeing and the quality of life, and at the same time preserve the integrity of the natural environment.
However, in the last count only a fundamental change in the values that govern economic behavior
could create an economy that is sustainable in the long term, and this is a new paradigm in the
economy. The ative advancement of this paradigm remains a precondition of the realism of practical
steps toward achieving the goal stated in the Fuji Declaration.
2.3 Problems and possibilities for taking practical steps in business
2.3.1 Obstacles
For most of the 20th
century the role of business in society centered on (1) the individual as the unit of
analysis; (2) utility and rational choice theory; (3) transaction costs as an efficiency-driven set of
relationships between agents; and (4) the acceptance of hierarchy as a control mechanism to produce
output in the most efficient ways possible through centralized management and decision-taking. The
social responsibility of business was, as Milton Friedman wrote in his influential 1970 article in the
New York Times, “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits—so long
as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without
deception or fraud.” The assumption was that business is a utilitarian system in which individuals and
companies do the right thing because market forces create the necessary opportunities for doing so. As
Lord Keynes said, this presupposes an invisible hand that harmonizes the interests of the individual and
of society.
Operating on the above assumptions has resulted in an unrestrained drive by companies to increase
their profits and market share. The outcome has been a historically unparalleled concentration of
17
7
wealth in the hands of a few entities owned and controlled by an elite group of managers and investors.
This has occurred at the expense of benefits to the great majority of actors in business and in society
and has permitted the use of technology without regard for its societal and ecological consequences.
Continuation by business in its classical role would create critical problems in the economy as well as
in society.
2.3.2 Supporting trends
There is a new trend in the world of business that can be described as “the arc of interconnectedness.”
The trend indicates evolution in the purpose and the organizing principles of business, shifting business
from a worldview of tribalism, scarcity and mindlessness to one of interconnectedness and respect for
all forms of life. This indicates a transformation in the underlying logic of business from a self-
concerned search for profit and growth toward concern with wider social and ecological benefit.
Leading companies are no longer primarily focused on maximizing shareholder returns and/or reducing
harm, but on creating prosperity and wellbeing in the system in which they operate. A key feature of
the trend is the commitment to reconcile the profit motive with creating positive impact in the world.
New organizational forms are emerging in business that compete not only in regard to the quality of
goods and services offered by the companies, but also in regard to their ability to induce positive social
and environmental change. The type of organizations known as “hybrid organizations” and “benefit
corporations” are examples of such “sustainability-driven” companies. They demonstrate the capacity
of for-profit organizations to develop mutually enriching connections between business, community,
and the environment. At the leading edge business leaders manifest concern even with the level of
consciousness round them, as they seek to enhance the sense of connectedness of people in their
organization with others and the world at large. They understand sustainability as not just the
safeguarding of resources for future generations—the original meaning of the term proposed by the
Brundland Commission in its 1987 Report—but as leading to the flourishing of business in a
flourishing business environment: the goal identified as “sustainability as flourishing” (SAF).
The logics underlying business strategies can be classified as instrumental (profit logic), normative
(social logic), and integrative (combination of social and profit logics). The instrumental or profit logic
assumes that companies are instruments for wealth creation and that this is their paramount
responsibility. In light of this logic, strategies aiming at sustainability-as-flourishing (SAF) are means
to the end of generating profit—companies adopt SAF strategies because they believe it is good
business. On the other hand the normative or social logic assumes that the relationship between
business and society is embedded with ethical values. Under this logic companies put their ethical
obligation above any other consideration, even if it damages their financial returns. Companies that
follow this approach subscribe to the SAF strategy because they hold it to be the right thing to do.
The integrative logic, in turn, reconciles the profit and the social logic. Businesses are to do good for
society, but their financial health is equally important. Those that follow this approach maintain that
wealth creation is the mechanism by which companies, operating within the constraints of the current
economic system, create societal welfare. Both internal forces (moral responsibility and the values of
the decision-takers) as well as external forces (pressures from civil society, legal regulations and
industry standards) impact on and condition the implementation of SAF strategies.
Finally, so-called stage models focus specifically on how companies integrate SAF in a dynamic and
long-term perspective. They assume that organizations demonstrate different levels of acceptance,
18
8
understanding and integration of SAF principles at different points in time, and emphasize the dynamic
and evolutionary nature of development toward SAF. Stage models generally concentrate on the
elements that help companies institutionalize SAF, including organizational structure, organizational
culture, stakeholder relationships, and leadership logic or style.
Companies transform themselves to become agents of human welfare by evolving their business
purpose and organizing principles. Business purpose is the objective underlying the existence of the
company. One can distinguish four stages in its evolution. In the first stage the traditional purpose
dominates: to maximize shareholder value by creating wealth. The second stage includes stakeholders
as major elements in the business. At this stage companies seek to create value for shareholders without
tradeoffs (create sustainable or shared value), and engage in activities of social and/or environmental
value (such as energy efficiency, waste management, community engagement, etc.). Successful second
stage companies create value for society and the environment in ways that create even more value for
customers and shareholders.
In the third stage companies move from sustainable value creation to the commitment to do good as a
way to succeed, creating human, environment, and social benefit. The mantra of companies at this
stage is “becoming a force for good” and/or “being the best company for the world” (rather than “best
company in the world).. Some companies dedicated to this purpose are created specifically to address a
given environmental or social issue.
At the fourth stage the purpose of companies centers on raising the collective consciousness of the
human community. This stage represents the highest and noblest purpose of business: it embraces the
principles of oneness and wholeness as the basis of a flourishing world. A growing number of stage-
four copnies are now being identified by researchers such as Laloux, Laszlo & Brown, and others.
The evolution of current business models takes off from shareholder value (the dominant paradigm),
shifts to sustainable value (creating value simultaneously for shareholders and stakeholders), then
embraces the organizing principles and purpose of the sustainable/social enterprise (business as a force
for good), to reach the highest stage where the company becomes a flourishing organization. At this
stage the company is a platform for implementing the kind of goals stated in the Fuji Declaration.
2.4 Problems and possibilities for taking practical steps in the media
2.4.1 Obstacles
As we have seen, obstacles in the way of taking practical steps to achieve the goal stated in the Fuji
Declaration are created by the still old-paradigm orientation of the principal actors in the economy and
in politics. These obstacles are addressed and partially overcome in the evolution of the purposes and
operative principles of leading-edge business companies. The obstacles are nearly removed in the
world of the media, where classical top-down models are not only challenged but are rendered obsolete
by the latest developments.
2.4.2 Evolution in the media
New developments in the media offer participation for the great majority of people on the planet.
Internet access in 2012 was estimated at 33 percent of the world population or 2.3 billion people, and is
19
9
forecast to grow to 66 percent by 2030, encompassing 5.1 billion people. The practical significance of
this trend is that two-thirds of the people on the planet will have the opportunity to communicate their
ideas and concerns on the Internet, constituting a global platform for discussing what is wrong with the
world and what could be done to remedy it.
Optimistic assessments of the potential of the current “communication revolution” foresee that Internet
access by the of the majority of the world’s peoples will bring about a crystallization of ideas and
values that lead to the creation of a new civilization, possibly even a civilization “that unfolds the full
potential of the human spirit in service to the human family and the web of life.” For this, however, it is
necessary first, that the majority of the new communicators ( “prosumers” rather than “consumers) be
exposed to the relevant goals and ideas, and second, that they embrace those goals and ideas with
sufficient dedication to undertake practical steps toward their realization.
This is not an automatic and self-evident outcome; it depends in large measure on the nature of the
goals and ideas circulating in the channels of information, and on the effectiveness of their
presentation. Goals and ideas that hold out the promise of a better civilization are likely to appeal to
many of the new users, as they are predominantly young people with the majority stemming from the
hitherto excluded or underrepresented poor countries. However, the chaos of rapid transformation in
the world—a revolution not just in the media but in nearly all spheres of society—means that a great
many messages are circulating at the same time, and it is probable that many if not most of them do not
involve practicable ideas for a new civilization and are not likely to win the active adherence of a
significant mass of the “prosumers.”
There is a need to introduce ideas into the stream of messages in the world that have both a real
potential for inspiring the creation of a new civilization, and are attractive enough to empower practical
steps to create that civilization. Introducing such ideas does not call for formal classrooms, nor for
formal presentations. They can be embedded in documentaries of wide appeal, such as “docu-dramas,”
in fables for children and for grown-ups, in sci-fi adventures and in visionary explorations of the future.
They can be conveyed by computer games and can be placed at the center of debate in social networks.
The notion of a living universe is one such idea, and so is the interconnection of all things with all other
things and the quasi-miralous coherence of nature and of our own body. These are very different ideas,
and they point to a very different world, than the idea of the universe and the human being as a soulless
machine, functioning or breaking down independently of the fate of the other machines around it.
Marshall McLuhan’s theory that “the media is the message” does not hold. The same media can convey
a vast array of messages, of which the great majority is not likely to lead to positive civilization-
creating outcomes nor does it inspire practical steps in that direction. As our research study on the new
media states, “having the technical ability to communicate with ourselves does not mean we will
automatically do so. The question remains open as to whether we have the collective maturity to
consciously seize this precious opportunity.” The opportunity to have our voice heard on global
channels of communication is now given and it is precious, but making use of it is not only a question
of collective maturity, but of the nature of the goals and the ideas that are communicated, and of the
effectiveness of their communication.
3. An assessment of the problems and possibilities connected with taking practical
steps to achieve the goal stated in the Fuji Declaration
20
10
Problems and possibilities in politics and in the economy
In the sphere of politics and the economy it is too early to envisage taking concrete steps toward
realizing the goals defined in the Fuji Declaration: first the ground needs to be prepared for taking the
steps. This means loosening the hold of the currently dominant paradigm in the thinking of the
dominant actors, allowing the rise of a new paradigm.
The first step here is to empower the cultures that are already emerging at the creative periphory.
These cultures are not sufficiently united and hence not sufficiently powerful to displace the old
paradigm. When the new cultures develop mutual ties and shared projects, they could affect the centers
of power with their values and aspirations. A paradigm shift would then get under way. Then, but very
likely only then, will there be an opening in the political and economic systems of the planet to
implement concrete steps toward the achievement of the kind of goals stated in the Fuji Declaration.
Problems and possibilities in business
A new paradigm is needed not only in politics and the economy, but also in the world of business.
However, in the business world the new paradigm is already shaping up: it is informing the thinking
and the values of humanistic and forward-looking business leaders. It is transforming the functioning of
leading-edge business companies, shifting them from the traditional self-concerned and socially and
ecologically problematic mode to the mode where they become effective agents of human, social and
environmental benefit.
If the trend toward human, social and environmental care and responsibiity continues to unfold, first
the culture, and then the structure and operating principles of leading-edge companies will evolve, and
conditions will be created for taking practical steps for creating a new civilization of sustainability and
flourishing.
Problems and possibilities in the media
The media is in the midst of a full-scale revolution, the third since the mid-18th
century and by far the
most rapid and powerful. It is a revolution that creates networks of communication across the globe.
The global potential of the communication revolution is matched by the global challenge of finding
ways to live on the planet without destroying essential balances in the environment and pressing a
significant segment of the world population below the level of physical subsistence.
The new media possesses the means for responding to this challenge. But the time is short, and the
danger of reaching a threshold of irreversible change that forecloses positive responses is real. A new
paradigm for sustainable and flourishing on Earth needs to in-form channels of communication across
the globe. The conditions for taking practical steps in this regard are already given, but the steps
themselves are yet to be taken. It is urgent to create the messages—“stories”—that take hold of the
imagination of a critical mass of the people and inspire them to adopt modes of thought and modalities
of action that would pave the way toward a sustainable and flourishing civilization.
21
11
CONCLUSIONS
The here reviewed research studies—on the economy, on politics, on business and on the media—shed
light on critical needs and opportunities in today’s world. It is a world at the crossroads: at a point of
chaos and bifurcation, of unprecedented danger but also of unmatched opportunity. To move forward at
such a point calls for new thinking, since the thinking that has brought us to this bifurcation cannot take
us beyond it.. The new thinking we need is new from the ground up. It is a new paradigm for aspiration
and action in every sphere of human life on the planet.
A new paradigm is already perceived in the twin spheres of the economy and politics, but there the
hold of the old-paradigm is still too strong to permit practical steps to act on it. There are signs,
however, that a paradigm-shift is on the horizon. The task is to speed up its coming. The alternative
paradigms envisaged in the economy and in politics are the “hopeful monsters” biologists speak about
in regard to the mutants that appear on the periphery before the time would have come for them to
penetrate to the center.
In the world of business a new paradigm is taking shape in the thinking of a growing number of
managers. Nourishing the forces that empower the new paradigm in business and enable the spread of
its salutary effects to the civil and the civic spheres of society is the next step. When the new paradigm
reaches a critical mass in society, it will create massive change. Society is changing, and anticipating
and acting in line with that change harbors the key to success not only in the world of business, but in
all spheres of life.
The media world is the furthest along the path to the implementation of the paradigm we need in the
world. Our world needs a paradigm of interconnection and of coherence brought about through
interconnection, and in the human realm interconnection is built on communication. In complex
systems structure follows function. In today’s world the function is the creation and exchange of
messages, and the structure is the network of communication that carries those messages. Messages are
now exchanged all over the world, and channels of communication are emerging on all the continents.
Now these messages need to rekindle the human spirit to inspire effective steps toward the creation of a
civilization that would unfold the potentials of that spirit.
It has been said that there is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come. Let it be said that
there is nothing as powerful as the idea of rekindling the divine spark in the spirit of humanity. It is the
idea that could shift humankind from the road to disaster to the path of a civilization of sustainability
and flourishing, bringing peace and a high quality of life to all the women, men and children who live
on this planet.
22
The Business Sector Path Towards a
Civilization of Oneness with Diversity
Research Study for the Goi Peace Foundation
in conjunction with the Fowler Center for Sustainable Value
at the Weatherhead School of Management
Lori D. Kendall, USA
Ignacio Pavez, Chile
Lili Bao, China
Advisor:
Chris Laszlo, Ph.D.
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
Cleveland, Ohio: United States of America
23
i
Study Overview
In the Spring of 2014, The Goi Peace Foundation sought background studies in four
spheres (the economy, politics, media, and business) to show the achievability of its goals for
humanity as expressed in the Fuji Declaration, provisionally titled at the time,
“AWAKENING THE DIVINE SPARK IN THE SPIRIT OF HUMANITY: For a
Civilization of Oneness with Diversity on Planet Earth.” The Declaration points to the
possibility of a worldwide shift in consciousness from materialism-centered sustainability to
full-spectrum flourishing.
This report presents the background study in the sphere of business. It outlines the
path toward a Civilization of Oneness with Diversity as it is being shaped and advanced by
business. It offers clear evidence that the purpose and organizing principles of business are
evolving from a worldview of tribalism, scarcity and mindlessness to one of
interconnectedness, respect for all living things, and the divine spirit of Oneness.
In this study, we show:
The role of what we term positive institutions to awaken the divine spark in
the spirit of business
Generative organizing to awaken the divine spark in the spirit of
organizational citizens
Benevolent leadership to awaken the divine spark in the spirit of business
leaders
Business as a force for good: why and how companies engage in positively
contributing to society and earth.
Our findings are built on a theory construct developed in earlier research by the
authors: the arc of interconnectedness that highlights the evolution of business towards
oneness. The study identifies a profound shift in the evolutionary process of business. We
call this shift the ontological threshold because it embraces a deep transformational change
in the underlying logic of business to one that contributes to awakening the divine spark of
humanity.
24
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
How business has contributed to the problem .......................................................................... 1
The theory behind an awakened business ................................................................................. 2
The stages of business evolution towards oneness ................................................................... 7
How companies follow the arc of interconnectedness ............................................................ 10
Crossing the ontological threshold.......................................................................................... 22
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 24
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 25
25
1
THE BUSINESS SECTOR PATH TOWARDS A CIVILIZATION OF
ONENESS WITH DIVERSITY
HOW BUSINESS HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROBLEM
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage
in activities designed to increase its profits—so long as it stays within the rules of the game,
which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud” — Milton
Friedman, American Economist and Nobel Laureate.
When Friedman wrote these words in a 1970 article for the New York Times,
neoclassicists in the liberal tradition were shaping a coherent set of economic theories that
shaped financial activity, government policies, business paradigms, and public debate for the
next forty years. These theories centered primarily on: (1) the individual as the unit of
analysis; (2) utility and rational choice theory; (3) transaction costs as an efficiency-driven
set of relationships between agents; and (4) an acceptance of hierarchy as a control
mechanism to produce output in the most efficient means possible through centralizing
management and decision-making (Moe, 1984).
The Goi Peace Foundation business sector study suggests that the heart of the
problem is ontological. It proposes a construct that we call the “arc of interconnectedness” in
which there is a clear divide separating two paradigms of organizational thinking. The first
paradigm holds that business in the larger role of society is a utilitarian system with the
assumption that individuals and companies will do the right thing because market forces will
create the necessary opportunities for doing so. The second paradigm is grounded in
connections and bonds between individuals and community, echoing what Martin Buber
distinguished in I-Thou (1923), for not just close ties between individuals within a small
familiar network (Putnam, 1995) but a connection and an awareness of the various
expressions of life at a deep physical, emotional, and spiritual level.
We argue that there is a significant divide between these paradigms to explain the
anticipated evolution of business. Understanding this divide is critical to our ability to shift
ourselves as well as the role of business from utility maximizing to that which fosters: (1) our
deep sense of interdependence and interconnectedness with each other; (2) the intersecting
stakeholder relationships between the various actors, institutions, and organizations where
businesses operate; and (3) the natural and social environments that support the functions of
the business and in turn are supported and are regenerated by the businesses themselves
(Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Laloux, 2014; Laszlo & Brown et al., 2014).
The study is organized as follows. First, a theoretical framework of the study is
introduced that establishes the basis for understanding emergent business models of human
flourishing. Next, we walk through what we learned in our investigation, and we conclude
our study with a final reflection on why we have reasons to be hopeful for the future of
business as an agent of world benefit.
26
2
THE THEORY BEHIND AN AWAKENED BUSINESS
New perspectives in business are challenging the paradigms of the industrial era
(Ehrenfeld, 2008; Senge, Smith, Schley, Laur, & Kruschwitz, 2008) to see sustainability as
“the possibility that humans and other life will flourish on the Earth forever” (Ehrenfeld,
2008: 49). This new understanding of sustainability —called “sustainability-as-flourishing”
(SAF)— has allowed the emergence of new types of business, which are created and
organized to have a positive impact in the world (Cooperrider & Godwin, 2011; Ehrenfeld &
Hoffman, 2013; Haigh & Hoffman, 2012; Laszlo & Brown et al., 2014).
Positive institutions: awakening the divine spark in the spirit of business
Business as the most powerful and dominant institution in society (Bakan, 2004;
Gladwin, Kennelly, & Krause, 1995), is a good starting point to understand (and change) the
multilevel dynamics that are in play when thinking about a flourishing world (Hawken,
1993). New approaches have been developed to craft business as positive institutions
(Thatchenkery, Cooperrider, & Avital, 2010). According to these approaches, businesses are
not primarily focused on maximizing shareholder returns or reducing harm, but on creating
prosperity and well-being in the whole system in which they operate. Those positive institutions
assume a greater purpose and responsibility for the whole, embracing a greater sense of
connectedness and care (Ehrenfeld, 2008; Eisler, 2007; Laszlo & Brown et al., 2014).
A key feature of positive institutions (in the business context) is the commitment to
reconcile the profit motive with making a positive impact in the world (doing well by doing
good), an idea which has been captured by the concept of sustainable value: “a dynamic state
that occurs when a company creates ongoing value for its shareholders and stakeholders”
(Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011: 42). Paradoxically, companies that embed sustainable value
(adopting the seemingly opposite goals of profit and care) at the core of their business
strategy are likely to perform better than the average in the industry (Laszlo &
Zhexembayeva, 2011; Mackey & Sisodia, 2013; Porter & Kramer, 2011; Sisodia, Wolfe, &
Sheth, 2007) because the changing context of the business environment (declining resources,
transparency and rising expectations) has created new business risks and opportunities in every
sector of the economy (Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011).
Furthermore, the evolution of business —as an embedded system within society— has
allowed us to witness the emergence of new organizational forms which have come to compete
not only on the quality of goods and services, but also on the ability to produce positive social
and environmental change. Those types of organizations, usually referred as “hybrid
organizations” or “benefit corporations” (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Haigh & Hoffman, 2012;
Honeyman, 2014), are considered examples of positive institutions and are called “sustainability-
driven”, because they have demonstrated the capacity of for-profit companies to develop
generative and mutually enriching connections between business, communities and the natural
environment” (Haigh & Hoffman, 2012).
Recently, the conceptualization of the hybrid organization has been expanded to not
only create benefit to society, but to raise the level of consciousness in all of humanity. In
doing so, these companies have been devoted to enhancing our sense of connectedness —to
one’s own life purpose, to others, and to the natural world— in order to truly embrace SAF.
27
3
These types of companies, referred to as “flourishing organizations”, highlight the
importance of intentionally elevating our individual and collective consciousness in order to
reflect these elevated states of the mind to the world (Laloux, 2014; Laszlo & Brown et al.,
2014; Senge et al., 2008).
Generative organizing: awakening the divine spark in the spirit of organizational
citizens
Traditional business practices have been focused on performance and effectiveness
(Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Denison, 1997; Kotter & Heskett, 1992) with the purpose of
maximizing financial returns. Positive institutions however, are conceived not just as
performative entities (focused on effectiveness), but also as transformative ones (focused on
positive impact). Consequently, these types of companies show different patterns of
individual and collective behaviors, which are focused on making our world a better place to
live in.
Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) has been a major stream of knowledge and
practice devoted to understanding those organizational dynamics. POS research “focuses
explicitly on the positive states and processes that arise from, and result in, life-giving
dynamics, optimal functioning, or enhanced capabilities or strengths” (Dutton & Glynn,
2008: 693). Hence, the three core aspects of a POS perspective, as described by Dutton &
Glynn (2008), are closely related to the SAF perspective. Those three elements are: (1)
concern with flourishing; (2) focus on the development of strengths or capabilities; and (3)
emphasis on the generative, life-giving dynamics of organizing.
Within the field of POS, an important concept for understanding organizational
dynamics from a strength-based perspective is positive deviance (Spreitzer & Sonenshein,
2003, 2004) which is defined as “intentional behaviors that significantly depart from the
norms of a referent group in honorable ways” (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004: 841). The
concept of positive deviance is helpful to re-think the organizing processes towards SAF
because it offers a more precise way to understand what a positive institution is. Accordingly,
a positive institution can be defined as an organization that carries out an intentional strategy
(i.e. voluntary by nature) that moves the company beyond the traditional way of doing
business (i.e. beyond legislation compliance, efficiency, and shareholder value creation), in
order to produce a positive impact (i.e. honorable behavior, focused in creating good rather
than avoiding harm) in the system that supports —and is impacted by—the company’s
operations.
In alignment with this definition (Cooperrider & Godwin, 2011), positive institutions
are centers that “elevate our human strengths, connect and magnify those strengths, and then
ultimately, serve to refract more wisdom, courage, love and other human strengths onto the
world stage.” Thus, they develop a generative process of organizing, and give a purpose to
organizational members that help people to experience the wholeness of the systems of
which they are a part, which in turn helps them to embody more conscious decision-making
processes that enhance the positive impact of the company in the world.
The organizing processes for building a culture of oneness, characterized by a
network of nurturing relationships, is essential to understanding the internal dynamics of the
organization that allow the creation of common good. In this regard, David Cooperrider and
28
4
colleagues have been pioneering the creation of a theory of change based on elevating human
virtues and/or strengths (Cooperrider & Godwin, 2011; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987;
Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2008). The organizing
processes under this approach for change are described as “the cooperative co-evolutionary
search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them. It involves the
discovery of what gives ‘life’ to a living system when it is most effective, alive, and
constructively capable in economic, ecological, and human terms [...] It involves the art and
practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and
heighten positive potential” (Cooperrider et al., 2008: 3).
In alignment with the Fuji Declaration, this theory of change is helpful to understand
the organizing processes that sustain the harmony of the whole, because it is based on
affirming the divine spark of every human being to create flourishing organizations. This
approach assumes that organizations are centers of human connectedness that nourish the
human spirit. Thus, the conceptualization of organizational life is based on a renewed
understanding of the nature of the human being (compared to traditional approaches) and
authenticity, purpose, and interconnectedness to others and to the natural environment
(Ehrenfeld, 2008; Laszlo & Brown et al., 2014).
Finally, organizational theory has evolved to increasingly consider spirituality as a
human experience that can be cultivated and enhanced as part of the organizational life
(Duchon & Plowman, 2005). Recent research in this area has shown that spirituality in the
workplace has several benefits, like the enhancement of employee well-being (individual
health perspective), the elevation of the sense of interconnectedness and community
(interpersonal perspective), and the cultivation of purpose and meaning at work
(philosophical/transcendent perspective) (Karakas, 2010). As such, workplace spirituality
provides a clear path to enhance the capacity of an organization to embrace a holistic
development of employees, which will in turn, help cultivating a generative process of
organizing that continually —and consistently— frees the human spirit towards oneness.
Visionary alchemists: awakening the divine spark in the spirit of business leaders
Central to the development of positive institutions is the role of organizational
leaders, because they are called to initiate —and sustain— the necessary transformations in
business to create a thriving and prosperous world. For addressing that ideal, organizational
leaders (at any level) have had to depart from traditional ways of conducting business (i.e.
mechanistic and hierarchical relationships), in order to capture the essence of the human
being (i.e. our divine spirit) as a way to enact the organizing principles towards SAF.
In doing so, they had to learn a new set of leadership skills, which are closely related
to personal development practices. Some of those skills are: to continually renew themselves
at work, to engage people from the heart, to elevate the strengths of a person for harnessing
his/her highest potential, and to create an elevated purpose for every organizational member
(Boyatzis & McKee, 2005; Boyatzis, Smith, & Blaize, 2006; Cameron, 2013; Covey, 2005;
Dutton, Spreitzer, & Achor, 2014; Fry, 2003; Laszlo & Brown et al., 2014; Whitney,
Trosten-Bloom, & Rader, 2010).
29
5
In alignment with the business challenges of the 21st century, new leadership models
have been developed with the aim of sparking the generative interactions that will allow
business to become a positive institution. One of those leadership models is called spiritual
leadership, which was created to specifically address the spiritual component of human
interaction in organizations. This model entails two main components: “1) creating a vision
wherein organization members experience a sense of calling in that their life has meaning
and makes a difference; and 2) establishing a social/organizational culture based on altruistic
love whereby leaders and followers have genuine care, concern, and appreciation for both
self and others, thereby producing a sense of membership and feel understood and
appreciated” (Fry, 2003: 695).
Another important model is called benevolent leadership, which was created with the
purpose to offer a theoretically sound basis to create common good in organizations.
Benevolent leadership is defined as “the process of creating a virtuous cycle of encouraging,
initiating, and implementing positive change in organizations through: a) ethical decision
making and moral actions, b) developing spiritual awareness and creating a sense of
meaning, c) inspiring hope and fostering courage for positive action, and d) leaving a legacy
and positive impact for the larger community” (Karakas & Sarigollu, 2012: 537). This
leadership model is unique because of the way in which it defines —and integrates— the
patterns of behavior that characterizes leadership practices aimed to create common good.
The benevolent leadership model constitutes a solid basis for the creation of societal welfare.
Business as a force for good: why companies engage in positively contributing to society
The historical evolution of the field of business in society has shown that, despite the
differences among the several streams of research that constitute the field (e.g. corporate
social responsibility, corporate citizenship, corporate sustainability, social issues in
management, and corporate environmentalism, among others), there are some common
elements that would help an understanding of why —and how— business organizations
positively contribute to society. In particular, there are three elements that are closely
interlocked and act interdependently when configuring business as a force for good (Pavez &
Beveridge, 2013): 1) value generation logic, 2) forces or drivers of business practices, and 3)
stages/levels. The first two elements (i.e. value generation logic and forces) have been used
by scholars to explain why companies engage in using business as a force for good, whereas
the third element (i.e. stages/levels) represent how business implement and accomplish the
creation of common good (Pavez & Beveridge, 2013).
The value generation logic refers to the underlying assumptions that people hold
behind the motivation to be involved in SAF strategies. Those logics have been classified as
instrumental (profit logic), normative (social logic), and integrative (combination of social
and profit logics). The instrumental or profit logic assumes that companies are instrument for
wealth creation and that is their crucial responsibility. Thus, SAF strategies are considered
means to the end of profits. Companies that follow this approach are involved in SAF
strategies because they believe it is good business (Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011;
McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006; Wallich & McGowan, 1970). The normative or social
logic assumes that the relationship between business and society is embedded with ethical
30
6
values. Under this logic companies should put their ethical obligation above any other
consideration, even if it damages their financial returns. Consequently, companies that follow
this approach decide to implement SAF practices because they believe it is the right thing to
do (Garriga & Melé, 2004). Finally, the integrative logic reconciles the two dialectical logics
previously mentioned (social and profit). Under this approach people feel a deep desire to do
good for society, but the financial health of the company is equally important. Companies
that follow this approach support the idea that wealth creation is the mechanism by which
companies, under the forces of the current economic system, should use to create societal
welfare (Gladwin, Krause, & Kennelly, 1995; Haigh & Hoffman, 2012; Honeyman, 2014).
The forces represent the drivers of business practices towards SAF. Those drivers
could be internal or external, and are helpful to understand why companies engage in SAF
strategies (Swanson, 1995; Wood, 1991). Internal forces represent the individual and
organizational motivations towards SAF strategies (e.g. the moral responsibility and personal
values of decision-makers, the social values of the company, the organizational identity, and
the internal capabilities of the firm, among others) (Clarkson, 1995; Hart & Milstein, 2003;
McWilliams et al., 2006; Sharma & Henriques, 2005; Sharma & Vredenburg, 1998;
Waddock, 2008). External forces, on the other hand, are the factors that trigger the
implementation of SAF strategies, which are beyond the boundaries of the company (e.g.
pressure from civil society, legal regulations and industry standards, among others). They
typically represent what is expected of business in terms of normative legitimacy (Suchman,
1995; Wood, 1991), as well as the mechanisms —coercive, mimetic and normative
isomorphism— that produce similar practices and structures across other organizations
(Campbell, 2007; Delmas & Toffel, 2004; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Finally, the stage models specifically focus on how companies integrate SAF from a
dynamic and long-term perspective. These models assume that organizations demonstrate
different levels of acceptance, understanding and integration of SAF principles at different
points in time. They emphasize the dynamic and evolutionary nature of the developmental
process towards SAF, during which sustainability-related initiatives become more
integrative, sophisticated and demanding. Stage models are generally composed by the
elements that help companies to institutionalize SAF, which includes the organizational
structure, the organizational culture, stakeholder relationships and the leadership logic/style
(Maon, Lindgreen, & Swaen, 2010a; Mirvis & Googins, 2006; van Marrewijk & Werre,
2003).
31
7
THE STAGES OF BUSINESS EVOLUTION TOWARDS ONENESS
One of the purposes of the Goi Peace Foundation research was to uncover the
evolutionary process that business follows for contributing to the creation of a flourishing
world. Our findings suggest that firms that are the furthest along on this evolutionary journey
are creating engagement models within their companies that have the potential to awaken the
divine spark of humanity across stakeholders; much like stones thrown into the pond create a
ripple effect, or the beat of a butterfly’s wings creates a hurricane thousands of miles away.
This is the nature of interconnected, breathing, and organic systems. We cannot
understand these models from Western reductionism, or the study of systems in isolation, but
can only glimpse the profoundness of their effects from an interdisciplinary system lens. The
divine spark is indeed like a ripple in the pond, but in this case, a small force that creates a
much larger impact through the sheer force of the multiplier effect.
The Arc of Interconnectedness
Based on a combination of the data of our research inquiry as well as our syncretic
theoretical understanding, previous research provided a starting point to represent the stages
of business evolution for becoming a force for good (Maon, Lindgreen, & Swaen, 2010b).
Our analysis reveals that businesses transform themselves to become agents of societal
welfare along two complementary dimensions: business purpose and organizing principles
(Pavez, Kendall, & Bao, 2014). Business purpose represents the object toward the company
exist and/or the intention of founders when the company. Along this dimension it is possible
to observe four stages that describe the evolution of business purpose.
At the beginning is the traditional purpose of business (as stated in the law), which is
maximizing shareholder value or creating economic wealth. This stage represents the ideas of
capitalism in its pure state. The second stage represents an important shift, because it
includes stakeholders as an important part the business model. At this stage companies seek
to create ongoing value for shareholders and stakeholders without making tradeoffs (i.e.
create sustainable or shared value), and they engage in activities oriented to social and/or
environmental value (e.g. energy efficiency, waste management, community engagement,
etc.) because it is good business.
The third stage represents another important shift in terms of the business purpose
because it moves companies from sustainable value creation (Laszlo, 2008; Porter & Kramer,
2011) to the deep desire of doing good in the world as a way to succeed (i.e. creating benefit
to human, environment, and social endeavors as a way for the organization to thrive). The
mantra for companies at this stage is “becoming a force for good” and/or “being the best
company for the world” (Haigh & Hoffman, 2012; Honeyman, 2014). This higher purpose is
reflected in business practices such as creating higher quality jobs and improving the quality
of life throughout the communities where the firm operates. Companies that are born with
this purpose are created to explicitly address some environmental or social issues.
Finally, the purpose of companies at the fourth stage is to awaken the divine spark of
businesses to raise the collective consciousness of humanity. This stage represented the
highest and noblest business purpose, because it aligns with the principles of oneness and
wholeness that constitutes the basis of an interconnected and flourishing world. This highest
32
8
purpose is manifested in business practices that strive for wholeness and community,
supporting people’s longing to be fully themselves at work, and to be deeply involved in
nourishing relationships (Pavez et al., 2014). For example, Laloux notes an increase desire of
people “to affiliate only with organizations that have a clear and noble purpose of their own.
We can expect that purpose, more than profitability, growth, or market share, will be the
guiding principle for organizational decision-making” (2014: 50).
The set of organizing principles represents the underlying assumptions behind the
social processes that shape interactions among organizational members. Those modes of
organizing also followed an evolutionary path, which revolves around the nature of human
interactions that pervade the organizational design.
The first stage is characterized by an organizing style in which power and hierarchy
are salient. Interactions are design to be predictable, efficient and rigid, so they follow a
cascade of formal communication/reporting lines from bosses to subordinates. The mental
models of production are based on efficiency, so employees are treated as resources to serve
the instrumental purpose of the organization of generating profit (Daft, 2012; Lee, 2008).
The second stage is characterized by an organizing style with the underlying
assumption that effectiveness and success replace morals as a yardstick for decision-making:
“the better I understand the way the world operates, the more I can achieve; the best decision
is the one that begets the highest outcome.” For these companies, the goal as human beings is
to get ahead, to succeed in socially acceptable ways, and to best play out the cards we are
dealt.
The third stage is characterized by an organizing style with the underlying assumption
that employees are part of the same human family in pursuit of doing good for society itself.
The organization endeavors to increase each member’s wellbeing while becoming a force for
good in a broader context (i.e. the principle of caring in action) (Haigh & Hoffman, 2012;
Honeyman, 2014). Personal values and beliefs of top management and all intersecting
stakeholders hold that doing good for oneself and for others (environment included) is
integral to how the firm is organized to act.
Finally, the fourth stage is characterized by an organizing style that transcends caring
to yearn for wholeness (Laloux, 2014). Here, companies strive to bring together the ego and
the deeper parts of the self; integrating mind, body, and soul; cultivating both the feminine
and masculine parts within; being whole in relation to others; and nurturing our relationship
with life and nature (Kofman, 2013). Oftentimes, the shift to wholeness comes with an
opening to a transcendent spiritual realm and a profound sense that at some level, we are all
connected and part of one big whole (Laszlo & Brown et al., 2014; Scharmer & Kaufer,
2013; Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, & Flowers, 2005).
The organizing principles previously described are closely intertwined with the
business purpose that characterizes each stage. This suggests that they represent two
evolutionary axes through which companies evolve to become positive institutions; one
representing the contribution of the company to society (purpose) and the other one the
principles behind the social processes that shape organizational practices (organizing).
Consequently, we argue that we should look at the evolution of business toward wholeness
through the framework, “The arc of interconnectedness” (Pavez et al., 2014).
33
9
This evolutionary path begins with shareholder value (the dominant paradigm),
evolving to sustainable value (creating value for shareholders and stakeholders
simultaneously), then the organizing principle and purpose of the sustainable/social
enterprise (business as a force for good), to ultimately transcend and become a flourishing
organization (business that spark the divine spark of humanity).
Notably we found a profound gap in terms of the worldview that dominates the first
two levels (shareholder and sustainable value) and the last two (sustainable/social enterprise
and flourishing organization). We called that gap “The Ontological Threshold”, because it
embraces a deep transformational movement that completely changes the underlying logic of
business. That movement is based on a totally different conception of the nature and relations
of being, which goes from a mechanistic and fragmented worldview based on seeing humans
as separate and selfish to a holistic and interconnected one in which we are part of the
Oneness of the world and in which caring for others and for future generations is an essential
quality of being human (Pavez et al., 2014). We will discuss the implication of that gap after
we present our findings.
The institutionalization processes towards Oneness
The two axes that frame the model of business evolution illuminate the way (how) in
which business embodies each evolutionary stage of “the arc of interconnectedness.” In other
words, each shift in purpose and organizing results in a different set of frames around the
institutionalization processes that a company follows to become a positive institution. We
divided the institutionalizing processes into four categories, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Institutionalization processes towards wholeness. Adapted (Pavez et al., 2014)
Stages /
Levels Purpose Organizing
Institutionalization
Structure Stakeholders Leadership Culture
Shareholder Maximizing
shareholder
value
Bureaucracy/
efficiency
Hierarchical Contractual Competent
manager
Compliance-
seeking
Sustainable
value
Deliver
sustainable
value
Effectiveness Delegated
authority
Interactive Strategic
achiever
Strategizing
Sustainable
enterprise
Becoming a
force for
good
Caring Distributed
authority
Partnership Social
innovator
Caring/
transforming
Flourishing
organization
Awakening
divine
spark
Wholeness Fully
autonomous
Integrative Visionary
alchemist
Flourishing
Structure refers to how activities such as distribution of power, task allocation,
coordination, supervision, and measurement and reward systems are directed towards the
achievement of organizational aims. A company can be structured in many different ways
34
10
depending of its objectives (purpose) and on the assumptions about the nature of people and
relationships within the organization (organizing). Stakeholders refers to “any group or
individual that can affect or is affected by the achievement of a corporation’s purpose”
(Freeman, 2010: 46). Leadership refers to “the ability of influence a group of a vision toward
the achievement of a vision or set of goals” (Robbins & Judge, 2013: 178). Culture refers to
the pattern of shared —and taken-for-granted— assumptions about sustainability that was
learned by organizational members as the company solved its problems of external
adaptation and internal integration. To be considered a cultural trait, that form of
understanding sustainability should has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
consequently, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel
about sustainability (Schein, 2004: 17).
The process of institutionalization is described in the following section, with
examples of real business practices that represent each element at all levels. We will illustrate
the tension between the two dialectical worldviews that represent the ontological threshold,
and how companies are moving from the fragmented and disconnected worldview to the
holistic and interconnected one.
HOW COMPANIES FOLLOW THE ARC OF INTERCONNECTEDNESS
“The way we think about our purpose and approach to the environment can be
expressed in the following way: (1) we lead an examined life; (2) we clean up our own act;
(3) we do our penance; (4) we support civil democracy [by supporting environmental
campaigns and groups]; (5) we influence other companies, including our competitors to
engage with us on this” — prominent U.S. clothing manufacturer executive and
environmental steward.
What we find in the companies we researched are key institutionalization factors that
allow us to see more deeply how businesses evolve from utility-driven purpose and the
organizing principles of maximizing shareholder value or driving social and environmental
change only as a means of gaining comparative advantage to a paradigm with an entirely
different set of organizing principles and business purpose, to be truly interconnected.
What we find with this understanding is that each shift in purpose and organizing
results in a different set of frames around the institutionalization processes that companies
follow to become positive institutions. We divided the institutionalizing processes into the
following categories: structure, stakeholder, leadership, and culture.
Structure
“How to improve the vitality of people's lives transcends everything we do from our
strategic planning process to setting our goals and objectives; to turning those goals and
objectives into division strategies rolled into department strategies, and then rolling these
into individual goals and objectives. This is how we can integrate it through all of our efforts
and assure that we’re truly aligned to that particular vision” — CEO, U.S. Products
manufacturing firm.
35
11
Institutionalization in terms of structure is the process by which a business creates an
organizational structure to define and direct activities of the firm to achieve organizational
objectives. From Weber’s definition of bureaucracy forming the basis of the modern
corporation as an organizational pyramid concentrating power and control at the top (Child,
1972) to scholars that describe companies that are fully autonomous structures with power
and control in the hands of each employee (Laloux, 2014; Robertson, 2007), structure has a
great deal to say about how work is done. Table 2 illustrates how the paradigmatic
worldviews of utilitarian and interconnectedness implement structures that serve their
organizing principles.
Table 2. Institutionalization: Structure (adapted from Pavez et al., 2014).
Paradigm Fragmented: “Me” Interconnected: “We”
Stages Shareholder Sustainable value Sustainable
enterprise
Flourishing
organization
Structure Hierarchical Delegated authority Distributed
authority
Fully
autonomous1
Decision-
making
Decisions require
correct authority
and are driven top-
down into
organization
Decisions have
increasing complexity;
top management
establish overall
direction and delegate
downwards
Goes outside
pyramidal model to
focus on culture,
decentralization, and
empowerment.
Structure evolves to
align with being a
force for good
Organizations are
peer-relationship
based on
perceiving what’s
needed versus
predefined roles,
structures, &
activities
Work
definition
Procedures
established a priori
for efficiency;
deviation not
tolerated well
Staff given control and
latitude to reach
objectives
Employees work in
teams to exercise
responsibility and
authority to define
objectives
Employees work
independently to
define roles,
function, and
performance
Information
flow
Communication
flows rigidly from
top to bottom
Input flows from
bottom up while
decisions flow
downward
Emphasizes informal
communication
channels
Communication is
a function of
one’s whole and
authentic self
Measuring
performance
Financially
measured: past
performance used
to describe future
expectations in
purely monetary
terms
Performance described
in terms combining
financial data and
social / environmental
costs to be the best in
the world
Performance is
reflected in social
justice and
environmental terms:
to be a force for good
by being best for the
world
Performance is
evaluated on the
whole person’s
growth and org’s
fulfillment of
evolutionary
purpose and
benefit to the
world
Exercise of
power
Power is exercised
depending on
location in
hierarchy; amassed
Employees have
significant power over
task execution
Employees have
significant control
over role definition
and power over task
Employees create
role definition and
task execution
1 This has also been defined as a Teal or Holacratic organization (Laloux, 2014).
On
tolo
gic
al th
resh
old
36
12
at the top execution
Locus of
control
Bureaucracy as
controlling
function through
command and
control
Matrix management
and project teams are
the hallmark of this
level of structural
evolution
Virtual and self-
directed work teams
replace pyramidal
structures with leaders
providing facilitation
and guidance
Autonomy exists
at the individual
level without
managers exerting
control over
Role of
departments
Functions are
fiefdoms and
difficult to evolve
without creating
defensiveness
moves
Staff functions and
overlay organizations
have significant control
over traditional line
functions
Department functions
are more fluid and
evolve as the business
evolves
Departments/
functions serve
the nature of the
work and come
and go by
agreement
“We try to keep it small... We try to have as little middle management as possible.
The founders intent from the beginning was to create a flexible organization with small teams
pursuing hundreds of projects simultaneously as the key to our ability to be innovative” —
VP, global technology firm.
The executive from the global technology firm just quoted echoes a theme we heard
over and over again in our interviews with firms who focus on organizational structures from
the perspective of an interconnected ontology. Employees can be trusted, and do not need the
layers of management or elaborate processes many firms put into place to control the
activities of their employees. For example Zappos, known for its fully autonomous
organizational structure and legendary customer service, doesn’t implement any of the
typical call center metrics that measure dozens of efficiency and effectiveness key
performance indicators like the amount of time an agent spends on a single call, or the
amount of time it takes for an agent to pick a ringing phone (Hsieh, 2010).
Another example: “I encountered huge amounts of jealousy from people at the
corporate level because they owned the global sustainability team and they weren't really
doing anything except to produce a sustainability GRI report that nobody in the company
even knew was being produced. When our business unit started to win the major awards and
recognition, it became very difficult as there were a lot of people who did not like it because
it wasn’t being driven from the central office” — Sustainability VP, European chemical
company.
Compare our example of organizations that structure their operations with distributed
authority or are fully autonomous this with the voices of a firm that depends on hierarchical
structure squarely from a utilitarian ontological perspective. Here, we see what happens when
a sustainability officer from a multi-national chemical company spoke leads a complete
revamping of his business unit’s sustainability strategy and portfolio, resulting in highly
defensive but predictable reactions by department leaders at the corporate level. Our
sustainability officer, operating under empowerment that comes from distributed authority is
met with fierce resistance. It makes perfect sense when we understand that from the ground
of being corresponding to a hierarchical structure, such an encroachment on the span of
control of the corporate office has challenged the very definition of power, locus of control,
and strategic decision-making.
37
13
“Anyone can initiate a project to make a positive impact in a community, like our
local Korean community, or something to impact the larger world in a positive way just by
posting it internally for everyone to see. Anyone from the company can join the project, or
sign up to volunteer for a specific activity. The company doesn’t drive this from the top down.
It’s self-organized because if someone forces you to do something, it’s not going to be
regenerative, because that has to come from within” — HR executive, global technology
firm.
For leaders contemplating changing their organizational structure to empower their
employees and increase employee engagement, sometimes crossing the ontological threshold
is a matter of just letting go, so that employees can connect with each other on what they care
the most about.
Another example: “For the business leaders in our company who only care about the
numbers, they need to be able to take sustainability one step at a time. However, external
pressures sometimes accelerate the whole thing very nicely for us. We have one particular
business that was a steel manufacturing plant. Steel is very water-intensive and they were
drawing water from the municipality that was meant for the farming community. After
direction came from the government and a pretty big protest was organized in the village
about another business running afoul of the community, the head of steel manufacturing
asked us to help wean them off of municipality water altogether. A year later, we have a plant
that has it own rainwater harvesting and a ground water recharge system that allows them to
be water self-sufficient for about half the year.” — EVP, Sustainability officer for Indian
multinational conglomerate
Businesses do evolve, and we find that large corporations have institutionalized their
structures to evolve at different rates for any given point of time. The Indian multinational
firm in this case, a $30 billion (in USD) company with 150,000 employees recently launched
a reinvention of the company to become a sustainable enterprise, following Gandhian
principles of economic and social justice combined with the chairman’s desire to unleash the
innovation potential of 150,000 employees to solve the biggest problems confronting Indian
and global society. To do so, this firm recognized that the institutionalization structures that
were largely hierarchical were holding the company back. The reinvention targets
leapfrogging over delegated authority to distributed authority. The senior leader reported that
empowerment was an easier change to talk about when they focused on innovation as a
institutional force compelling to rethink the role of structure. Managers at the ground level
talked about how hard it was to let employees have more freedom to make mistakes, to
experiment, and to change how they worked. This is a powerful ontological shift, especially
for a structure that is deeply imbued with hierarchy as a means of achieving firm objectives.
Additional analysis of the primary and secondary data reveals stories about how
businesses are influenced by the diversity of people and their changing expectations,
especially millennials seeking purpose and meaning, as well as expecting autonomy.
Businesses are changing in no small ways with the influence of the Internet and social media
demanding transparency, with the inclusion of women into positions of leadership and
entrepreneurship, even in cultures where women as entrepreneurs would have been unheard
of ten years ago. A review of how these companies talk about themselves in social media
38
14
reflects purpose and vision in increasingly holistic and spiritual terms. As we continue this
line of inquiry in our broader research themes, we believe that we will see increasing
numbers of companies redefining their structural organization in ways that reflect this
interconnected worldview.
Stakeholders
“A sustainability strategy should not only guide the activities development and skills,
is also a form of business relationship with customers, vendors, suppliers, shareholders,
politicians and stakeholders. Environmental sustainability is the single biggest challenge
facing our industry and society this century, because the response affects not only products
but every aspect of our business and every person in it.” — Chief Environmental Officer &
Chief Executive Officer of a leading Japanese multinational automaker.
Institutionalization in terms of stakeholders is the process by which a business views
relationships with those outside the firm in either a limited morality context (e.g. moral
stewardship or corporate egoist and instrumentalist) or an elevated state of consciousness
(e.g. caring and holistic) (Jones, Felps, & Bigley, 2007). Table 3 illustrates how the
paradigmatic worldviews of utilitarian and interconnectedness view relationships that serve
their business purposes.
Table 3. Institutionalization: Stakeholders.
Paradigm Fragmented: “Me” Interconnected: “We”
Stages Shareholder Sustainable value Sustainable
enterprise
Flourishing
organization
Stakeholders Contractual Interactive Partnership Integrative
Concern for
others
Moral stewardship
concern for others
is limited to
concern on behalf
of shareholders
Interests of relevant
stakeholders integrated
into business strategy
Purpose built around
satisfying stakeholder
needs and to benefit
society by impacting
whole organization
system
Company built
around developing
a greater sense of
inter-
connectedness
between company
and all living
systems, with aim
of leading
creation of a
flourishing world
Stakeholder
Engagement
When doing so
benefits
shareholders in an
instrumental way
By engaging with those
who directly impact
business performance,
company creates
sustainable/shared
value in a systematic
fashion.
Close relationships
with most
stakeholders to act as
partners of societal
betterment
Broad definition
of stakeholders
(not just ones
directly impacted
by business), and
embraces deep
collaboration
Viewing impact
upon
stakeholder
Interpreted and
treated as an
externality
Satisfying stakeholders’
needs is considered
good business
Understood as central
element to enhance
positive impact of the
company upon society
Stakeholders are
highly synergistic
and collaborative,
which means that
they are actively
involved in co-
creating/improvin
On
tolo
gic
al th
resh
old
39
15
g the business
practices of
company to create
societal welfare
Relationship
type
Purely contractual Reciprocal (win-win)
relationships to assure
success in
implementation of
business strategy
Close and based on
mutual trust, goes
beyond an
instrumental strategy
to improve
performance
Stakeholder
relationships are
transformative in
nature. In other
words, they help
to increase the
meaning/purpose
of business actors
and enhance their
sense of inter-
connectedness
“We believe that sustainable logistics, in our production processes must include
environment, economics and social costs and resources. This concept includes the supply
chain management, production process, and all stakeholders. We have been able to reduce
absolute CO2 emissions across our logistics network for a number of years running, despite
having higher distribution volumes” — VP, Logistics for Japanese automaker.
For the automotive maker, stakeholders have been conceptualized as all living things,
in this case, planet earth. Reducing emissions is an outcome of viewing impact upon an
indirect stakeholder (the environment) and understanding that this is a central element in
order to produce a positive impact upon society.
What is different in this example, in comparison to what we may find in a typical
CSR report? Let’s consider some language about value creation in a 2012-2013 report from
agricultural giant Smithfield Foods, Inc., whose CSP score at 1070 makes them one of worst
corporate social performers worldwide, according to a 2010 study published by the UCLA
Institute of the Environment (Chen & Delmas, 2011).
Under the banner of Corporate Social Responsibility, the language of the company is
one of moral stewardship combined with instrumentalism. Stakeholder value is only aimed at
generating benefit to the shareholder. We observe this through how each CSR metric is tied
to a financial benefit. Furthermore, note that even the language tied to raising awareness
about hunger is tied to “connecting more consumers with our brands,” ostensibly to generate
opportunities to see more product (Smithfield Foods, 2013). Smithfield may talk about being
a socially responsible company, but both empirical evidence and the use of language suggests
a utilitarian paradigm of separateness, and not one of interconnectedness and motivation to
benefit society, or one to lead in the creation of a flourishing world.
Another example: “For the independent recycler (also known as trash pickers), the
firm offers a partnership that finances half of their entry costs for the recycling technology,
and allows them to have 100% of the income derived from its operations... Because of this
partnership, the independent recyclers can emerge from extreme poverty and learn how to
achieve higher levels of income from an occupation that used to be part of the informal
economy in Chile” — CEO, South American recycling company.
40
16
Many of the firms we studied were focused on partnership in the way they viewed
stakeholder relationship as partners in societal betterment. In these cases stakeholders are an
opportunity to understand the whole organizational system, going beyond instrumentalism or
egoism to the ontological view of wholeness. In some cases, these firms are evolving into
integrative stakeholder relationships, as is the case of the South American recycling company
because they are transformative in nature. The recyclers, most of whom come out of
desperate poverty situations, give the business meaning and purpose, and in turn, the business
provides the same back to the recyclers, along with dignity and a sense of hope.
Another example: “Because of our relationships working with farmers, we were able
to fundamentally change our entire business model from farm tech manufacturing to farm
tech prosperity. We don’t look at just selling tractors and other farming equipment to the
farmer anymore, but give them end-to-end support from seeding to new technology in
farming for efficient use of water, conservation of soil moisture, interaction with a local
university’s horticulture program, and access to a 24/7 local/rural television programs. This
shift to being in the farm tech prosperity business is huge for us. We create ergonomically
tractors that women can use. Farmers taught us to modify the design so that the tractor can
be used for applications beyond the limited four to five month growing season, to use it for
other applications that could also mean transporting some heavy equipment or timber or
something from one place to the other” — SVP, Indian multinational conglomerate.
Here again are stakeholder relationships that allow the firm to focus on transformative
activities that could significantly change the lives of a population in India that is deeply
mired in the type of poverty and hardship associated with the fickle monsoon seasons that
make farming in India very difficult. We note that this isn’t a business case aimed at selling
more tractors, nor is it an ontological perspective about utility, although utility is certainly
implied by extending the use of a piece of equipment beyond traditional farming activities.
What we find the most remarkable is that the firm’s relationship and business purpose with
the farmer has been completely transformed, to one of seeing the farmer’s situation as their
own. This suggests that an ontological threshold has been crossed, with an associated
paradigmatic shift towards interconnectedness and oneness.
Leadership
“I care deeply about people sustaining their life, about people having life and
vitality. Of people being able to enjoy and live a life and feel great while they're living it.
Being in this particular role not only allows me to do that personally, but allows me to
inspire an entire workforce around the world to help others achieve the same thing” —Chief
Executive Officer, U.S. appliance maker.
Institutionalization in terms of leadership is how the businesses structure, design, and
view the role of leadership and the top management team to manage the activities of the firm.
Table 5 illustrates the paradigmatic worldviews of utilitarian and interconnectedness from a
leadership perspective.
41
17
Table 4. Institutionalization: Leadership.
Paradigm Fragmented: “Me” Interconnected: “We”
Stages Shareholder Sustainable value Sustainable
enterprise
Flourishing
organization
Leadership Competent
manager
Strategic achiever Social innovator Visionary
alchemist
Role of leader Establish
standards,
procedures, and
output statistics to
regulate activities.
Strong strategic
orientation focused on
getting results; satisfy
stakeholder needs in
order to improve
business performance.
Challenge
assumptions to reach
higher performance
(social, economic, and
environmental).
Generate social
transformations
that reinvent
organizations in
historically
significant ways
Purpose of
leadership
Organize people
and resources
towards effective
and efficient
pursuit of
predetermined
objectives.
Get tangible
deliverables by
empowering and
motivating team
members.
Generate effective
organizational and
personal change
View the world as
a web of inter-
connectedness full
of possibilities for
societal
flourishing.
Modus
operandi
Driven by power
and logic; aware of
power dynamics,
expect people to
follow instructions;
focused on
maintaining power
structures over
affective relations.
Creates positive work
environment and
provide challenges that
help employees grow
and develop; set
strategic objectives that
take into accounts the
stakeholders’ needs.
Develops highly
collaborative
environments, and
weaves meaningful
visions with
pragmatic, timely
initiatives.
Consider the
whole system and
the long-term
consequences;
integrates all
stakeholders,
embracing that
which supports
the positive
evolution of
humanity.
Typical
leadership
style
Authoritative,
relies on top-down
approach;
distinguishes
between executives
as knowledge and
workers (source of
physical
transformation of
inputs to outputs).
Promote teamwork to
effectively deal with
managerial duties;
work with reciprocal
influences between the
company and its
stakeholders.
Empower employees
to grow and develop
personally and
professionally by
giving them
responsible freedom.
Sought out in
organization for
wisdom and
compassion;
Builds framework
of elevated human
values that guide
team members in
their daily
activities.
Primary
objectives
Focus on financial
returns and
shareholders’
interest; impacts to
society are
externalities;
stakeholders
relevant when
specific issue
affects financial
returns.
Reliably lead a team to
implement new
strategies over a one to
three-year period,
balancing immediate
and long-term
objectives.
Cooperate across
institutional
boundaries (wide
range of stakeholders)
for the mutual benefit
of the organization
and society (& triple
bottom-line results).
Transcend the
boundaries of
their company to
become influential
leaders of a
flourishing world.
On
tolo
gic
al th
resh
old
42
18
“We saw a change in leadership at the overall business level with the total focus on
the short-term, and we saw my CEO who was really quite visionary replaced by somebody
with a sales focus who really did not have that vision. Sustainability didn’t necessarily mesh
with his management objectives, so everything we were working related to the sustainability
portfolio on became a non-priority” — VP, European chemical company.
Leaders who have a worldview aligned with the shareholder stage are competent
managers with a clear focus on financial returns and shareholder’s interests. The purpose of
leadership is to organize people and resources towards effective and efficient pursuit of pre-
determined objectives. For our R&D leader above, it was a personal and professional shock
to go from reporting to a social innovator with an entirely different focus on stakeholder and
societal / economic / and environmental impacts to a leader who told him in the first five
minutes, “I don’t care about what you do, and I don’t care about sustainability.” We observe
that executive hiring committees who are not oriented to the stages of institutionalization
may end up hiring or promoting leaders into roles that are a mismatch for the organization;
often in hidden ways that aren’t exposed until talented staff and well-respected leaders like
our interview subject leave the company altogether.
Another example: “One of the most the most important thing our leaders do is to get
on the stage every week, every single week no matter what, share their own vision, share how
our business is going, and then take a lot of questions with straight answers. I think that's
really an amazing thing to do as a leader, because it’s not an easy thing to do” — VP, HR
global technology company.
We heard a lot of descriptions about leaders who are strategic achievers, and excel at
empowering and motivating their teams. Some of the world’s top companies with
charismatic leaders like Cisco System’s John Chambers, or Li Ka-shing of Hutchison
Whampoa-Cheung Kong (Hong Kong) are legendary achievers who are well-liked by the
rank and file employees for their personal generosity. However, the goals are ultimately
about business performance, and do not enter into transformational change beyond the
bottom-line.
Another example: “I remember when a CEO from a certified B-corporation that had
been acquired by a major conglomerate was invited to present in front of the entire 600-
person sales team. The person who was coaching him about the presentation warned him not
to waste his time talking about being a benefit corporation, but to focus on why his products
were great and how the sales team could make a lot of money. The CEO’s response was ‘You
don't get it. Our products are great and our people are great, but the reason why we’re
growing faster than anyone else in our business is because we're a B-Corporation.’ And his
sponsor told him that it was his funeral, but it was his choice. So he takes the stage, gives his
fifteen minute talk, at the end of which the six hundred sales team stood unified with a
standing ovation” — CEO, non-profit.
Social innovator leaders challenge us to think about company performance in terms
of social, economic, and environment. We wouldn’t expect a typical sales team to respond to
a pitch about a company legal structure, but it isn’t about a governance model, it’s about
what this acquired company stood for. The leader who can operate from a commitment to do
good for the world, while pragmatically combining meaningful visions with practical
43
19
initiatives for the purposes of creating mutual benefit for the company and society will stand
out, and in some cases, receive standing applause. Why do these leaders instill this type of
reaction?
Unlike the leader who is a strategic achiever and may be very charismatic, we believe
that people instinctively respond to the authenticity of a leader who speaks from both their
head and their heart with actions that are congruent with the words being spoken. Being a
benefit corporation is a significant statement because it requires changing the articles of the
corporation and declaring to the shareholders that the firm is legally obligated to pursue
objectives that are a benefit to society at the same level of priority as financial ones. Instead
of being measured by shareholder performance, the firm is declaring that it will be measured
externally by stakeholder performance, against criteria that is objective and challenging.
When we find this type of leadership, we also find other factors of institutionalization
that map to the corresponding stage of business evolution.
Culture
“Imagine coming to work for a company and in the interviewing process you're being
interviewed to find out whether you passionately believe in making the world a better place.
Because if you don’t passionately believe in that, we don’t really want you to work for our
company.” — Chief Executive Officer, multinational healthcare products.
Institutionalization in terms of culture is how the business functions by implicit and
explicit rules that are understood as “this is how we do things around here.” Table 6
illustrates the paradigmatic worldviews of utilitarian and interconnectedness from a Culture
perspective.
Table 5. Institutionalization: Culture.
Paradigm Fragmented: “Me” Interconnected: “We”
Stages Shareholder Sustainable value Sustainable
enterprise
Flourishing
organization
Culture Compliance-
seeking
Strategizing Caring /
transforming
Flourishing
Sustainability
definition
Sustainability is a
cost without clear
business value.
Sustainability is seen as
source of strategic
advantage.
Sustainability is
deeply woven into the
firm’s raison d'être.
Culture of
company supports
a societal
transformation for
creating a thriving
& flourishing
world.
Mission and
objectives
Company mission
descriptive and
built around
business objectives
and shareholder
value.
Mission includes idea
of contributing to
society but is centered
on “being the best
company in the world”
and uses sustainability
to achieve those goals.
Mission built around
positively contributing
to society, which
permeates
organizational
practices.
The mission built
around enhancing
oneness and inter-
connectedness
among all living
systems is lived
by every
employee; creates
a new stage of
development for
On
tolo
gic
al th
resh
old
44
20
business as an
interconnected
entity into the
whole.
Impact of
vision
Vision does not
inspire employees
passion for work.
Includes contributing to
society but employees
don’t buy-in because
integration of
sustainability into
operations are
fragmented.
Employees are
attracted to the
company by the strong
sense of vision and
purpose that the
company embraces;
deep source of inner
motivation at work
Employees are
attracted to the
company because
they perceive a
strong sense of
meaning and
calling at work
which transforms
their lives.
Transmittal of
values
Values largely
unknown by
employees; used
for PR image.
Values reflect
contributing to society
but are not totally
shared by employees.
Organizational values
deeply reflect the idea
of contributing to
society and/or being
good corporate
citizens; shared by
employees.
Organizational
values deeply
reflect elevated
principles of
relating and
acting, which
impact the lives of
employees even
beyond the job.
Dominant
relationship
mode
Interactions and
relationships are
transactional with
high level of
control and power
plays.
Interactions and
relationships among
employees include
caring for emotional
wellbeing, but behind
that is a utilitarian
purpose of improving
business performance.
Interactions and
relationships among
employees are
strongly based on
caring and
compassion, and the
work environment is
highly collaborative.
Interactions and
relationships
among employees
are trans-
formative; enables
employees to
thrive/flourish
personally and
professionally.
“We were dealing with organizations like Wal-Mart that were asking lots of
questions, and we knew that if we were working to reduce the impact of our products, that
would give us a major business advantage. At one point, we had over 200 major
corporations sitting at the same table having the same discussion. Some were there because
they really wanted to make a difference, and some were there because they just wanted to
make sure they could continue to do business with Wal-Mart.” — SVP, European consumer
products firm.
Most of the firms we studied were aspirational in wanting to be caring/transforming,
but ended up displaying most of the characteristics of a strategizing culture. With our
European consumer products firm, sustainability viewed as a source of strategic advantage,
although this SVP and other employees wanted the impact of the vision to be around
positively contributing to society and a good corporate citizen as a caring/transforming
culture. This firm suffered from not having sustainability completely integrated into business
operations, and with the mission statement clearly articulating wanting to be the best in the
world, with sustainability as a means to an end. The challenge with being on the left side as a
utilitarian worldview is several-fold: (1) employees don’t buy into the vision or values
because they are self-serving; (2) A change in leadership that is hostile to sustainable value
makes it easier for the company to retreat back to being a shareholder stage company as
discussed previously; and (3) when interactions and relationships are really a means to an end
45
21
(a utilitarian or instrumentalist purpose of improving performance), people know
inauthenticity when they see it, which creates distrust and disengagement. In many ways,
sustainable value as a phase for the company makes sense intellectually, but falls short at a
human connection and relationship level.
Another example: “To me, culture should be that you care deeply about your
employee. You care deeply about your planet. You care deeply about the impact that you’re
having on this world. You have to have an aspirational vision of how to make the world a
better place. The more companies that believe that and practice it, the easier it will be on us
when we hire new employees because we won’t be so different.” — CEO, multinational
consumer products company.
When CEOs focus on creating a caring/transforming culture, the vision, mission, and
values of the company are transmitted more authentically and clearly through the
organization and the various stakeholders. Mission permeates organizational processes like
hiring, sales, and customer service. Bill George, the former Medtronics CEO developed and
practiced caring/transforming principles during his twenty-year tenure (George, 2010), and
emphasized the leaders’ role in facilitating an interconnected culture. He argued that leaders
have to pursue with passion, openly express values, engage with heart and mind, and develop
connected relationships (George, 2010).
Another example: “Our partners and our employees told us what our five guiding
principles are: (1) We passionately believe in making the world a better place; (2) We
passionately believe that every person matters and we can make a difference; (3) Our future
depends on learning and innovation; (4) We passionately believe in creating our future and
embracing our past; and (5) We passionately believe in treating people with dignity and
respect.” — CEO, American appliances firm.
We got chills when we heard the CEO describe her company’s flourishing culture in
the words above, for there was no denying the forcefulness and passion in her own voice
describing the strong sense of meaning and calling of what work meant to her employees.
You can’t fake a company’s purpose to lead societal transformation to create a thriving and
flourishing world. She spoke of employees, customers, and stakeholders co-creating a future
by paying attention to what they’ve done together in the past and using that shared
experience to write the next chapter. She spoke of how their relationships and interactions
were transformative beginning with values of treating people without exception with dignity
and respect.
Another CEO we spoke with talked about how much communication played a part in
developing a flourishing culture, requiring large amounts of collaboration and humility,
especially from the entire management team, along with demonstrated willingness to admit
and take ownership for mistakes and embracing uncertainty. All of this to create an ethos of
empowered employees who can take ownership for their work and their contribution to the
vision and mission.
46
22
CROSSING THE ONTOLOGICAL THRESHOLD
According the Merriam Webster dictionary, the word threshold has two important
meanings, both of them related to transition or change: 1) “the place or point of entering or
beginning (e.g. the threshold of a new age)”, and 2) “the point at which a physiological or
psychological effect begins to be produced” (e.g. the threshold of consciousness)2. The word
threshold comes from the age-old process of threshing, which separates the grains or seeds
from the straw. Thus, threshold literally means “sitting on the gold” (Scharmer, 2009: 113).
In our model of business evolution we defined the ontological threshold as the
transition that companies follow to begin to function as a vehicle for something even more
precious that gold or light: “the enlightenment of business to the creation of a flourishing
world” (Pavez et al., 2014). This transition occurs at the very deep level of mental models
and/or worldviews (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Senge, 1993), where the traditional conception of
being (fragmented, mechanistic, and utilitarian) is essentially questioned, challenged and
changed. Therefore, companies that cross the threshold realize that their habitual way of
seeing and acting is not connected to the true nature of being (holistic, sacred and
interconnected), which move them to re-design and re-frame business practices from a higher
level of consciousness (Barrett, 1998; Mackey & Sisodia, 2013; Pavez et al., 2014).
Central to the movement of crossing the threshold is the notion that the failure of
business to contribute to a healthy world is due primarily to a mechanistic and fractured
worldview (Scharmer & Kaufer, 2013; Senge et al., 2008). This worldview “drastically
separates mind and body, subject and object, culture and nature, thoughts and things, values
and facts, spirit and matter, human and nonhuman; a worldview that is dualistic, mechanistic,
atomistic, anthropocentric, and pathologically hierarchical… A broken worldview that
alienates men and women from the intricate web of patterns and relationships that constitute
the very nature of life and Earth and cosmos” (Wilber, 1995: 14–15). This worldview,
heavily grounded with the rise of modern science and philosophy —particularly associated
with the names of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Kelvin, and Descartes—
(Capra, Steindl-Rast, & Matus, 1993; Gergen, 1999; Wilber, 1995), puts rationality as the
dominant element of our existence. Hence, it fosters the development of a utilitarian and
anthropocentric ethics, which sees people and nature as resources to be exploited, and the
soul/spirit as something separated to the everyday life of a normal citizen (Gladwin,
Kennelly, et al., 1995).
Fortunately, the last twenty years has been witnessing a growing awareness of the
problems related to this traditional —and taken-for-granted— worldview by leaders and
thinkers of different background and sectors. The Western lens on this matter owes much to
epistemological criticism of liberalism and its exclusive focus on the individual, from
theorists such as Martin Buber, Charles Taylor, and Robert Putnam among others (Cates,
2012). Much also comes from Asian tradition and teachings from both a philosophical and
political tradition, and draws upon various forms of communitarianism that balances intimate
2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threshold
47
23
connections, honor, and purpose as defined between the individual actor and the community
(Liu, 1955; Odin, 1992).
Interestingly, this collective process of awareness has allowed the re-birth of ancient
wisdom coming from different cultural and spiritual traditions, which constitutes a totally
different mindset for understanding —and relating to— ourselves, others and the natural
environment. This mindset, which has been called holistic and/or ecological worldview
(Capra, 1997; Capra et al., 1993), sees the world as an integrated whole, where matter, life
and minds “are part of a vast network of mutually interlocking orders subsisting in Spirit,
with each node in the continuum of being, each link in the chain, being absolutely necessary
and intrinsically valuable” (Wilber, 1995: 20). It is a worldview that acknowledges the
inherent value of human and nonhuman life, because it recognizes that all living beings are
members of ecological communities bound together in a network of interconnectedness and
interdependencies (Capra, 1997).
Besides, it has demonstrated the power of creating a radically different system of
ethics, when this perception becomes part of the daily awareness of the beholder (Capra,
1997). This has produced important advances in different scientific disciplines —such as
physics, biology, cognition, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and medicine— which
have tested the hypothesis of interconnectedness and holistic awareness. Those studies have
come to the same conclusion that ancient spiritual traditions has told us for a long time: we
are deeply interconnected not only to each other and all life but also to the universe and to the
spirit of humanity (Capra, 1997, 2013; Dispenza, 2010; Goswami, 1995; Maturana & Varela,
1987; Radin, Hayssen, Emoto, & Kizu, 2006; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1992; Wilber,
1995; Laszlo E., 2014).
This ontological way of being is causally related to the evolving nature of humanity
and the role that businesses play in expressing that humanity as a set of values, expectations,
and cultural norms. Hence, this worldview has pervaded the generation of scientific
knowledge —and practice— in the field business as well. Under this new paradigm, business
are seen as entities that should look for individual and societal wellbeing (Haigh & Hoffman,
2012; Honeyman, 2014; Mackey & Sisodia, 2013; Senge et al., 2008; Waddock, 2008),
encouraging the possibility that “human being and other life forms will flourish on the Earth
forever” (Ehrenfeld, 2008; Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013; Laszlo & Brown et al., 2014).
This new logic of conducting business is based on the affirmation of human divinity
but is not anthropocentric, because it connects that divinity with the divinity of the whole.
The only way business can act as a force for create a flourishing planet, and a flourishing
human being, is by replacing the taken-for-granted fractured worldview with a “worldview
that is more holistic, more relational, more integrative, more Earth-honoring, and less
arrogantly human-centered. A worldview, in short, that honors the entire web of life, a web
that has intrinsic value in and of itself, but a web that, not incidentally, is the bone and
marrow of our own existence as well” (Wilber, 1995: 15).
48
24
CONCLUSION
More than anything, we are hopeful with the exemplars we have encountered in this
research. We see leaders who made the leap of faith, in all of the countries we researched,
including Latin America, Europe, India, the United States, and in Japan. We also encountered
examples on the utility side of the ontological threshold in terms of Sustainable Value, or for
the most part, in the Shareholder stage, particularly in the West.
The organizing principles our research previously uncovered are demonstrated in our
study for the Goi Peace Foundation that show two evolutionary axes through which
companies evolve to become positive institutions; one representing the contribution of the
company to society (purpose) and the other one the principles behind the social processes
that shape organizational practices (organizing). We find that evolution of business toward
wholeness does indeed go through this framework called the “The arc of interconnectedness”
(Pavez et al., 2014). This evolutionary path represents a practical manifestation of the march
toward a consciousness of oneness.
In this study we show how “The Ontological Threshold” transforms the underlying
logic of business. This is based on a totally different conception of the nature and relations of
being, and in our study, shows how business goes from a mechanistic and fragmented
worldview based on seeing humans as separate and selfish to a holistic and interconnected
one in which we are part of the Oneness of the world and in which caring for others and for
future generations is an essential quality of being human (Pavez et al., 2014).
The key institutionalization processes we illuminated in this study show how the two
axes that frame the model of business evolution explain how a business evolves to become a
positive institution. What we find with this understanding is that each shift in purpose and
organizing results in a different set of frames around the institutionalization processes that
companies follow to become positive institutions. We divided the institutionalizing processes
into: structure, stakeholder, leadership, and culture.
Our work with the Goi Peace Foundation closes with our thoughts on the Fuji
Declaration itself. As business leaders and scholars, we are called to catalyze a shift in the
course of human history. It is time for leaders from diverse fields—scientists, artists,
politicians, business leaders, and others—to travel “The Ontological Threshold” in our
personal and business evolution journey towards a stage of interconnectedness, one that
demonstrates humility, wisdom, and intention to benefit of all living things.
“By so doing, we can overcome the hold of obsolete ideas and outdated behaviors in
today’s unsustainable world and design a more harmonious and flourishing civilization for
the coming generations” —The Fuji Declaration.
49
25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akyüz, Y. 2014. Crisis Mismanagement in the US and Europe: Impact on Developing Countries and
Longer-term Consequences. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Arrese, Á. 2014. THE SPANISH PRESS. The Media and Financial Crises: Comparative and Historical
Perspectives, 87.
Bakan, J. 2004. The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York: Free Press.
Barrett, R. 1998. Liberating the corporate soul: Building a visionary organization. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial
microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1419–1440.
Beck, D., & Cowan, C. C. 1996. Spiral dynamics : mastering values, leadership, and change : exploring the
new science of memetics. Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell Business.
Benyus, J. M. 2009. Biomimicry : innovation inspired by nature. New York, NY: Perennial.
Bowen, H. R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman (1st ed.). New York: Harper.
Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. 2005. Resonant Leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting with others
through mindfulness, hope, and compassion. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. 2006. Developing Sustainable Leaders Through Coaching and
Compassion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(1): 8–24.
Bryman, A. 2012. Social research methods (4th Edition.). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Burton, R. M., Obel, B., & DeSanctis, G. 2011. Organizational Design: A Step-by-Step Approach (2 edition.).
Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, K. 2013. Practicing positive leadership: Tools and techniques that create extraordinary results (1
edition.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. 2006. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the
competing values framework (Revised edition.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, J. L. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of
corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 946–967.
Capra, F. 1997. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. New York, N.Y.:
Anchor.
Capra, F. 2013. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern
Mysticism (5 Updated edition.). Shambhala Publications.
Capra, F., Steindl-Rast, D., & Matus, T. 1993. Belonging to the Universe: Explorations on the Frontiers of
Science and Spirituality (Reprint edition.). San Francisco, Calif.: Harper San Francisco.
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of
management review, 497–505.
Carroll, A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society,
38(3): 268–295.
Cates, L. B. 2012. Unity Is Plural—A Review of “Persons in Context: The Challenge of Individuality in Theory
and Practice” Edited by Roger Frie and William J. Coburn. International Journal of Psychoanalytic
Self Psychology, 7: 141–150.
Chen, C.-M., & Delmas, M. 2011. Measuring corporate social performance: An efficiency perspective.
Production and Operations Management, 20: 789–804.
Child, J. 1972. Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology,
6: 1–22.
Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance.
Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Godwin, L. N. 2011. Positive organization development: Innovation-inspired change in
an economy and ecology of strengths. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. 1987. Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Research in
organizational change and development, 1: 129–169.
50
26
Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. K. 2005. Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D. K., & Stavros, J. M. 2008. Appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of
change. Brunswick, OH; San Francisco, CA: Crown Custom Pub. ; BK, Berrett-Koehler.
Covey, S. R. 2005. The 8th Habit: From effectiveness to greatness (Reprint edition.). New York, N.Y.: Free
Press.
Creswell, J. W. 2008. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cruz, W., & Repetto, R. 1992. The environmental effects of stabilization and structural adjustment
programs: the Philippines case. World Resources Institute.
Daft, R. L. 2012. Organization theory and design (11 edition.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. 2004. Stakeholders and environmental management practices: an institutional
framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(4): 209–222.
Denison, D. R. 1997. Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. Ann Arbor, MI: Denison Consulting.
Denning, S. 2013, June 26. The Origin of the “The World’s Dumbest Idea”: Milton Friedman.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.
Dispenza, J. 2010. Evolve Your Brain: The Science of Changing Your Mind. HCI.
Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. A. 2005. Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16(5): 807–833.
Duncan, B. 2014. Pope Francis’s call for social justice in the global economy. Australasian Catholic Record,
178–193.
Dutton, J. E., & Glynn, M. A. 2008. Positive organizational scholarship. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior: 693–712. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G., & Achor, S. 2014. How to be a positive leader: Small actions, big impact (1
edition.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 11(2): 130–141.
Eckersley, R. 1992. Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. Cambridge Univ
Press.
Ehrenfeld, J. R. 2008. Sustainability by design : A subversive strategy for transforming our consumer culture.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ehrenfeld, J. R., & Hoffman, A. J. 2013. Flourishing: A Frank Conversation about Sustainability. Stanford,
California: Stanford Business Books.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review,
14(4): 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25–32.
Eisler, R. T. 2007. The real wealth of nations: Creating a caring economics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Freeman, R. E. 2010. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine,
32(13): 173–178.
Fry, L. W. 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6): 693–727.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of
Business Ethics, 53(1): 51–71.
George, B. 2010. True north: Discover your authentic leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Gergen, K. J. 1999. An Invitation to Social Construction. SAGE.
Gergen, K. J. 2011. Relational Being: Beyond Self and Community (Reprint edition.). New York; Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:
Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 874–907.
Gladwin, T. N., Krause, T.-S., & Kennelly, J. J. 1995. Beyond eco-efficiency: Towards socially sustainable
business. Sustainable Development, 3(1): 35–43.
51
27
Global Financial Crisis — Global Issues. n.d. . http://www.globalissues.org/article/768/global-financial-crisis,
December 6, 2014.
Goswami, A. 1995. The Self-Aware Universe. Tarcher.
Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. 2012. Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business.
Organizational Dynamics, 41(2): 126–134.
Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. 2003. Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2):
56–69.
Hawken, P. 1993. The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. New York: Harper Business.
Honeyman, R. 2014. The B Corp Handbook: How to Use Business as a Force for Good (1 edition.). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Hsieh, T. 2010. Delivering happiness: A path to profits, passion, and purpose. Hachette Digital, Inc.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1979. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and
ownership structure. Springer.
Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of
Management Review, 20(2): 404–437.
Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. 2007. Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of
stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 137–155.
Karakas, F. 2010. Spirituality and Performance in Organizations: A Literature Review. Journal of Business
Ethics, 94(1): 89–106.
Karakas, F., & Sarigollu, E. 2012. Benevolent leadership: Conceptualization and construct development.
Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4): 537–553.
Kofman, F. 2013. Conscious business: How to build value through values (1 edition.). Boulder, CO: Sounds
True.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. 1992. Corporate culture and performance. New York, Ny: Free Press.
Krugman, P. 2014. The Shifts and the Shocks: What We’ve Learned-and Have Still to Learn-from the Financial
Crisis. NEW YORK REVIEW 1755 BROADWAY, 5TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10019 USA.
Laloux, F. 2014. Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage in
human consciousness. S.l.: Nelson Parker.
Laszlo, C. 2008. Sustainable value: how the world’s leading companies are doing well by doing good.
Stanford University Press.
Laszlo, C., Brown, J., Ehrenfeld, J., Gorham, M., Barros-Pose, I., Robson, L., et al. 2014. Flourishing
Enterprise: The New Spirit of Business. Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books.
Laszlo, C., Brown, J., Ehrenfeld, J. R., Gorham, M., Robson, L., Saillant, R., et al. 2012. The flourishing
enterprise: Connecting spirituality and sustainability. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Issue 46,
Summer 2012.
Laszlo, C., & Zhexembayeva, N. 2011. Embedded sustainability: The next big competitive advantage.
Greenleaf Publishing.
Laszlo, E. 2014. The Self-Actualizing Cosmos: The Akasha Revolution in Science and Human
Consciousness. Inner Traditions.
Lee, M. D. 2008. A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road
ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1): 53–73.
Liu, W. 1955. A short history of Confucian philosophy.
Livesey, S. M. 2001. Eco-identity as discursive struggle: royal Dutch/Shell, Brent Spar, and Nigeria. Journal of
Business Communication, 38: 58–91.
Lopez, R. 1997. Environmental externalities in traditional agriculture and the impact of trade liberalization: the
case of Ghana. Journal of Development Economics, 53: 17–39.
Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. 2013. Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business (1st edition.).
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. 2010a. Organizational stages and cultural phases: A critical review and a
consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1): 20–38.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. 2010b. Organizational stages and cultural phases: a critical review and a
consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12: 20–38.
52
28
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. 2011. Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications Inc.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. 1987. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding.
Boston, MA, US: New Science Library/Shambhala Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. 2013. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications.
Journal of Management Studies, 43(1): 1–18.
Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. 2006. Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management Review, 48(2): 104–
126.
Moe, T. M. 1984. The new economics of organization. American journal of political science, 739–777.
Montiel, I. 2008. Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures.
Organization & Environment, 21(3): 245–269.
Nattrass, B. F., & Altomare, M. 2006. The natural step for business : wealth, ecology and the evolutionary
corporation. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Odin, S. 1992. The social self in Japanese philosophy and American pragmatism: A comparative study of
Watsuji Tetsurō and George Herbert Mead. Philosophy East and West, 475–501.
Pavez, I., & Beveridge, A. J. 2013. Corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship and corporate
sustainability: A critical review. Presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Orlando, USA.
Pavez, I., Kendall, L., & Bao, L. Unpublished. The development of a sustainability-as-flourishing (SAF) in
organizations codebook. Unpublished Manuscript, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Pavez, I., Kendall, L., & Bao, L. 2014. The arc of interconnectednes: A theory of the business evolution
towards flourishing. Working Paper Series, Weatherhead Schoolof Management,Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. 2002. Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34: 380–404.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2011. Creating shared value. Harvard business review, 89(February): 62–77.
Putnam, R. 1993. The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life. The American Prospect,
13(1995): 65–78.
Putnam, R. D. 1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6: 68.
Radin, D., Hayssen, G., Emoto, M., & Kizu, T. 2006. Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on
Water Crystal Formation. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, 2(5): 408–411.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. 2013. Essentials of Organizational Behavior (12 edition.). Boston: Prentice
Hall.
Robertson, B. J. 2007. Organization at the Leading Edge: Introducing HolacracyTM
. Integral Leadership
Review, 7.
Saldaña, J. 2012. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (Second Edition.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Scharmer, C. O. 2009. Theory U learning from the future as it emerges : the social technology of presencing.
San Francisco, Calif.; London: Berrett-Koehler; McGraw-Hill [distributor].
Scharmer, O., & Kaufer, K. 2013. Leading from the emerging future: From ego-system to eco-system
economies (1 edition.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Schein, E. H. 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. M. 1993. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Senge, P. M., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. 2005. Presence: An exploration of profound
change in people, organizations, and society. Crown Business.
Senge, P. M., Smith, B., Schley, S., Laur, J., & Kruschwitz, N. 2008. The necessary revolution: How
individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world (1st ed.).
Doubleday Publishing.
Sethi, S. P. 1975. Dimensions of corporate social performance : An analytical framework. California
Management Review, 17(3): 58–64.
Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. 2005. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest
products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2): 159–180.
53
29
Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. 1998. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of
competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8): 729–753.
Sisodia, R., Wolfe, D. B., & Sheth, J. N. 2007. Firms of endearment how world-class companies profit from
passion and purpose. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Wharton School Pub.
Smithfield Foods, I. 2013. Smithfield Foods, Inc. CSR Report 2013 Year in Review.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. 2003. Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing. Positive
organizational scholarship, 207–224.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. 2004. Toward the Construct Definition of Positive Deviance. American
Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 828–847.
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management
Review, 20(3): 571–610.
Swanson, D. L. 1995. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model.
Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 43–64.
Thatchenkery, T. J., Cooperrider, D. L., & Avital, M. 2010. Positive design and appreciative construction:
From sustainable development to sustainable value. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.
Van Marrewijk, M., & Werre, M. 2003. Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics,
44(2): 107–119.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. T., & Rosch, E. 1992. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human
Experience (New edition edition.). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Waddock, S. A. 2004. Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship.
Business and Society Review, 109(1): 5–42.
Waddock, S. A. 2008. Leading corporate citizens: Vision, values, value added (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Wallich, H. C., & McGowan, J. J. 1970. Stockholder interest and the corporation’s role in social policy. A New
Rationale for Corporate Social Policy. CED, New Cork, 39–70.
Whitney, D., Trosten-Bloom, A., & Rader, K. 2010. Appreciative leadership: Focus on what works to drive
winning performance and build a thriving organization (1 edition.). New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Wilber, K. 1995. Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston; [New York, N.Y.]: Shambhala ;
Distributed in the USA by Random House, Inc.
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4): 691–718.
Yin, R. K. 2013. Case study research: Design and methods (5th Edition.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications,
Inc.
54
The Goi Peace Foundation, Japan
Kaposvár University, Hungary
PATHS TOWARD A CIVILIZATION OF ONENESS WITH DIVERSITY IN THE SPHERE OF THE ECONOMY
Authors:
Sándor Kerekes, Kaposvár University, Hungary
Tamás Kocsis, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary
Study overview
In the Spring of 2014, The Goi Peace Foundation sought background studies in four spheres
(the economy, politics, media, and business) to show how its goals for humanity, as expressed
in the Fuji Declaration, at that time provisionally entitled, “AWAKENING THE DIVINE
SPARK IN THE SPIRIT OF HUMANITY: For a Civilization of Oneness with Diversity on
Planet Earth” can be achieved. The Declaration points to the possibility of a worldwide shift
in consciousness, from materialism-centered sustainability to full-spectrum flourishing.
This report presents a background study about the economy. It outlines the path toward a
Civilization of Oneness with Diversity as it is being shaped and advanced by the economy.
In this study, we describe:
The economic theory behind (un)sustainability;
The shift towards an economy of flow (a GDP-friendly path);
The concept of the’ celestial footprint’ (the increase of which is always
advantageous, in contrast to increases in the ecological footprint);
The shift towards voluntary simplicity (a GDP-reducing path)
We conclude by commenting on the interdependencies between our economic and ecological
system which highlights the importance of Oneness and the need for a paradigm shift as
expressed in the Fuji Declaration.
55
Table of Contents 1
Introduction: The world economy is growing faster than the population .............................. 2
The economic theory of (un)sustainability ............................................................................. 4
„Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can” (John Lennon) .............................................. 8
„Imagine all the people Sharing all the world..” (John Lennon) .......................................... 11
The need for ecological and social resilience ....................................................................... 14
Introducing the Celestial Footprint ...................................................................................... 16
Paths of Gaining Happiness ................................................................................................. 18
(Non)material and (non)monetary trade-offs ....................................................................... 21
IPAT and the logic of Celestial Footprint ............................................................................ 22
Voluntary Simplicity: a radical, non-market strategy for increasing Celestial Footprint .... 23
Conclusions: Sustainability and interdependencies ............................................................. 26
References ............................................................................................................................ 28
Introduction: The world economy is growing faster than the population
Between 2000 and 2030 the world’s population will grow by 2.5 billion, the demand for food
will nearly double and industrial production and energy consumption will triple, but the
corresponding rate of increase in developing countries is expected to quintuple. This growth
carries with it the risk of environmental disaster, but also the opportunity to create a better
environment and the conditions for providing mankind with basic goods, clean air and healthy
water. Which of the alternatives will happen basically depends on political decisions. Some
predictions indicate that the average GDP per capita in Europe will exceed $40.000 by 2050.
By 2100, China will catch up with the United States in terms of GDP per capita, while India
will become a superpower by 2030 because its population growth exceeds the global average.
Dividing the annual gross domestic product evenly among the peoples of the world would
provide every individual with $5-10.000. This “economy” could theoretically provide people
with healthy drinking water and organized health care and could reduce the number of births
and eliminate illiteracy too. Unfortunately, this trend is not developing yet; differences just
keep growing. There exist countries with a GDP per capita of over $100 000 (Qatar,
Luxemburg), and there are very poor countries with a GDP of around $1 000 (Bangladesh,
Sub-Saharan Africa). In 1970, the income of the richest 20% of the world’s inhabitants was
56
only thirty times as much as that of the poorest 20%. By 2005 the income of the rich had
grown to seventy-five times as much, and the difference keeps growing. In the meantime, the
global population is exponentially increasing. In 1800 only one billion people lived on the
Earth and 130 years passed before this number doubled. Another doubling occurred in 47
years, another in 12 and then one more in only 9 years – in total another 4 billion had been
added. The rate of increase is slowing a little, but the growth in Asia and Africa seems
unstoppable. Population growth is characteristic of poor regions.
Data concerning the increase in the productivity of agricultural work are available to the
public. In the past 100 years, while the amount of cereal grown per hectare has increased 6-10
fold, the number of working hours and thus the number of employees required per hectare has
dropped to a fraction of this (it has decreased by about 95%). It is common knowledge that in
developed countries 2-5% of the entire workforce are capable of providing the whole of the
society with food, and before long the proportion of workers employed in the industrial sector
will also drop below 5-7%. According to optimistic analysts, demands for employment will be
absorbed by the service or tertiary sector. Others predict that there will be more free time for
individuals because the same amount of work will be distributed among more people, which
will result in a double benefit – more free time favors the development of the service sector
and creates demand for services.
The situation seems more complex in reflection of the statistical data. In certain regions – e.g.
South America – a third generation is growing up with no-one in the family ever having had a
permanent job; this generates huge social tension, and there is not much hope that children
socialized in such families will become employed as adults.
The other no less surprising fact is that employees’ free time is not increasing even in
developed countries; what is rather typical is that people work more than 8 hours a day and
cannot even take their vacations. When we examine the labor market, it is only with difficulty
that we can find jobs which offer 4-6 hours’ employment, although such working hours would
be critical for the healthy functioning of families. That is to say, changes in the labor market
do not support the more optimistic predictions; a developed economy can only manage with
well-qualified labor force that is prepared for competition, and those who want nothing ‘but’
to make a living are of no value to the current economy. Social supply systems attempt to
handle these issues using welfare states, and such problems are in theory usually easily
manageable in the economic sense. A productive economy is capable of taking care of the
physical needs of the unemployed. Ensuring the quality of life of the millions that are
57
excluded from economy, however, is a more complex problem than simply satisfying their
physical needs.
The economic theory of (un)sustainability
The concept of sustainable development has undoubtedly made a major influence on the
economy – e.g. by supporting the uptake of environmentally friendly consumption habits,
clean technologies and increasing appreciation of the significance of renewable resources and
defining development as qualitative rather than quantitative growth.
The roots of sustainability (Hicks, 1946) are found in Hicks’ writings that claim that “a man’s
income is the maximum value which he can consume during a week and still expect to be as
well off at the end of the week as he was at the beginning”. In 1970, when the outlines of the
environmental crisis were already visible, the same John Hicks claimed that a few grains of
sand in the wheels of international finance would do the job of slowing down development.
This so-called Tobin tax is just now being re-invented by the EU bureaucracy and domestic
politics. It may seem strange that what then was expected to slow down development is now
hopefully going to intensify economic growth.
Ecological economics partly builds its conceptions about sustainable development on Hicks’
Theory of Wages (Marshall, 2004). The need for equality between generations that appears in
Brundtland’s definition is also rooted in the history of theory and can be discovered in the
Solow-Hartwick sustainability rule (Marshall, 2004). This rule states that consumption is
sustainable and may even grow even if the proportion of non-renewable resources drops,
provided that the benefits generated by the use of these resources is invested into reproducible
capital. In 1920, Marshall wrote: “When capital ceases to increase, income likewise will stop
growing. Hence seeking to keep capital intact should be seen as fundamental to income
generation.” (Marshall, 2004). When referring to natural capital, environmental economists
keep repeating this mantra, but their words fall on deaf ears. Natural capital is decreasing
because there is hardly any effort being made to replace what has been used.
In ecology, the carrying capacity of a given territory is considered to be the land area required
to support the largest possible population (over the long term) that does not damage the given
territory. We may now ask the theoretical question: how many people can the Earth
accommodate at an acceptable or preferable standard of living?
Simon Kuznets (1971), considered to be the pope of growth theory, was awarded the Nobel
Prize in 1971. It may be natural that Kuznets viewed growth in an optimistic way. In the
58
speech he made at the Nobel award ceremony, though acknowledging the negative effects of
growth, he affirms quite clearly that “two points are relevant here. First, the negative effects
of growth have never been viewed as so far outweighing its positive contribution as to lead to
its renunciation - no matter how crude the underlying calculus may have been. Second, one
may assume that once an unexpected negative result of growth emerges, the potential of
material and social technology is aimed at its reduction or removal. In many cases these
negative results were allowed to accumulate and to become serious technological or social
problems because it was so difficult to foresee them early enough in the process to take
effective preventive or ameliorative action. Even when such action was initiated, there may
have been delay in the effective technological or policy solution. Still, one may justifiably
argue, in the light of the history of economic growth, in which a succession of such
unexpected negative results has been overcome, that any specific problem so generated will
be temporary - although we shall never be free of them, no matter what economic
development is attained.”
Back in 1971 Kuznets claimed that no-one had ever questioned the idea that growth results in
more good than bad, and that growth offers solutions that will offset negative effects (through
the deployment of technology). With circumspection, Kuznets presents six basic
characteristics of modern economic growth:
1. Significantly faster growth of national product per capita and population in
developed countries compared to earlier periods,
2. Significantly faster increase in work productivity as compared to earlier periods,
3. High speed structural changes in the economy, agriculture taking a back seat and the
developing dominance of industry first and the service sector later. Companies take
the lead from private enterprises, which changes employment circumstances,
4. Rapid change in social structure and associated ideologies,
5. Transport and telecommunication technologies enable developed countries to easily
access the rest of the world, which leads to the convergence of the world,
6. Despite economic growth, three quarters of the world’s population have a much
lower standard of living than that it would be possible to provide them with through
the application of modern technology.
59
Kuznets’s ideas were presented far earlier than the emergence of the theory of sustainable
development. While Kuznets was being awarded the Nobel Prize, the writing of first report of
the Club of Rome, entitled “The Limits of Growth”, was already underway. The Meadows’
book was published in 1972 and expressed doubts about the long term sustainability of
growth and stated that the effects of growth are rather positive than negative (Meadows,
1972).
The authors of the Club of Rome certainly did not argue with Kuznets. If we take a close view
of Kuznets’s statements, above, it is obvious that the growth theory of this economist – still
considered a classic today – mostly encompasses all that researchers have presented as
criticisms of growth theory in the past thirty-five years. Kuznets views technological and
social innovations as being the basis of development, but also deems natural, social and
cultural dimensions to be important by saying “thus, modern technology with its emphasis on
labor-saving inventions may not be suited to countries with a plethora of labor but a scarcity
of other factors, such as land and water; and modern institutions, with their emphasis on
personal responsibility and pursuit of economic interest, may not be suited to the more
traditional life patterns of the agricultural communities that predominate in many less
developed countries.”
Kuznets certainly does not interpret GDP as a welfare indicator; moreover, in his
aforementioned paper he clearly states that “the conventional measures of national product
and its components do not reflect many costs of adjustment in the economic and social
structures to the channeling of major technological innovations; and, indeed, also omit some
positive returns”. This shortcoming of this theory in confrontation with new findings has led
to a lively discussion in the field in recent years, and to attempts to expand the national
accounting framework to encompass the so far hidden but clearly important costs, for
example, in education as capital investment, in the shift to urban life, or in the pollution and
other negative results of mass production. These efforts will also uncover some so far
unmeasured positive returns – in terms of better health and longevity, greater mobility, more
leisure, less income inequality, and the like.
Professionals have made estimates and found that the peak of the inverted parabola, the so-
called turning point, is situated at very different per capita GDPs for various pollutants. For
carbon monoxide, as is mentioned above, this happens at only $35-57 thousand, and the GDP
per capita of the USA is still far below this level. For sulfur dioxide the level is $9400-11300;
this is where an improvement becomes demand.
60
The situation is even more complex with water pollutants, though there is a correlation that is
clearly supportable with data concerning the change in biological and chemical oxygen
shortage or the potable water supply and sewerage of homes.
Using an understanding of economics based on the concepts of the environmental Kuznets
curves, politicians frequently think that economic growth will also solve environmental
problems. However, it has become clear by now that economic growth will not solve the
problems that exist with easily externalizable pollution for which there is little chance of
establishing the liability of the polluter (as is the case with greenhouse gases and some other
wastes), or with contamination that causes irreversible degradation or damage (e.g. the
accumulation of heavy metals, stable organic contaminants, etc. due to the shade effect),
The political optimism about the omnipotence of economic growth is overshadowed by yet
another contradiction with development. Based on several forecasts, most of the world will
not, even by 2030, reach a per capita GDP at which the quality of the environment should
start improving. According to prognoses, the most developed countries in the world will reach
and exceed a per capita GDP of $50000, while the world average may produce only $12000
and Asia28 around $8000. Even if the future deepening of the North-South crisis were
socially and politically tolerable (although obviously it is not), this situation is certainly
intolerable in the ecological-environmental sense. The figures show that without a radical
change in the conditions of distribution, squalor will remain permanent in the developing
countries to such an extent that it will pose an obstacle to positive demographic and
environmental change. Taking the delay inherent in feedback into consideration, should this
prediction come true we would most probably have to expect disaster.
The assessment is made more complex because we have no knowledge about the resources
future generations will use, or about the course of development the countries of the third
world will take. The best possible outcome and the worst possible outcome are probably very
different. Historical experience proves that there is room for optimism: this perspective
reminds us that discoveries come from people, and if there are enough people trying to solve a
given problem, they will manage to do it (Simon, 1998). The recent change in the dimension
of change, however, counters the optimistic point of view. So far the economy has been
dwarfed by the size of the biosphere, but it is now becoming dominant.
The supporters of the optimistic approach take heart in the idea that today’s generation may
leave less natural resources for generations to come, but our successors will have a higher
standard of technology and greater capital.
61
Regarding prognoses about the future of the Earth, it is crucial how limited we consider the
planet’s carrying capacity to be, and how resistant carrying capacity is to erosion.
”Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can” (John Lennon)
The ‘second shift’ now occurring refers to a potential source of economy that is now used for
accumulation, even by the middle class. If, instead of accumulating the income saved by
doing a ‘second shift’, we paid employees to do most of the housework we now do (i.e.
through employing quality services), the amount of free time we have would increase and the
quality of our lives would improve. Social differences would be reduced with very beneficial
social-environmental effects. Finally, we would live in a world more capable of staying in
harmony with Earth’s limited carrying capacity. The Economy would finally use the resource
that is available almost without limit: the human labor force. One of the main obstacles to this
occurring is man’s tendency to possessiveness. If man did not desire to possess, but rather to
satisfy needs, he would not strive to accumulate assets but to maximize happiness.
Disregarding housework when calculating GDP is a frequently-cited error. Provided such
activity was turned into paid service, this would result in the growth of GDP with reduced
environmental impact. A better division of labor would have a number of beneficial effects.
How prepared the world is to make this change is questionable, but it is interesting that there
are positive examples from two areas. Going back in time, it is obvious that the hunter-
gatherer society was a world in which opportunities were exploited and profits were ‘hidden’
through common activity and ownership, but this mode of being has been left behind for the
society of individuals, which has an exaggerated emphasis on private property and prestige
based on consumption. Now we have arrived at a point where some members of developed
societies are no longer so tolerant about the proliferation of private property or the type of
capitalism they have created. There are a growing number of those who, in the name of “back
to basics” (Kocsis, 2002), are trying to question the traditional values of the welfare society.
The limit to Earth’s resources, pollution issues, the growing population in the third world and
the reduction in the size of the population in the developed countries of the world are all well-
known, commonplace-sounding issues. The demand for consumption, however, is not only
increasing in developed countries, but in the emerging new middle class in developing
countries – mainly India and China. This may lead to serious sustainability problems not only
in the long run but also in the short term.
62
In a study published in 2000 (Mont, 2000), the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
identified the following three potential paths to promoting urgently needed sustainability:
reduce the population
reduce the level of consumption
make consumption sustainable.
The first option is obviously impracticable in the short run since all the indications are that,
even if the growth rate of the population does not accelerate but stays stable, the global
population could reach 8-10 billion by 2100. (Walker, 2014)
Sustaining such a huge population clearly makes the second option, cutting down on
consumption, impossible. The situation is made even graver by the fact that most of the
population growth will happen in developing regions where living standards lag far behind
those seen in the developed part of the world. Improving economic performance, however,
will mean that even the citizens of poor regions will want to consume in a similar way to
inhabitants of the ‘developed’ world. Moreover, inhabitants of countries that are emerging
from poverty will much less be sensitive to conservation approaches and will rather be
inclined to exploit environmental resources disproportionately to enjoy marginal
improvements in their living standards. Efforts to reduce consumption would be liable to
evoke major public dissent in countries where inhabitants already consume much more than is
required to meet their basic needs. No national government would be ready to support such
programs.
Today, improvements in eco-efficiency are partly the result of price competition. Everybody
is trying to sell products more cheaply. This creates demand for new branches and services
and, in this sense, has an important part in stimulating economic growth. In some sense, this is
also a paradox because due to improvements in eco-efficiency, the rate of increase in GDP
should be slowing down, but it seems to be gaining speed. In environmental studies, the
rebound effect is a well-known phenomenon that describes how eco-efficiency leads to
increases in consumption because any money saved by using more efficient goods and
services is recycled and invested into purchases in other areas. However, an increase in eco-
efficiency could be used to favorably affect GDP growth if the economies gained from
increases in eco-efficiency were ploughed back into structural development.
63
In his study into the Steady State Economy, Herman Daly (Daly, 1977) points out that
unlimited economic growth is impossible on a limited Earth. Grossman and Krueger (1994)
state that economic growth affects the quality of environment in three ways. The first is the
so-called scale effect, which refers to when large scale economic activity causes large scale
environmental degradation through the increased demand for inputs, including natural
resources, and the correspondingly higher output rate, which is indicated by the production of
waste. The second is the so-called structural effect, which may yet be environmentally
favorable in the future. The first structural changes that affected economic activity –
urbanization, the shift from agricultural production to industrial production, etc. – had a
negative environmental impact. Current structural changes, such as the tendency to increases
in energy efficiency, sectors with greater added value and the expansion of services indicate a
favorable change in that they reduce environmental impact per unit of GDP. The third
significant factor also brings favorable effects since wealthier countries are spending more on
research and development, which enables the replacement of polluting technologies with
cleaner ones, thus reducing environment impact. This is usually called the technical-
technological component of growth.
In the past century, economic growth has taken a trajectory, which, regarding Earth’s limited
resources, cannot be maintained. There might be, however, another course to take, which
offers the economic growth necessary to create opportunities for those currently excluded
from income generation (the unemployed) to make a living, and to appear on the market with
purchasing power. There remains the possibility for structural economic growth. This
proposal is in close harmony with Grossmann’s ideas, and what Weizsäcker and Lovins
(Hawken, Lovins & Lovins, 2013) call a shift from a ”stock” economy to a “flow” economy.
Countries with low raw material consumption per capita have significantly reduced in number
over the past two decades. These countries also include some fairly opulent ones. When
observing the history of countries with rapid economic growth, like Finland or Singapore, we
may note that their sudden economic growth went hand in hand with the large scale
consumption of raw materials and resources. There are, however, developed countries, which
have also managed to create significant wealth with relatively low per capita resource
consumption. The so-called eminence of Finland’s environmental position may be called into
question if we note that average per capita resource consumption in Finland is over double
that of Italy’s, which is considered to be a laggard in terms of environmental matters.
64
”Imagine all the people sharing all the world...” (John Lennon)
The idea that the main goal of man’s life is “self-fulfillment” has become a major factor in
appraising quality of life, although there is only a thin line between self-fulfillment and
selfishness, which may be useful for boosting the economy but has little to do with human
happiness. Quality of life does not seem to be related to wealth or sustainable development;
however, in reality, cultural perceptions and messages about one’s quality of life
fundamentally influence sustainability. The differentiation between wealth and ‘well-being’ is
important, because if an average shopping cart contained more (and here the term is broadly
interpreted) ‘culture’, increases in wealth would require less consumption of material and
energy and thus environmental impact would be lower.
According to estimates, the population of Earth is bound to reach between 7 and 10 billion in
the following 30 years. It is also public knowledge that, at present, 800 million people are
living (or starving) on less than $1 per day, and nearly 3 billion are living on less than $2 a
day: the poverty level. That can still mean that economies remain viable because people who
work 12-14 hours a day are fairly productive and can “finance” well-developed social support
systems.
The frequently-mentioned notion of competition generates the illusion that every “game” in
life is zero-sum. If tax revenues are spent on environment protection, there will be no
resources left for building motorways. If pensions are subsidized, there will be nothing left to
support small enterprises. These suppositions that suggest that only one goal can be realized –
to the detriment of another – are all too familiar.
Sustainable development needs a radically different way of thinking. “Sustainability” means
the development of multiple dimensions. In this respect, the word “or” should be erased from
our dictionaries since the simultaneous development of different dimensions can only be
expressed by the words “and/both”. There are always favorable compromises that can be
made, and it is never true that there are only two options to pick from: inevitably, innumerable
potential options exist. The sin of dominant paradigms is that in certain periods certain
approaches are prioritized, and society is ‘made’ to face a choice. This is where government
intervention comes in; a government is a system of institutions operated by society without
which there would be no environmental safety, or even a moderately tolerable environment.
Csikszentmihályi (1997) states that, in a welfare economy, consumers care little about
“existence” itself but their attention turns towards “experiential” needs instead. That is, they
need activities to satisfy their need for practical experience. Interestingly enough, the
consumer’s main interest changes from merchandise to the experience of shopping itself. This
65
may have positive and negative consequences from the perspective of sustainable
development.
Sustainability means ensuring the continuous existence of “something”. Growth in GDP does
not necessarily mean growth in wealth, and even less that of well-being. Growth in well-being
requires the development of education, increases in healthy life expectancy, the improvement
of life and social security and even the improvement of factors like personal freedom, which
are all components of the quality of life.
According to the Easterlin (1974) paradox, the satisfaction or happiness of people is not
linearly correlated to wealth (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008). Those who do not become
preoccupied with statistical averages but pay attention to individuals claim that over half of
the active population suffer from depression, and note that the disease tends to also attack
those who live in a state of “wealth”. Perhaps the illness does not only affect wealthier
nations, but they certainly constitute the basis for the diagnosis of depression as the endemic
disease of the modern age. Earth’s carrying capacity is limited and seems to be failing under
the environmental impact of mankind: the needless and mindless consumer habits of the rich
or the misery of the poor, since both overload the global ecosystem. Maria Csutora and her
colleagues at the Institute of Environmental Science at Corvinus University, Budapest
describe an interesting phenomenon concerning people’s environmental awareness and
ecological footprints. While one would expect environmentally-conscious people’s ecological
footprints to be smaller than those of non-environmentally-conscious people, the research
found no such correlation. In her research, which has major international resonance, Csutora
calls the phenomenon – which we might label the Csutora-paradox – the “Behaviour–Impact
Gap”. The main point of the paradox is that the ecological footprints or the carbon footprints
of so-called ‘brown’ (the least environmentally-conscious) and green (the most
environmentally-conscious) consumers do not significantly differ from each other. Ecological
footprints are correlated to income, but the beneficial effect of environmental awareness
cannot be demonstrated (Csutora, 2012).
Environmentally-conscious consumers are ready to undertake some ‘self-limiting’ activities
(selective waste collection, turning off the tap, disconnecting the telephone recharger, etc.)
that only have marginal effects on the ecological footprint, while they typically reject making
radical changes. They do not give up flying, become vegetarians or move into smaller homes.
This certainly does not mean that environmentally-conscious consumption does not have
positive long-term effects, but rather that these long-term effects are structural in nature and
are difficult to numerically express.
66
Regarding this observation, and accepting the premise of macro-economics that says that
economic growth is a necessary condition for the growth of wealth, a major dilemma arises as
to what type of economic growth causes the least damage to the natural environment, or rather
which type best serves the goals of sustainable development. Ecological economists and
scientists deny the existence of such types of economic growth. However, there is a concept
of economic growth that serves sustainable development that we may call structural economic
growth. Eco-efficiency may be increased in a way that it simultaneously results in an increase
in the division of labor within society. Supported by an increase in the division of labor, the
consumption of services in the economy would also significantly increase at the expense of
material consumption, which would mean the replacement of the stock economy by a flow
economy. Instead of buying washing machines, refrigerators and kitchen equipment, we
would buy clean clothes from the laundry and we would eat out in restaurants. We would hire
specialists, rather than do things ourselves at home. Specialists equipped with professional
tools would clean our homes. This would promote economic growth because, due to the
division of labor, we would pay for these services: however, instead of spending our money
on buying washing machines we would only need to settle the laundry bill. These days,
television sets that offer a movie experience are available to buy: in a flow economy we
would just go to a movie theatre where 400 of us could watch the program on one ’set’. High-
income people can afford home movie equipment because the necessary technology has
become cheap enough. A television set meeting nearly all the user’s needs, providing 3D
quality images, ‘only’ cost three hundred thousand forints (approx. $1000) in 2014. The cost
of cinema tickets is typically a multiple of hiring a film on DVD. Technology is growing
cheaper, while services are becoming more expensive, largely due to increases in wages. But
this up-to-date home movie equipment, however, is consuming 150W of energy in the
background. According to careful estimates, this means that while we are watching our movie
at home, at least two strapping “energy-slaves” are required to power the equipment
(MacKay, 2008). Each is capable of keeping a 75W light bulb on. If we leave a 75W bulb on
and go to sleep in front of the TV, two slaves will be doing unnecessary work (Grossman &
Krueger, 1994). It is easy to realize what a change in environment impact the change in our
entertainment-related behavior has caused just over the past five years. The energy
consumption of a single commercial movie projector (per head) is nothing in comparison to
the energy consumption of hundreds of individuals watching TV.
The development of the economy in the past one hundred years indicates that it is capable of
more efficient development if not hindered by government or other regulations. It has also
67
been proven that the market itself is unable to successfully deal with problems such as poverty
or social inequalities. The market creates an irresolvable contradiction by attempting to
minimize the use of labor as a production factor while high employment rates are more
desirable for society as a whole. The size of an economy and rates of consumption are defined
by the size of the human population, the complexity of ecosystems, and how much, what and
in what way an individual consumes.
The need for ecological and social resilience
What does ‘resilience’ mean when applied to social science and ecology? Obviously,
something different than it does to a mechanical engineer. Walker, Holling, Carpenter and
Kinzig (Walker et al., 2004) discuss the three concepts: "Resilience, adaptability and
transformability", the interaction of which they think determine the resistance and stability of
systems against external shock. “While the technological flexibility approach focuses on the
steady state and defines the amount of disturbances needed to move the system from one
stability domain to another, ‘ecological flexibility’ is characterized by the amount of changing
circumstances which the system is able to absorb before its structure transforms due to the
modification of variables, processes and the nature of management” (Walker et al., 2004). The
sustainable relationship between nature and man requires attention to ecological flexibility
because its central concern is the space between stabilization and destabilization: present day
development, global environmental change, decreases in biodiversity, degradation of
ecosystems and sustainable development. The term ‘technological flexibility’, however, gives
the dangerous impression that natural systems may be efficiently managed, that consequences
are predictable and the goals of sustainability are achievable (Walker et al., 2004).
A flexible, adaptable and thus sustainable social-ecological system is characterized by having
the following characteristics:
it maintains diversity and supports the preservation of biological, landscape, economic
and social components,
“human control” of ecological diversity is limited,
it respects modularity (combined systems are better able to withstand shock),
it recognizes and emphasizes the importance of education, social networks and locally
developed rules.
To sustain the operability of a flexible and adaptable social-ecological system it is necessary
to.
68
give prompt feedback: e.g. in the case of drought, immediate irrigation is needed with
no time spent waiting for EU support policy to change. If there is no demand for
selectively collected waste paper, its energy content must be exploited through
incineration before it degrades in a backyard. There may be no time for prolonged
discussion about the best course of action;
direct the attention of politics to better managing slow variables and processes of
accumulation, despite the fact that politicians are disinterested in these kinds of issues:
they are not newsworthy. When a river floods or a fire breaks out there always are
funds available for repairing the damage, while nobody really cares about the slow
degradation of dams or fire stations. The slow increase of nitrogen, or the
accumulation of heavy metals in the soil is a graver problem than the occasional
foaming of the River. The latter phenomenon, luckily, attracts attention, while the
previous one does not;
ensure an appropriate balance between private and public property and overlapping
rights of access. Seemingly, the state is a bad proprietor, which is why the liberal
economy wants to privatize everything. The state may be a bad proprietor in the
economic sense, but it is good in the ecological sense – for example, in the case of
public assets such as drinking water; moreover, also with non-public assets (e.g.
energy supplies, where a private owner may be able to cut prices but is unable to
ensure security of supply);
create a strict system of sanctioning and a culture of honesty. The health of the
environment and society can only be ensured if an appropriate system of moral values
exists;
create a harmonized, overlapping institutional system that functions on different levels
of decision-making. The principle of subsidiarity does not only mean that decisions
should be made on the level at which information is available, but also that upper
levels should support lower levels in handling problems. Expertise, material resources
and perhaps coercive measures are desirable if, for example, a local government,
driven by economic interests, harms the living standards of local inhabitants. Some
inhabitants of metropolitan agglomerations have fallen victim to such conduct;
recognize and incorporate non-priced ecosystem services into development proposals.
The construction of a motorway, a wind farm, a landfill or a sewage system involves
69
environmental destruction, the rate of which may be decreased only if suitable impact
assessments are prepared and alternative proposals are also examined;
be open to change: create an atmosphere supportive of innovation and experimentation
– this presupposes the existence of trust in institutional systems. It is worth testing
everything out on small scale before mass rollout. Smaller shocks can be met through
the flexible responses of ecosystems and society;
be strongly committed to avoiding major shocks and to responding quickly (e.g.
providing feedback about) large scale events.
Introducing the Celestial Footprint1
One of the greatest dangers of using GDP is that it is often associated, more or less, with
wellbeing which is a different and more complex concept. Such misleading use is easy to
avoid. We now also introduce an analysis of a measure of subjective wellbeing (or happiness,2
see Diener, 1984, 2002) which seems to be a better candidate for an index of general
wellbeing than GDP. For specific purposes, of course, GDP may be regarded as a somewhat
good proxy for the objective conditions of wellbeing, while happiness may be its subjective
side (cf. Vemuri and Costanza, 2006). As a limiting factor we use ecological footprint data
(Wackernagel and Rees, 1996).
Now, using this happiness and ecological footprint data, the concept of celestial footprint can
be introduced. The name ’footprint’ refers to the concept of the ecological footprint which is
designed to quantify human material demand relative to a sustainable basis. The name
’celestial’ refers to features of human existence complementary to the ecological footprint -
because human beings need far more than just material resources to reach a state of wellbeing
and a good quality of life. To highlight the contrast with the earthly emphasis on the
ecological footprint it seems suitable to name this concept ’celestial’, which clearly points to
the spiritual and/or non-material parameters of human existence (cf. Clark and Lelkes, 2009)
without any demand for the subject to be familiar with any specific religious tradition. Of
course, the important question of the type of spirituality needs additional consideration.
Moreover, it must be recognized that sources of celestial footprint might not be solely
spiritual, although spirituality is an important element.
1 This section of the paper is part is mostly based on Kocsis (2012).
2 We use subjective wellbeing and happiness as synonyms.
70
As a theoretical concept, celestial footprint is not directly measurable. But as a good proxy it
is worth estimating it as a ratio of perceived subjective wellbeing and calculated ecological
footprint (happiness/gHa) over some time period.3 This concept is not sensitive to the size of
population, as by using per capita measures we produce the same ratio mentioned above
[(happiness/capita) / (gHa/capita)]. Celestial footprint is therefore a general characteristic of a
community regardless of population (ceteris paribus, changes in population do not affect
celestial footprint). As the ecological footprint usually measures privately consumable
material resources it naturally depends of the size of the population. As ‘consumption’ of
celestial/non-material resources measured by celestial footprint has a communitarian (non-
private, common good) characteristic it is the same size either for one person or a million.
Celestial footprint relates to the non-material content of the happiness of a specific
community or of a person. The higher the celestial footprint is, the less the material content of
a specific happiness level. The dynamic face of pursuing a bigger celestial footprint is easy to
recognize: this is the question of “how to be happier with the same ecological load”; or of
“how to decrease our ecological load without being unhappier”. Of course, the numerator and
denominator may change simultaneously. The question of the celestial footprint is crucial in a
materially limited and by now unsustainable world because our celestial resource pool of
happiness is by its nature unlimited. But the potential to utilize this resource is not given by
nature – it is rather a question of ability, influenced by culture, attitudes, and values of
individuals (cf. Elgin, 1993; Soper, 2008).
While the concept of celestial footprint in itself seems to be clear, it is worth analyzing its
relationship to the economy and to monetary issues too. This leads us to two other important
ratios which may be identified as components (or factors) of celestial footprint in the
monetary world of economics. We now introduce the Kuznets factor (eco-efficiency)4 and the
Easterlin factor5 into our analysis.
3 We may think of this ratio as an environmentally efficient measure of wellbeing. This concept was
introduced by Dietz et al. (2009), though their method is different. 4 As the Environmental Kuznets Curve conception analyses the connection between affluence (A)
(usually measured in dollars of GDP/capita) and specific environmental loads it seems reasonable to call the $/gHa ratio a Kuznets-factor. An increase may indicate greater monetary affluence from the same environmental load or less environmental loading with the same monetary affluence. Of course the numerator and denominator may change simultaneously, leading to many special cases. 5 As Ronald Easterlin (1974, 1995) first analyzed the connection between monetary affluence and
happiness in a country over time, it seems reasonable to name the happiness/$ ratio the Easterlin-factor. It measures the de-monetization of happiness. An increase in the ratio may indicate higher levels of happiness from the same level of monetary affluence or less monetary affluence paired with the same level of happiness. Of course, the numerator and denominator may change simultaneously leading to many special cases.
71
It is worth noticing here that both Kuznets and Easterlin factors are indifferent to changes in
size of population (as is true for the product, celestial footprint). As increases or decreases in
the economy should rarely be ends in themselves, it is hard to say that higher or lower
Kuznets or Easterlin factors are good or bad in themselves. For example, sustainability
experts usually praise higher eco-efficiency (higher Kuznets factors) but the origins of these
increases are too manifold to be positively evaluated without additional information. Despite
these issues it is true that both the Kuznets and the Easterlin factors are factors of the celestial
footprint whose growth is always beneficial. The upper part of Table 1 summarizes all the
information regarding celestial footprint, Kuznets factor, and the Easterlin factor.
Table 1
The Celestial Footprint, the Kuznets Factor, and the Easterlin Factor; Paths of increasing
Happiness and Trade-offs between paths of Gaining Happiness
Kuznets factor X Easterlin factor = celestial footprint
Measure $/gHa X Happ/$ = Happ/gHa
Essence non-material dollars
(eco-efficiency)
X Non-monetized happiness
= Non-material happiness
IPATa 1/Tenv X Thapp = Thapp/Tenv (Ihapp/Ienv)
Channel-1b –
Channel-2 –
Channel-3 – – –
Channel-4 –
mat. trade-off – non-mat. trade-off – monet. trade-off –
non-mon. trade-off –
a For the connection with the IPAT formula
b Upward pointing arrows indicate an increasing tendency for the measure in question; downward pointing arrows show the opposite.
Paths of Gaining Happiness
Too aid in understanding basic happiness-gaining scenarios, a simple model was developed
(see Fig. 1). There are thousands of ways to increase/maintain happiness but all these seem to
have commonalities as: (1) they either use earthly or celestial resources; and, (2) these
resources are either achieved via markets (price tagged resources) or they are not (i.e. they are
72
free in monetary terms).6 These possibilities indicate that there are four basic channels for
gaining human happiness.
Channel-1: Here we directly use non-material (celestial) and non-price-tagged resources
which have nothing to do with market mechanisms or the economy and which may be
regarded as ‘storing up treasures in heaven’. Warm family atmospheres, a high level of social
capital (Leung et al., 2011), the enjoyment of natural beauty or silence, or having the benefits
of a clear world-view may all have this characteristic, as does receiving an English lesson in
kind, too. This way of gaining happiness corresponds to the later-described strategy of
voluntary simplicity and increases celestial footprint through increasing the Easterlin factor
(see the middle section of Table 1).
6 Causality is a constant issue for happiness studies. As our model is a resource-based one we
suppose that resource use is the cause, and happiness is the effect.
73
Fig. 1 Channels of Gaining Happiness (Note: Increasing celestial footprint and decreasing
ecological footprint is always beneficial in our materially limited world.)
Channel-2: This channel uses the same non-material resource pool as Channel-1 while
resources are used via market mechanisms. In modern societies, every marketed and
monetized value added to material resources falls into this category. Eco-efficiency (or the
Kuznets factor) as a non-material source of GDP reflects this phenomenon. Economic
development – without material growth – also falls into this category. The monetary values of
licenses, marketed logos or cultural relics all are examples of this category, as well as the
whole strategy described earlier based on more intensive use of services and greater division
of labor (the flow economy). This way of gaining happiness increases the celestial footprint
through an improved Kuznets factor (see the middle section of Table 1).
Channel-3:”repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” (Mt 22,21)/. This channel corresponds
to our main understanding of economy. Here we use material resources via market
mechanisms for buying all types of material resources, foods, clothes, etc. Critics of economic
growth – familiar with the stock economy – assume that: (1) this way of pursuing happiness is
the most typical and yet is unsustainable in a materially limited world, and that; (2) dollars of
GDP (or any other category of indicators of economic performance) correlate to the
ecological load of humanity.7 While this connection clearly exists, it would be misleading to
forget about the other three channels of pursuing happiness. This method of gaining happiness
does not increase celestial footprint at all, as we get happier through increasing the ecological
footprint here (see the middle section of Table 1).
Channel-4:”Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into
barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them” (Mt 6,26). This channel indicates our direct use
of material resources which are not mediated via market mechanisms - these resources are
free in monetary terms. Breathing fresh air and drinking free clean water are all examples of
this. What is more, in a system of reciprocity (see Polanyi, 1944), material resources are
usually exploited via the reciprocal help of a wider family net without any money transfers.
While this mode of activity may have less weight in a modern market system, it can still be
significant (housework, etc.). The importance of this way of gaining happiness may differ
considerably between countries/communities. This method of gaining happiness does not
7 For example, the sustainable ‘de-growth’ movement is strongly based on this assumption (see e.g. Martínez-Alier et al., 2010).
74
increase celestial footprint at all, as we get happier by increasing the ecological footprint, but
it restructures the relation between the Easterlin and the Kuznets factors (see the middle
section of Table 1). What the Easterlin factor gains, the Kuznets factor loses, nullifying all
effects on celestial footprint. (This way of gaining happiness – along with Channel 1 –
corresponds to the later described strategy of voluntary simplicity.)
Of course, these channels may be the ‘sources’ of different kinds of ’bads’ as well, which act
to lessen our happiness (leaking happiness). Identifying these is easy, as we only need to
reverse all the above-discussed developments (cf. Fig. 1). Analyzing these bads opens a new
way of discussing negative externalities too, which may be the subject of another paper. In
sum, these channels may be combined in almost endless variations, offering myriads of
attractive or avoidable development paths for any country/community.
(Non)material and (non)monetary trade-offs
Using our 4-channel happiness model it is possible to identify two basic trade-offs; namely,
the (non)material trade-off and the (non)monetary trade-off.
Clean cases of material trade-offs occur if reducing Channel-1 will be compensated by
increased use of Channel-4; or if reducing Channel-2 will be compensated by increased use of
Channel-3 (Fig. 1). In these cases the ecological footprint and material content of happiness
increase while the level of happiness is unchanged. Celestial footprint decreases here through
a mitigated Kuznets factor (eco-efficiency worsens; see the bottom section of Table 1). The
reverse of this development is the non-material trade-off. As this latter reduces ecological
footprint without any happiness loss through better eco-efficiency and a bigger celestial
footprint, it is always a blissful scenario.
Clean cases of monetary trade-offs occur if reducing Channel-1 will be compensated for by
increased use of Channel-2; or if reducing Channel-4 will be compensated for by increased
use of Channel-3 (Fig. 1). In these cases dollars of GDP and the monetary content of
happiness increase while the level of happiness is unchanged. Celestial footprint is untouched
while Kuznets factor is increased (eco-efficiency is improved) and the Easterlin factor
decreases (see bottom section of Table 1). This is the classic version of Easterlin-paradox.
The reverse of this development is the non-monetary trade-off. As this reduces dollars of GDP
(indicates a shrinking economy) without any loss of happiness through an improved Easterlin
factor, it does not seem to be a socially harmful scenario, while its impact on the environment,
in its clean form, is completely indifferent.
75
Naturally, these types of monetary or non-monetary trade-offs still raise the important
question of which absolute level of economy (or with which economic considerations) a
society should live, or what level of connectedness between economy and society should be
regarded as sound and desirable. The strategy of a flow economy says that more dollars of
GDP and greater division of labor in a society is advantageous, while proponents of voluntary
simplicity would argue the opposite (see later). These two basic, alternative economic
strategies demonstrate the diversity of viable sustainability paths, while their commonality
relates to the human oneness declared in the Fuji declaration: we need happiness and well-
being in a sustainable form.
IPAT and the logic of Celestial Footprint
At the macro level one of the best possible analytical tools for analyzing environmental load
is the IPAT formula developed by Ehrlich and Holdren (1971, 1972) and Commoner (1972) -
for more details on this topic see McNicoll (2002).
Ienvironment = P · A · Tenvironment
Here, mankind’s load on the environment (I − Impact) is viewed as three factors acting
together: population (P), affluence (A), and technology (T). Accurate measurement of these
factors is crucial. P will be dealt in its natural dimension (capita). A will be measured by
GDP/capita (where GDP is measured in US$, using purchasing power parity). One of the
most comprehensive measurements of I uses the ecological footprint (Wackernagel and Rees,
1996) which is measured in global hectares. Thus for T, the most obscure factor in IPAT, we
get gHa/$, which is a measure of material intensity. So our equation, written in units of
measurement, looks like this:
gHa = (capita) · ($/capita) · (gHa/$)
But it is worth developing a second, hedonic IPAT formula too. Here, our main question is
“what is the use and aim of economic activity?” To answer this we rely on the subjective
wellbeing (SWB) conception using data from the most comprehensive worldwide database
(Veenhoven, 2006). This is usually measured using an eleven (0−10) grade scale – or is
transformed to this scale – wherein the highest value refers to the highest subjective wellbeing
or happiness. To collect this data, the surveyor should phrase a question similar to this:
“Taking all things together, would you say you are very happy/quite happy/not very happy/not
at all happy” (this question is taken from World Values Surveys, organized by Inglehart).
76
This measurement helps us to view not just the material resource-based side of economic
activity but its positive side too. Now we are able to reformulate the classical IPAT formula
with a modified focus:
Ihappiness = P · A · Thappiness
It is clear that economic activity (P · A) − as a starting point − contributes not just to
environmental load but to human subjective wellbeing as well, because increasing human
wellbeing is usually the main motive for transforming and exploiting our natural environment
through economic activity. Of course, subjective wellbeing does not exactly originate from
economic activity: lots of other subjective factors are involved and combined together
(psychological, cultural, and behavioral; see Diener et al., 2003; cf. Fig. 1); these can be
summed up in the factor Thappiness. This factor opens up a way to extend the IPAT analysis
through involving important human characteristics (cf. IPBAT: Diesendorf, 2002; IPANT:
Daniels, 2010; etc.) without sacrificing the mathematical rigor of the original IPAT formula.
Using units of measurement our equation can now be written as:
aggregate happiness = (capita) · ($/capita) · (aggregate happiness/$)
The Tenvironment and Thappiness concepts were combined to make the concept of celestial
footprint.
Voluntary Simplicity: a radical, non-market strategy for increasing Celestial Footprint
The concept of voluntary simplicity, as well as the movement associated with, it is considered
to be an institutionalized form of resistance to consumer society. The essence of voluntary
simplicity is a way of life which is outwardly simple but inwardly (spiritually) rich. It has its
roots in the legendary frugality and self-reliance of the Puritans, Thoreau’s naturalistic vision
at Walden Pond, Emerson’s practical and spiritual espousal of simple living and high thinking
as well as the teachings and social philosophy of spiritual leaders—with different levels of
authority—such as Jesus and Gandhi. According to the advocates of voluntary simplicity, the
current social and environmental crisis is placing special emphasis on these ideas, urging
people to live a socially and environmentally responsible way of life.
It is easier to understand the current implications of voluntary simplicity if we compare its
value set to that the material worldview. In this way we can highlight what the theoreticians
and conscious followers of the voluntary simplicity movement do not accept about the
77
prevalent social-economic system (Elgin, 1993) and how they define themselves in opposition
to it.
Voluntary simplifiers strongly criticize consumer society, which is based on materialism. The
material nature of consumer society is proved by the fact that its goal is material progress and
one’s identity is defined by the material goods possessed one possesses, as well as the social
position one can achieve based on these goods. According to this view, man is nothing more
than a group of molecules which exists alone and separately, other human beings are
considered to be rivals, while the living or inorganic environment is regarded as a resource to
be exploited. Voluntary simplifiers do not deny the importance of material goods but—as
opposed to materialists—they also emphasize the importance of spiritual concerns. They think
the goal of life is to co-evolve both in a material and spiritual way. A person is an inseparable
part of the universe around him/her: this view results in co-operation with other human beings
and other living beings, as well as showing respect for them. The mass media have an
especially important role in the forming of values. Voluntary simplifiers think they are
dominated by commercial interests which promote material values, although they should
emphasize a balanced diet of values and the importance of taking an ecological approach to
living. Voluntary simplifiers stress the role of personal responsibility in relation to global
problems (the importance of the aggregate effect of a lot of minor actions) and reject the idea
of shifting responsibility to the free market or government bureaucracies (that is, they oppose
extreme libertarian capitalism and communism).
There are five values which lie at the heart of voluntary simplicity: material simplicity, human
scale, self-determination, ecological awareness and personal growth (Elgin–Mitchell, 1977,
5–8.).
The extent of one’s material simplicity can be examined by answering the following questions
(after The American Friends Committee): (1) Does what I own or buy promote activity, self-
reliance and involvement or does it induce passivity and dependence? (2) Are my
consumption patterns basically satisfying or do I buy a lot of things which serve no real
needs? (3) How much is my present job and life style influenced by installment payments,
maintenance and repair costs and the expectations of others? (4) Do I consider the impact of
my consumption patterns on others and on the Earth?
Answering these questions can help one to establish a life of creative simplicity and to free
oneself from excessive attachment to material goods, aids with national sharing of wealth
with those who cannot fulfil their basic needs (the poor), helps individuals to become less
78
dependent on large and complex public or private institutions and restores the balance
between the material and non-material components of life.
Adherents of voluntary simplicity regard human-scale living and working conditions as
important because they think that operating on a massive scale results in anonymity,
incomprehensibility and artificiality. As stated by Ernst F. Schumacher in his book entitled
Small is Beautiful (1980), living and working environments as well as supportive institutions
should be decentralized as much as possible in order to create more comprehensible and
manageable entities. Each person should be aware of what he or she is contributing to the
whole and how much his or her responsibility (as well as share of the reward) should be.
The notion of self-determination in voluntary simplicity refers to a form of consumption
which results in greater control over one’s desires and suggests that one should be free one
from paying installments, maintenance costs and the expectations of others. The key
principles of this process are “grow your own”, “make your own” and “do without”, all of
which help to reduce (both psychological and physical) dependency on consumption. The
principles also act against the excessive division of labor.8 The aim of human labor will be
again be to produce the whole of a product, not only a small part of it, in this way making the
sense of contribution more evident. Self-determination also includes aversion to the
unnecessary intrusion of distant bureaucracies and a wish for greater local self-determination
and grass roots political action.9
Ecological awareness is the recognition of the mutual connections and interdependence of
people and natural resources. It acknowledges that the resources of the Earth are limited,
which should encourage us to conserve physical resources and reduce environmental
pollution, as well as to maintain the beauty and integrity of the natural environment.
Ecological awareness often extends beyond the issue of scarce resources and includes social
responsibility: it makes us aware of those who are less fortunate than us. The philosophy—
espoused by Gandhi—means that one should avoid wanting what the least fortunate
inhabitant of the Earth cannot afford. In this way the philosophy of voluntary simplicity
extends beyond the boundaries of a nation, making it less isolated and self-centered than it
otherwise could be.
8 This strategy is clearly different from that of the flow economy which was described earlier. By following the
principles of voluntary simplicity, GDP would be reduced, but humans may nonetheless be fulfilled, and nature
preserved. 9 This effort, termed subsidiarity, has been part of the social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church since the
1930s.
79
For a lot of people, taking up a materially simple way of life means personal growth; it can
help one with clearing up external chaos and exploring one’s ‘inner life’. The above-
mentioned basic values of voluntary simplicity encourage one to grow both psychologically
and spiritually. If all you do is maintain yourself physically and forget about personal growth,
then life becomes merely about “not dying”. Numerous advocates of voluntary simplicity
think that American society (in the 1970s) became occupied with sustenance and forgot about
the non-material aspects of life (cf. Scitovsky, 1976). Though personal growth often includes
a spiritual component, it should not be associated with any particular philosophy or religion—
it can embrace views ranging from humanistic psychology, transpersonal psychology, Eastern
meditative traditions and feminism, as well as fundamental Christianity. This tolerant
approach clearly points to support for human diversity and to “the divine spark in the heart
and mind of every human being” that is highlighted in the Fuji Declaration.
Conclusions: Sustainability and interdependencies
The Stockholm Resilience Centre examined ten dimensions with regard to the limits of the
Earth. These dimensions are climate change, biodiversity, the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles,
ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, freshwater use, land use, atmospheric
aerosol loading and chemical pollution. By examining these dimensions it becomes obvious
that if we transcend what constitutes "the Earth's boundaries" in any one of these dimensions,
it will have an effect on several other dimensions. Many researchers emphasize the
importance of systems theory and the necessity of holistic thinking, but we rarely find
scientific findings that are multi-disciplinary in their approach and aimed at exploring
interdependencies. With regard to sustainable development, the problem is further
complicated by the dimension of time. In the case of economic research and forecasting, a 20-
30-year time horizon is already considered to be ‘long-term’, whereas in the case of
sustainability research, even a few centuries count as an unduly short period of time.
Modelling is being used more and more extensively in order to predict economic and social
processes. One often finds forecasts that contain different scenarios. Models are suitable for
implementing sensitivity tests as well. It is interesting that predictions that have been based on
models frequently contain outcomes that could not occur, in reality. For instance, fossil fuels
may run out, in theory; in practice, however, this cannot occur because we would "cook" the
Earth before we got to that point. In other words, significant portions of the Earth’s continents
would become unsuitable for human life before the potentially-available fossil fuel was
80
consumed – it would not be possible for 9 billion or even more people to live on the Earth. If
there were fewer than nine billion people, the demand for energy would be less – and this
train of thought can be continued in a similar way. One can make predictions about the
development of air travel or tourism but data-based estimates are unrealistic as it is impossible
that as many passenger air kilometers will be travelled or guests accommodated as is shown
by such predictions. Thus the problem is that investigations and models are narrowed down to
examining independent problems and the fact that the phenomena under investigation
mutually affect each other, and there is a connection between almost everything, is generally
left unexamined. Politicians and economic experts are concerned to a great extent with ageing
and collapses of the welfare system but if we take into account tendencies in the migration of
the world’s population, it becomes clear that Europe will not get older but will rather become
more multicultural due to its young, non-Christian immigrants; what may become an issue is
whether we will be able to create an institutional system that is able to maintain the level of
social solidarity that we are used to in Europe. The issue is not so much the ageing of the
population, but rather the question whether immigrant youth from Africa, China and India
will be willing to work in Europe in order to provide for an older generation which did not
have ‘enough’ offspring to support itself.
This group of problems that stems from cultural diversity is probably unresolvable without the
paradigm change defined by the ‘Civilization of Oneness’ principle of the Fuji Declaration.
At the same time, it is obvious that an equally radical paradigm change is necessary in the
area of the economy. On the one hand, for those who are radically opposed to the current
market-based civilization, the voluntary simplicity movement seems viable. On the other hand
– complementing, rather than contrasting with this trend – more market- and GDP-friendly
economic scenarios can be delineated for less radical citizens. According to these, what
should be made the focus of the economy is employment rather than profit; the fulfillment of
needs rather than ownership; and the creation of durable and safe products and services rather
than products and services that are subject to planned obsolescence. These changes will help
to maintain and increase human wellbeing and quality of life, while at the same time
preserving our finite natural environment for future generations, fulfilling, as it were, the
principles laid down in the Fuji Declarations and completing the necessary economic
paradigm change.
81
References
Clark, A., E., Lelkes, O., 2009. Let us pray: Religious interactions in life satisfaction, Paris
School of Economics, Working Paper 2009/01.
Commoner, B., 1972. The Environmental Cost of Economic Growth, in. Population,
Resources and the Environment, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 339−363.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1997. Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
Basic Books. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/books?hl=hu&lr=&id=HBod-
fUzmBcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=csikszentmihalyi+m&ots=V_4s0LxQVD&sig=-
Ek4y8TomuxIy4dskZV6fhL4peI
Csutora, M., 2012. One more awareness gap? The behaviour–impact gap problem. Journal of
Consumer Policy, 35(1), 145–163.
Daniels, P. L., 2010. Climate change, economics and Buddhism – Part 2: New views and
practices for sustainable world economies, Ecological Economics 69, 962–972.
Daly, H. E., 1977. Steady-state economics. San Francisco. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/books?hl=hu&lr=&id=DfLEt7HvbtYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA250&dq=dal
y+stady+state+economy&ots=Nhx2KLOeha&sig=q84x57_NBps26ihlvW1NN8qq7fc
Diener, E., 1984. Subjective well-being, Psychological Bulletin 93, 542−575.
Diener, E., 2002. Well-being (Subjective), Psychology of, in. International Encyclopedia of
the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 16451−16454.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., Lucas, R. E., 2003. Personality, Culture and Subjective Well-Being:
Emotional and Cognitive Evaluations of Life, Annual Review of Psychology 54, 403−425.
Diesendorf, M., 2002. I = PAT or I = PBAT?, Ecological Economics 42, 3.
Dietz, T., Rosa, E., A., York, R., 2009. Environmentally Efficient Well-Being − Rethinking
Sustainability as the Relationship between Human Well-being and Environmental Impacts,
Human Ecology Review 16 (1), 114−123.
Easterlin, R. A., 1974. Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical
evidence. Nations and Households in Economic Growth, 89, 89–125.
Easterlin, R., A., 1995. Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal
of Economic Behavior and Organization 27, 35–47.
Ehrlich, P., Holdren, J., 1971. The impact of population growth, Science 171, 1212−1217.
Ehrlich, P., Holdren, J., 1972. One-dimensional ecology, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 28,
16−27.
Elgin, D., 1993. Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life That Is Outwardly Simple,
Inwardly Rich, Revised Edition, Morrow, New York (first edition: 1981)
Elgin, D. – Mitchell, A., 1977. “Voluntary Simplicity (3),” The CoEvolution Quarterly,
Summer, 4–19.
Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B., 1994. Economic growth and the environment. National
Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w4634
Hawken, P., Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H., 2013. Natural capitalism: The next industrial
revolution. Routledge. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/books?hl=hu&lr=&id=MXTdAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=(
82
Hawken,+Lovins,+%26+Lovins,+1999)+natural+capitalism&ots=GJyRSTuMlr&sig=sxJS-
aZPbWpqd1XEiJIbJ2XvZ8Q
Hicks, J. R., 1946. Value and capital (Vol. 2). Clarendon Press Oxford. Retrieved from
https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/368/368hicksVCutility2.htm
Kocsis, T., 2002. Roots. Pleasure and Wealth in a Globalizing Consumer Society. PhD-
Dissertation; http://phd.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/737/1/Kocsis_Tamas_den.pdf
Kocsis, T., 2012. Looking through the dataquadrate: characterizing the human–environment
relationship through economic, hedonic, ecological and demographic issues, Journal of
Cleaner Production 35, 1–15.
Kuznets, S., 1971. Nobel Prize Lecture: Modern economic growth: Findings and Reflections.
Leung, A., Kier, Ch., Fung, T., Fung, L., Sproule, R., 2011. Searching for Happiness: The
Importance of Social Capital, Journal of Happiness Studies 12, 443–462.
MacKay, D., 2008. Sustainable Energy-without the hot air. UIT Cambridge. Retrieved from
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/217849
Marshall, A., 2004. Principles of economics. Digireads. com Publishing. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/books?hl=hu&lr=&id=99HDrfwm_ZoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=prin
ciple+of+economics++marshall&ots=Fe_lmz_fLC&sig=7WwxjNTPl9PvRkTACKqey1MQ8
DI
Martínez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F-D., Zaccai, E., 2010. Sustainable de-growth:
Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm, Ecological
Economics 69, 1741–1747.
McNicoll, G., 2002. IPAT (Impact, Population, Affluence, and Technology), in. International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 7903−7906.
Meadows, D. H., 1972. Dennis l. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, William W. Behrens III.: THE
LIMITS TO GROWTH. A Report to the Club of Rome. Universe Books, New York.
Mont, O., 2000. Product-Service Systems, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
Stockholm: Sweden.
Polanyi, K., 1944/2001. The Great Transformation. 2nd Edition, Beacon Press.
Schumacher, E. F., 1980. Small is Beautiful, London: Century Hutchinson Publishing Group.
Scitovsky, T., 1976. The Joyless Economy, New York: Oxford University Press.
Simon, J. L., 1998. The Economics of Population. Transaction Publishers. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/books?hl=hu&lr=&id=VEu9EwQ9vTcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Juli
an+Simon&ots=kc90viA9tR&sig=nCgRuxWMrUrmKjBrmErN8bGkNlw
Soper, K., 2008. Alternative Hedonism, Cultural Theory and the Role of Aesthetic
Revisioning, Cultural Studies 22 (5), 567–587.
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J., 2008. Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing
the Easterlin paradox. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14282
Veenhoven, R., 2006. World Database of Happiness, continuous register of scientific research
on subjective enjoyment of life, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands,
http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl (accessed on 02.12.2014)
83
Vemuri, A., W., Costanza, R., 2006. The role of human, social, built, and natural capital in
explaining life satisfaction at the country level, Toward a National Well-Being Index (NWI),
Ecological Economics 58, 119−133.
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W. E., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint, New Society Publishers.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A., 2004. Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.
Walker, R. , 2014. Population, Climate Change, and the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
Retrieved December 7, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-walker/population-
climate-change_b_5863938.html
84
New Media for a New Future:
The Emerging Digital Landscape for a Planetary Society
A Research Study on Behalf of the Goi Peace Foundation
By
Bente Milton, Coordinator - Denmark
Kingsley L. Dennis – Spain/UK
Duane Elgin – USA
85
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction p.3
Media in Transition p.4
A New Superpower — Creative Transformation through New Media p.6
Social Media as a Powerful Tool p.10
New Media Empowering a New Generation p.12
Transforming Education in the New Media Environment p.14
The Transforming Power of Computer Games p.15
The Hazard of an Always-On Lifestyle p.17
New Stories for our Future p.19
New Media and the Politics of Conscious Citizenship p.21
Conclusion p.23
86
3
Introduction
Since the beginning of the 21st Century especially the media landscape has undergone a
profound transformation. The growth and spread of global communication technologies
has helped to foster a new terrain - a new playing field - that supports a whole wealth of
new actors and players who are participating in changing the face of our media
landscape.
One of the most significant aspects is the transition from a top-down media landscape,
dominated by major global media conglomerates, to a horizontal, distributed, and
decentralized model. This new model encourages the participation of individuals from
across the globe who would otherwise be excluded from the old model of media
production and distribution. What is now emerging is a new superpower - one that is
arising from the combined voice and conscience of the world’s citizens mo≤nbilized
through the revolution in global networks of communication.
In this report we aim to:
1) map the emerging media landscape
2) offer a longer-term view of how we see the influence and potential for
transformational impact by the new media
3) reflect upon the obstacles in the merging of digital and physical lives
4) consider how this profound transition will re-write the narratives and stories that
frame our own understanding as an emerging global species. Also, how the new
emerging superpower of citizen-centered media is destined to re-write the script of
the human story.
It is crucial we understand now this epochal transformation in order to co-participate
and assist in the shift toward a more peaceful, equitable and interconnected planetary
society. We begin by examining the systemic change of a media landscape in
transition.
87
4
Media in Transition
It was our ability to communicate that enabled us to evolve from awakening hunter-
gatherers to the edge of a planetary, species-civilization, and it will be our ability to
communicate that will enable us to make it through this time of challenging transition.
To place this process in perspective, it is useful to step back and review the great
revolutions that have brought us to this turning point in human history.
The First Industrial Revolution that began in Great Britain (1750-1850) revolutionized
social, cultural, and economic conditions by shifting from the energy resource of wood
to coal. The scope of communication was expanded with the invention of the first
practical steam engines, roads and canals for travel. It was also the period when the
telegraph was invented and brought into use.
The Second Industrial Revolution (1850-1920) marked the emergence of a significant
shift in the way humans communicated on a more extensive scale. The early
technologies of communication -- expanded telegraph, telephones, radio, and then the
television -- brought the world even closer together. These new technologies of
connectivity also triggered a reorientation in human perspective. A new perception of
the dimensions of space and time gave birth to a consciousness that could now begin to
look, reach out, and connect beyond the borders and horizons of the physical frontier.
From these technological innovations arose an expanding commercial media landscape
that blanketed much of the Earth. Understandably, it was not long before consolidation
and centralization produced a close-knit handful of media empires.
The main players in this new late twentieth-century western media landscape were:
Disney, News Corp, Time-Warner, Viacom, Vivendi Universal, and Bertelsmann.
The mainstream news media that is disseminated via the above media conglomerates is
largely fed by two global news services; Reuters (now Thomson Reuters) and
Associated Press. This constitutes a centralization of news gathering and dissemination.
Now, we are in the midst of a Third Revolution—a Communications Revolution—where
a new form of participatory consciousness is arising among people that perceive a way
of connecting that is more egalitarian and engaged. The earlier technologies of radio and
television produced a passive audience through a one-way model whereby people were
consumers of information. However, the new model of media is based upon people
engaging as prosumers -- as producers of their own content that is then published and
disseminated through the distributed networks of our global communications.
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, blogging, podcasts, etc, are the platforms and channels of
the new media landscape. These burgeoning media networks have matured
tremendously over the past decade, spreading locally-produced content through the
electronic nervous system of the planet . A more mature form of collective social
intelligence is beginning to manifest around the world as the shift increases from the
consumption of information to the creation, production and participation in a more
88
5
fluid, dynamic, and interactive mode of media. This game-change in how media is
produced and published is already having a marked effect upon traditional media
platforms. As Buckminster Fuller so aptly described - “You never change things by
fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the
existing model obsolete.”
It is an error to think the communications revolution is primarily serving only developed
nations. In many cases the reverse is in progress. This technological revolution has had
some of its most startling impacts in empowering the poorer regions and peoples.
In 2012 the planetary population was around 7 billion and the number of
registered Internet users was 33% or approximately 2.3 billion people.
By 2020 world population is estimated to be 7.8 billion and Internet users
worldwide are estimated to be 66% or approximately 5.1 billion people -- that’s
a strong majority of the world’s population with the potential for nearly 3 billion
new people plugging in to the global conversation. This is the foundation for an
emerging superpower where planetary citizens have an unprecedented,
collective voice—an “Earth Voice.”
Looking ahead only five years, nearly 3 billion new minds will be tapping in to the
information flows—and that’s billions of new creative problem solvers, innovators, and
visionaries! What is more, the majority of these new minds will be coming online from
Asia, the Middle East, and developing countries. These will be mostly young minds; and
minds with necessities, with the urge for social betterment. A tribesman in Africa with a
mobile phone now has access to better communications than did President Reagan 25
years ago. Furthermore, if they have a smart phone with Internet connections, they have
better communications access than did President Clinton 15 years ago. This shows the
power of exponential change.
What is more, it is the consciousness of the creative, young minds behind these
technologies of communication that are the true source of power. Can we imagine the
collective potential of these creative minds entering the new media landscape, many of
them thinking outside of the old patterns and paradigms? Imagine living in a world
where a few humans can touch the lives of millions. This world has already arrived!
Citizens living in poorer countries will be able to leapfrog over the previous industrial
revolutions and jump directly into the digital age. As billions of people from developing
countries become increasingly connected they will join with others through a vastly
expanding array of citizen-centered media. In many ways, the established social order is
little prepared for what lies ahead. They were already taken aback when the networked
protests of the Arab Spring erupted in 2011. In today’s digitally-connected world a
single individual can connect with and catalyze thousands, if not millions, of people
around the world within this new landscape.
89
6
One example of digital empowerment involves Oscar Morales, a resident of Columbia,
who one day felt so much anger against the FARC rebels (The Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia) of his native country that he decided to express himself. Late in the
evening of January 4th, 2008 he created a Facebook page and named it “One million
voices against FARC” (Un Millon de Voces Contra Las FARC). By 9 a.m. the next
morning, he found that fifteen hundred people had already joined his group. By the late
afternoon the group had grown to four thousand members. By the second day, the group
not only had eight thousand members, but people were actively posting on the
discussion board and seeking to connect with him physically and publically. As a result
of his catalytic posting, on February 4th
2008 – a mere four weeks after the group was
begun – millions of Colombians marched throughout the country, and in major cities
worldwide, to express their anger at FARC. In the space of a single month, one
individual had catalyzed millions of people to come together in 27 cities in Colombia
and 104 other cities around the world to march in empathy and solidarity.
As this example illustrates, a new superpower is emerging on the Earth. This new
superpower is the combined voice and conscience of the world’s citizens mobilized
through the global communications revolution. Although often chaotic, fragmented, and
confusing, the emergence of social movements such as ‘Arab Spring’ and ‘Occupy’
demonstrate to ordinary citizens that an individual voice can have a powerful collective
impact, particularly when expressed with the maturity and dignity of non-violence.
A New Superpower — Creative Transformation through New Media
When the people of the Earth are not simply on the receiving end of media as a
collective witness to climate disruption, intense poverty, genocide, etc., but also capable
of offering a collective voice for change, then a new and powerful force for creative
transformation is unleashed in the world
We are witnessing a metamorphosis which could be compared to the story of how a
caterpillar transforms into a butterfly:
The caterpillars new cells are called 'imaginal cells.' They resonate at a
different frequency and they are so different from the caterpillar cells
that his immune system thinks they are enemies. But these new
imaginal cells continue to appear. More and more of them, and pretty
soon, the caterpillar's immune system cannot destroy them fast enough.
The imaginal cells start to clump together, into friendly little groups.
They all resonate together at the same frequency, passing information
from one to another. After awhile, clumps of imaginal cells start to
cluster together. Then an amazing thing happens! A long string of
clumping and clustering imaginal cells, all resonating at the same
frequency, and all passing information from one to another there inside
the chrysalis, starts to create the wings of the butterfly.
90
7
Thanks to communication capacities that are intensely interactive, highly intelligent, and
virtually instantaneous, the citizens of the Earth now have the power to communicate
together and express a shared vision for the future.
For the first time in human history, people from all over the world are acquiring a way
to listen to and talk with one another as members of one family. As we start to connect
with each other across continents, we begin to see that humanity has the potential for an
evolutionary leap forward. However, having the technical ability to communicate with
ourselves does not mean we will automatically do so. The question remains open as to
whether we have the collective maturity to consciously seize this precious opportunity.
It is imperative that we learn, and share, how to become conscious and responsible
citizens of the planet.
The mass media are a primary window through which we see the world. If the mass
media present diminished images of ourselves as isolated consumers who only want to
be entertained, then we will tend to fulfill that self-image. However, if we see portrayals
of ourselves as citizens of the Earth who are actively engaged in a heroic journey of
transition, we will tend to fulfill that self-image. Because the mass media are so
powerful in presenting and reinforcing our story and self-image as a species, it is
critically important to use the dominant story telling machine of mass culture to tell
ourselves bigger stories about where we are, who we are, and where we are going.
Learning to see ourselves in the collective mirror of the mass media is as important as
learning to see ourselves in the mirror of our personal consciousness. Once there is
inclusive and sustained social reflection, we can build a working consensus regarding
appropriate actions for a promising future. We are a visual species; we cannot
consciously build a positive future that we have not first collectively imagined. When
we can see a sustainable and promising future, we can build it. Actions can then come
quickly and voluntarily. Self-organizing actions will be vital to success, as hundreds of
millions of people are being challenged to act in cooperation with one another. With
local to global communication, we can mobilize ourselves purposefully, and each can
contribute their unique talents to the creation of a life-affirming future.
At the very time that humanity requires a dramatic, new level of communication, the
emerging media are making the world more transparent to itself. Particularly with the
Internet, the world is bursting with conversations from the grass roots and bringing an
entirely new layer of conversation and connection into global culture. Through the eyes
of these new media, we can see climate disruption producing crop failures and famine in
Africa, the destruction of rain forests in Brazil, coastlines eroding from hurricanes in the
United States, violent conflict fueled by religious differences in the Middle East, and the
impact of fluctuating energy prices around the world. This new distributed media
makes every person a global witness—a knowing and feeling participant in world
affairs.
Although we now have access to the world more than ever before, we must be mindful
of the weakness inherent in the very strength of the Internet. The vast outpouring of
91
8
views and voices from the grass roots is flooding the Internet with an overwhelming and
confusing avalanche of messages. Without a way to aggregate hundreds of millions of
voices and views and discover an ongoing, working consensus, we will be
paralyzed. Therefore, to combine our collective sentiments, we require regular
opportunities for mass communication where millions and even billions of persons can
gather to explore our common future. The scope and quality of our collective attention is
the most precious resource we have as a human community. If we don’t pay attention
while decisions of monumental importance are being made, then we effectively forfeit
our future. The bottom line is this: if we are to take practical steps to awaken our
society, then citizens must make their voices heard by creating a more reflective and
responsive media environment.
Many people feel profoundly disempowered when it comes to current media
institutions. It is now time to move beyond disempowerment: As the media goes, so
goes the future. The media are the most visible representation of our collective
mind. As our collective mind goes, so goes our collective future. Currently, our
collective mind is being programmed for commercial success and evolutionary failure.
Building cultures of sustainability will require as much creativity, energy, and
enthusiasm as we have invested in building cultures of consumption. It is vital we begin
conversations about sustainability at a scale that matches the actual scope of the
challenges we face—and often these are of regional, national, and global scale. The
world has become intensely interdependent. Our consciousness and conversations need
to match the scale of the world in which we live. This is a time for rapid learning and
experimentation locally, while being mindful of how we connect and evolve globally.
The business-as-usual focus of global media on commerce and entertainment needs to
be replaced by planetary-scale truth telling where we humans work to heal the wounds
of history and then, together, forge a workable vision of a sustainable and meaningful
future. It was communication that enabled humans to evolve from early hunter-gatherers
to the verge of a planetary civilization, and it will be communication that enables us to
become a bonded human family committed to the well-being of all.
At the very time that we need an unprecedented capacity for local-to-global
communication, we find we have the necessary tools in abundance. New media
networks are blossoming from the local to national to global scale and making the
sentiments of the body politic highly visible. When everyone knows the ‘whole world is
watching’—when economic, ethnic, ideological, and religious violence is brought
before the court of world public opinion through the Internet and citizen media—it will
bring a powerful corrective influence into human relations. As groups and nations see
their actions scrutinized and judged by the rest of the world community, we will become
more inclined to search for ethical and nonviolent approaches.
Because communication is fundamental to our common future, it is critical that the
human community work to consciously bridge the digital divide, extend the
communications culture to all corners of the globe, and build an effective ‘social mirror’
92
9
for the human family—one that authentically reflects back both the adversities and the
opportunities of our times. All cultures will be naked—their history forever exposed in
a world made transparent by decentralized and accessible media—and confronted with
the need to make amends for wrongs committed in the past if there is to be release into a
promising future. A supreme challenge will be to hold a steady and undistorted social
mirror as we struggle for collective understanding, respect, and reconciliation. Societies
without a tradition of freedom of speech will find this both liberating and extremely
demanding as new skills of inclusion and reconciliation are required to participate
effectively.
One of the most helpful and powerful actions we can take as we move through this
transition as a species is to increase opportunities for conscious reflection from the
personal to the planetary scale. Personal reflection refers to seeing ourselves in the
mirror of consciousness as individuals and to observe the unfolding of our lives. By
analogy, social reflection refers to seeing ourselves in the mirror of collective
consciousness by using the tools of a new media landscape.
The more widely and accurately our time of initiation is witnessed by the people of the
Earth through global media networks, the more powerfully the lessons of this time will
be grounded in our collective lives and memory. In turn, the less likely it is that we will
have to relearn these lessons in the future. As societies, we can learn through our
collective imagination by showing ourselves visions of the future we would not want to
enact in our actual experience—such as a world in a whole-systems crisis that descends
into the meanest form of survival mentality and utterly devastates the biosphere, leaving
a mutilated and crippled planet for generations to inhabit for the indefinite future. If we
can see the outlines and dimensions of disaster in our social imagination, we may not
need to manifest it in our direct experience.
Ultimately, with social reflection we can explore core questions such as ‘Who are we as
a species?’, and ‘What kind of journey are we on?’ As our capacity for social reflection
grows in scope and depth, we can choose our social conversations more wisely and look
for promising pathways ahead. Actions can come quickly and voluntarily as we develop
a shared understanding and a working consensus for a promising future.
With a shared vision, each person can contribute his or her unique talents in creating
that future. Voluntary, self-organizing action will be vital to our success. Our swiftly
developing world situation is far too complex for any one individual, group, or nation to
understand the remedies that will work for everyone. While being mindful of the
conditions and needs at the global scale, we can work creatively at the local scale to
adapt to changing conditions. This is a time for diverse, local experimentation
undertaken in a context of rich communication from the local to the global levels and
involving the participation of many young new minds.
93
10
Social Media as a Powerful Tool
In a world of immensely difficult challenges, social movements can help to identify the
source of problems, the groups and individuals that stand in the way of solutions, and
the way in which resolving those issues will lift up our best and highest selves.
The use of social media as a powerful tool for building social movements is
unquestionable. In recent years, social movement groups have been using the Internet to
accomplish an extraordinary range of tasks resulting in successful and innovative local
and global projects. The Internet helps to increase the speed, reach and effectiveness of
social movement-related communication as well as mobilization efforts. Crowd
sourcing, flash mobs, and other social innovation can spark movements in today’s
digital world that can gain incredible momentum within hours whereas previously the
slow speed of telephones and letters took weeks to realize similar goals. If power in a
democracy is the power to communicate, then citizen empowerment has grown
tremendously in the past few years alone and will continue to escalate, wiring together
our global nervous system.
We can witness the power of the social media by noting how in recent years it has
become an ever more powerful and critical force in the awakening of citizen
empowerment and coordinated action. For example, recently we have seen the
explosive growth of major and impactful movements such as Occupy Wall Street and
the Arab Spring. The 2009–2010 Iranian election protests demonstrated how social
networking sites could mobilize large numbers of people quicker and easier than ever
seen before. Iranians were able to speak out against the election of Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, and reach a broad audience, by using popular sites such as Twitter and
Facebook. This in turn prompted widespread government censorship of the web and
social networking sites. If we are in a race between citizen communication and
catastrophe, then the conscious use of social media has the potential to tip the world
toward a more promising future.
In a recent survey the Committee to Protect Journalists listed the top 10 countries where
the Internet is most controlled:
1. North Korea. All websites are under government control. About 4% of the
population has Internet
2. Burma. Authorities filter e-mails and block access to sites of groups that expose
human rights violations or disagree with the government.
3. Cuba. Internet available only at government controlled "access points." Activity
online is monitored through IP blocking, keyword filtering and browsing history
checking. Only pro-government users may upload content.
4. Saudi Arabia. Around 400,000 sites have been blocked, including any that
discuss political, social or religious topics incompatible with the Islamic beliefs
of the monarchy.
5. Iran. Bloggers must register at the Ministry of Art and Culture. Those that
express opposition to the mullahs who run the country are harassed and jailed
94
11
6. China. China has the most rigid censorship program in the world. The
government filters searches, block sites and erases "inconvenient" content,
rerouting search terms on Taiwan independence or the Tiananmen Square
massacre to items favorable to the Communist Party.
7. Syria. Bloggers who "jeopardize national unity" are arrested. Cyber cafes must
ask all customers for identification, record time of use and report the
information to authorities.
8. Tunisia. Tunisian Internet service providers must report to the government the
IP addresses and personal information of all bloggers. All traffic goes through a
central network. The government filters all content uploaded and monitors e-
mails.
9. Vietnam. The Communist Party requires Yahoo, Google and Microsoft to
divulge data on all bloggers who use their platforms. It blocks websites critical
of the government, as well as those that advocate for democracy, human rights
and religious freedom.
10. Turkmenistan. The only Internet service provider is the government. It blocks
access to many sites and monitors all e-mail accounts in Gmail, Yahoo and
Hotmail.
In countries with unrestricted access to the Internet, any individual or organization can
launch a campaign on social media. However, starting a successful movement is not that
simple. A campaign that appears to be self-serving won't resonate with others and is
unlikely to have a significant impact. The greater the authenticity and flexibility the
greater the chance of virality and, ultimately, success.
Jean Dobey – founder and CEO of Hibe - has listed five elements as key aspects when
it comes to creating a social media campaign that engages with people on a human
level:
1) Pick a cause you believe in The obvious first step is to pick a specific cause – such as raising awareness of a
political concern, fundraising for a charity or highlighting an environmental issue.
The important thing is that it's something you genuinely believe in.
2) Define the goal of the campaign The aim of the social media campaign must be clearly defined. This objective will
influence everything from the language used, the platforms that are leveraged to
how people engage with the campaign. Determining the ultimate goal will also
help to create a compelling call to action. By giving people something they can
respond to and rally behind, you greatly increase the chances of the campaign
going viral.
3) Show what the cause means to you
95
12
The virality of a movement on social media is determined by whether people can
empathize on a human level. You need to show why people should care about a
particular cause and what impact it could have on them or someone around them.
By providing your personal reasons for supporting this cause, you can lend
credibility and increase the likelihood that it will strike a chord with people in
your network.
4) Let others share their story The most effective campaigns have a human touch that people can connect with
and that prompts them to share their experiences. A campaign must provide a
platform for contributors to express what a particular cause means to them. It
should also give people the flexibility to share in a manner that suits them best –
the It Gets Better Project enables contributors to share both video and written
submissions of their stories. A social media movement that fails to allow people
to add their own experiences is less likely to take off. In fact, it is the emotion that
others express in response to the cause that enables a campaign to gain traction.
5) Select the right social media tools The tools you use will depend on your objective. If it's to raise awareness,
effective messaging and a social presence may be all that's needed. Idle No More
was initially viewed as a local campaign before it used Facebook and Twitter to
gain international recognition. A petition platform – such as Change.org – can be
combined with social networks to urge policymakers to address a political or
societal issue.
Looking at the condition of our world, a revolution in social media is vital for
awakening our collective imagination and for building a collective consensus—
affirming that it is important for us to connect and communicate. As diverse citizens of
our communities, countries, and cultures we have a larger responsibility to step forward
in sincere dialogue about our concern for our common future. We now have the public
reach and the tools -- in abundance -- to do just that. In 2014, Internet is accessible to
more than 3 billion people . Within five more years, it will be accessible to more than 5
billion people—a majority of citizens on the planet. The tools for giving the people of
the Earth a voice that transcends the gridlock of nation-state politics are now
available—and it seems vital for our collective future to develop them consciously.
Using the Internet and digital tools for choosing our pathway together into a more
promising future is a now core challenge of our times and our species. We are being
asked to reveal and then to heal age-old differences - and then to vote, together, on
choices that are genuinely pivotal to the lives of countless generations to come and to
the future of the Earth.
New Media Empowering a New Generation
96
13
The youth of the world are entering an evolutionary phase of immense responsibility --
and opportunity. Today’s youth represent the first generation who have grown up with
digital technology and spent their entire lives using computers, videogames, mobile
phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. Combined with social media
platforms, these technologies are rapidly wiring the global brain and supporting the
awakening of a new level and quality of collective consciousness. Children coming of
age in this new media context will show marked differences in their consumption – and
production – of media. They will be active prosumers of media content, not only
consumers. The following are a number of key changes that we foresee in the media
landscape over the coming years:
1) Young minds will tire of a fear mongering, fear-sponsoring media. The
programming that dominated mainstream media in past decades often presented
crudely commercial content that delighted in high-tension and stressful drama:
in conflicts, murder, and sexual exploitation. Such mind manipulating
programming will cease to inspire a new younger generation.
2) There will be a shift in media programming toward what elevates a person
rather than what promotes fear and greedy materialism. The minds and hearts of
the new generation will increasingly reject negative news and stories, and
naturally shift away from such primitive programming. The mainstream media
will be forced – through declining viewership and advertising revenues – to
broadcast more inspiring and uplifting programs.
3) The age of top-down, corporate-controlled media will no longer be the
dominant force as self-produced content becomes increasingly the norm. Mega-
media corporations will continue to merge and consolidate as they find it
difficult to perpetuate their old style of broadcasting in a media environment that
is increasingly people-centered, locally produced, globally distributed, and with
a positive orientation.
4) Young people will become their own journalists - creating, producing, and
out-sourcing their services. Individuals will not only contribute stories and news
items to the mainstream media, but will also create their own media platforms.
Many new voices will become recognized as credible sources of information
and understanding. Young media activists from around the world will supply
information faster than mainstream journalists. Also, they will report from areas
that mainstream media either cannot, or will not, go to – such as local violent
conflict zones or selective communities. Peer-to-peer programming will become
more popular as people prefer to produce and share their own news, stories, and
events.
5) Transparency will become the new watchword as mainstream media and
governments make closer ties. As online content becomes increasingly
monitored by governments, and doctored by media conglomerates, transparency
and integrity will become a central issue. Younger generations of people will
97
14
turn their back on attempts to control and manage the flow of information. The
media landscape will never be the same again as the power of the image is taken
from the hands of the few into the digital fingertips of the many.
Transforming Education in the New Media Environment
Education as well as news information is being transformed by the new media. The
structure, content, and connectivity for this new educational platform is already
emerging – and it is opening a new phase in collaborative learning at a global scale.
Traditional educational systems are becoming antiquated and are being forced to
radically re-think and re-envision their roles in response to student’s changing needs and
attitudes. We are moving into a new world that requires a new kind of learning to
provide students with new skills—academic, collaborative, and inner development. Here
is what we envision:
1) Classrooms will no longer be contained within the confines of physical
rooms; instead, learning spaces will be diverse environments wired to connect
with students and teachers around the world. In a virtual world of learning,
connections, collaborations, and experiences will span the planet. Without the
need to create the brick and mortar physical spaces for learning, the cost of
education will plummet, bringing millions of students into classrooms that
would have otherwise been completely unaffordable.
2) In a world of virtual learning, entirely new approaches to education will be
developed: Collaborative learning spaces will connect students with one another
around the planet, fostering a new level of global consciousness and concern.
Multi-media presentations will replace the traditional text-book with voice,
music, photographs, films, and more. Interactive learning will accelerate with
gaming technologies that teach with hands-on student engagement in areas
ranging from society, to ecology, business, biology, and far more. These new
learning environments will foster social innovation, entrepreneurship, leadership
skills, collaboration skills, creativity, and whole-systems design adapted to a
rapidly changing world.
3) Not only will students have virtual access to the world’s finest teachers across
diverse disciplines, they will also have the opportunity to learn from peers
around the world. Teaching will be transformed as it engages other students in
collaborative learning but also older persons, retired persons, and uniquely
skilled volunteers from around the world. Guests from varied occupations –
business leaders, creative artists, biologists, cosmologists, etc – will regularly
join online learning forums to interact with students and to pass on their own
learning and knowledge. These mixed learning environments – no longer called
classrooms – will be able to place students of varying ages and abilities together.
In this way older, more learned students, can also assist in the learning process
of younger and newer students. We can build a new world if we can collectively
imagine what a world of sustainable prosperity looks like and how it works. We
98
15
are building a new future for the Earth in our collective and collaborative
imagination.
4) The Internet combined with new technologies and software is opening the
online world to three-dimensional platforms where students can have immersive
learning experiences. Imagine putting on a headset and being offered an
immersive experience of traveling to places around the world, seeing important
events through history, and exploring the universe, including the realms of the
very small and the very large. The learning process will be a lot more fun as
well as more connecting and collaborative. Students will use an array of virtual
games and online problem solving activities to exercise creativity. Multiple
player platforms will also allow many students to work together and collaborate
to solve challenges and quests -- similar to video gaming yet with constructive
goals and outcomes.
5) The development of realistic “virtual worlds” will transform the relationships
among students throughout the Earth. Imagine a “pod” of 10 to 20 students, who
physically live all around the world, coming together in virtual space with
“avatars” that represent who they are. Beyond making friends with students in
radically different cultural, social, and physical environments, these virtual
worlds will make it possible for students to collaborate in co-creating a future
world that reflects their collective preferences. In cyber-space, students can
create a distinctive “eco-village” with a unique architecture, set of economic
activities, ways of growing food and providing energy, expressing their artistic
sensibilities, and much more.
6) Learning will become more individually oriented and customized. Students
will have more choice in directing their learning process according to their
needs, wishes, and motivations. A new world confronts students with challenges
ranging from climate change and species extinction to energy transition. New
skills will require new ways of establishing competencies. The older
examination system will be replaced by a variety of comprehension measures
and capacity assessments from both teachers and fellow peers. Understanding
will be increasingly measured by one’s comprehension and individualized
capability – and less by standardized grades. Stress and self-doubt will be
replaced by enjoyment and self-confidence.
These media-based, educational platforms will support a new generation of learners in
creating radically different competencies and capacities that fit the changing world in
which we live.
The Transforming Power of Computer Games
Over the past few years hundreds of millions of people around the world have become
immersed in virtual worlds and online games. While the economist Edward Castronova
calls it a mass exodus to the game spaces, the world-renowned creator of ARG’s
99
16
(Alternate Reality Games) Jane McGonical points to the fact that games and virtual
worlds can be designed to improve real lives and solve real problems.
Game developers know better than anyone else how to inspire extreme effort and
reward hard work McGonical says. They know how to facilitate cooperation and
collaboration at previously unimaginable scales. And they are continuously innovating
new ways to motivate players to stick with harder challenges for longer and in much
bigger groups. These crucial skills can help all of us find new ways to make a deep and
lasting impact on the world around us and inspire us to work together to accomplish real
change.
When the ecologist and internet pioneer Steward Brand launched the Whole Earth
Catalog of “tools and ideas to shape the environment” he wrote: “We are as Gods and
might as well get good at it” In 1996 he co-founded The Long Now Foundation. A San
Francisco-based foundation dedicated to long-term thinking and responsibility – for the
earth and for the survival of the human species. Co-founder of The Long Now
Foundation Danny Hillis, who developed the “massive parallel” architecture of the
current generation of supercomputers, is now building the Clock of the Long Now - a
monumental size mechanical clock designed to keep time for the next 10000 years. If
we want to stay on this planet for anywhere near that long Brand says, we have to
become better at strategically affecting our ecosystem. We are forced to learn “planet
craft”.
Jane McGonical claims that gamers have a head start on this mission, because they have
been mastering the art of planet craft for years. There’s actually a genre of computer
games known as “God games” she explains, which is world and population simulations
that give a single player the ability to shape the course of events on earth in dramatic
ways, over lifetimes. What all of these god games have in common, is that they
encourage the players to practice the three skills that are critical for real planet craft:
1. Taking a long view. In God games players are operating at scales far larger than we would ordinarily encounter on our day-to-day lives. They have to consider their moment-by-moment actions in the context of a very long future: an entire simulated human life, the rise and fall of civilizations, or even the entire course of human history. 2. Ecosystems thinking. In God games you get to understand the world as a complex web of interconnected interdependent parts. A skilled player will study and learn how to anticipate the ways in which changes to one part of the system will impact other parts – often in surprising and far-reaching ways. 3. Pilot experimentation. In God games you learn the process of designing and running many small tests of different strategies and solutions in order to discover the best course of action to take. When you have successfully tested a strategy, you can scale up your efforts to make a bigger impact.
100
17
As we try to develop systems for engaging huge numbers of people in world-changing
efforts we can take an important cue from the most successful God games.
The universe simulation “SPORE” which was developed by the American game
designer Will Wright is explicitly linked to the notion of planet craft – and intentionally
focus on getting players to think of themselves as capable of changing the real world.
In SPORE players control the development of a unique species through five stages of
evolution: From single-cell origins into social land dwelling creatures - who form tribes,
build technologically advanced civilizations and ultimately ventures off into
intergalactic space exploration. Each stage gives the player control over a more
complex system. The game is meant to spark a sense of creative capability among
players and to inspire them to adopt the kind of long term planetary outlook that can
save the real world.
For players who complete all five stages of the game successfully, SPORE has a super
goal that represents the ultimate achievement in the game. The primary win is to
develop your single-cell creature into a successful intergalactic space-faring civilization,
which eventually reaches a super massive “black hole” at the center of the galaxy.
Players who reach this stage receive a “staff of life” which allows them to transform any
planet in the Spore galaxy into a vibrant diverse eco-system teeming with plants and
creatures of all kinds, with breathable , sustainable food webs and plentiful water
supply. Along with the staff of life players receive a special message and a mission:
“You have traveled very far and overcome many obstacles. Your
creative powers have not gone unnoticed. Your heroic efforts have
proven you deserving the advancement to the next level of your
existence. You are now to be given the power. Yes, that’s right THE
POWER. The power to create and spread life intelligence and
understanding throughout the Cosmos. Use this power wisely. There
is a wonderful opportunity to start on one particular planet. Look for
the third rock from SOL”
(Sol is Latin for “sun”, and so this final message from the game is a playful imperative
to become a real creator and protector of life on Earth).
As game designer Will Wright says: “The human imagination is this amazing thing.
We’re able to build models of the world around us, test out hypothetical scenarios, and
in some sense, simulate the world. I think this ability is probably one of the most
important characteristics of humanity…”
However, at the same time there is a counterbalance to the stimulation provided by the
digital world – and that is the hazards of digital addiction, anxiety, and mental and
emotional imbalance.
The Hazard of an Always-On Lifestyle
101
18
The complexity of our rapidly expanding digital infrastructures and connected lives also
reveal a less positive and more menacing side. The growing deluge of information and
the tyranny of schedules, for example, demand that we stay connected to an ‘always-on’
lifestyle, which has proven to cause stress and anxiety.
It is said that today there are more young children who play computer games and
browse the web than there are young children who swim or ride a bike. There are also a
number of cases where children and adults alike are suffering from what is referred to as
“nature-deficit disorder”— reduced awareness and a diminished ability to find meaning
in the life around us. Those people who live in big cities especially and thus who don’t
have the opportunity to play freely in nature are finding recompense by retreating into
the digital world. When we observe the frantic lives of those around us, we see just how
many distractions there are and how addictive our on-line behavior has become. The
problem is that as we spend more time in the digital realms we are spending less time in
the natural one – and this can lead to an unhealthy imbalance.
Yet a further imbalance can also occur when our exposure to the digital realms
interferes with our grasp on reality. A number of extreme cases have already made the
headlines. These include the case of a 22-year-old South Korean man who, in February
2010, was charged with murdering his mother after she nagged him for spending too
much time playing online games. After murdering his mother the young killer then went
to a nearby Internet café to continue playing his games. Another extreme event is that of
a young couple, again in South Korea, who in September 2009 returned home from an
all-night 12-hour gaming binge to find their three-month-old daughter dead. The couple
were later arrested and charged for starving their daughter to death after it emerged the
couple were more interested in raising an online baby (called Anima) in a popular role-
playing game called Prius Online. Research published in the UK in February 2010 also
showed evidence of a link between excessive Internet use and depression.1 Whilst it is
recognized that online gaming material can stimulate children’s brains through complex
puzzle-solving and strategy-based games, it must also be recognized that more
menacing aspects lie close by. It is imperative that in our vision for an empowering
digital media landscape we remain aware and mindful of the potential hazards
associated with emerging technologies.
Gopi Kalayl, chief evangelist at Google Social for Brands, presents an antidote in the
form of daily rituals that focus on personal well-being and inner-balance, such as yoga
and meditation, as a way of counteracting the influence of the Internet by connecting to
one’s own “inner-net.” This is just one perspective in how we can re-calibrate our lives
to successfully merge the digital and physical realms. In order to cope and engage with
the accelerating change thrust upon us, it is essential that we develop the tools we need
to integrate our inner and outer worlds with the new information technology in a
1 Published by Leeds University (UK). For journal abstract see -
http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?doi=277001
102
19
balanced way. Essential for this positive balance and calibration is the need for new
stories and narratives.
New Stories for our Future
At this pivotal time in human evolution, it is vitally important that messages in the mass
media serve our psychological and spiritual health and not distort our collective
intelligence, imagination and evolution. We face big challenges and it will take an
equally big vision to transform conflict into cooperation and draw us into a promising
future. The most difficult challenge facing humanity is not devising solutions to the
energy crisis or climate crisis or population crisis; rather, it is bringing stories of the
human journey into our collective awareness that empower us to look beyond a future of
great adversity and to see a future of great opportunity.
Without stories to orient us, we are literally lost. When we are lost, it is easy to be
frightened and to focus on security and survival, to look for threats, and to pull together
into “safe” enclaves. Collective and powerful stories of the human journey can serve as
the social glue to pull us together in common effort and take us in a regenerative
direction. We do not seem to have those common stories now; however, the stories we
seek are already present in biology, psychology, cosmology, mythology, technology,
and more.
It is time to gather wisdom for the human journey from diverse sources so that we can
better understand our time of profound transition and the promise that lies ahead. As the
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has stated recently, we are in a period of “Great
Transition.” This is a rare moment in human history when we are beginning to develop,
for the very first time, the "story of, by, and for all of us." There may be no more
important task for humanity than to cultivate narratives in our collective imagination
that can serve as beacons for guiding us into a promising future. Such new narratives
may touch upon the following themes:
A living universe paradigm: A self-consistent, pattern of thoughts, concepts,
and assumptions about the nature of reality is rapidly emerging. Simply stated,
we are seeing a profound shift from a non-living view of the universe to a view
that regards the universe as uniquely alive. This is not a “new” perspective as,
more than two thousand years ago, Plato said that, “the universe is a single living
creature that encompasses all living creatures within it.” What is new is how a
living systems perspective is drawing upon insights from science to validate this
emerging paradigm that regards the universe as a unified system that is sustained
continuously by the flow-through of phenomenal amounts of energy and whose
essential nature includes consciousness or a self-reflective capacity that enables
systems at every scale of existence to exercise some freedom of choice. A living
universe perspective transforms our approach to economic activity:
Consumerism makes sense in a dead universe. If matter is all there is, then
where can I look for happiness? In material things. How do I know my life
mattered? By how many material things I have accumulated. How should I
103
20
relate to the world around me? By exploiting that which is dead on behalf of
those who are most alive (ourselves). Consumerism and exploitation of the
Earth are direct and predictable outcomes from the perceptual paradigm of a
non-living universe. Alternatively, if we regard the universe as a living system,
then it is only natural that we look for our happiness in the juice of aliveness—in
our relationships with others, with nature, and within ourselves. To live in a
living universe, we are motivated to consciously reduce needless busyness,
complexity, and clutter in the material areas of our lives so that we can have the
gift of time and space to engage the non-material areas. As experiential sources
of satisfaction become more engaging, consumerism loses its appeal.
A bio-cosmic identity: The paradigm of a living universe reveals that we are
much more than biological beings whose identity extends no further than our
skin. Instead, we are “bio-cosmic” beings that participate in the aliveness of a
living universe. The energy of divine aliveness pours through and sustains the
entire universe. Awakening to our identity as both distinct and intimately
interconnected within a living universe transforms the feelings of existential
separation and species-arrogance that threaten our future. We are participants in
a cosmic garden of life the universe has been patiently nurturing over billions of
years. A living universe invites us to shift from feelings of indifference, fear, and
cynicism to feelings of curiosity, love, awe, and participation.
A surpassing sense of purpose: A living universe is also a learning universe.
Living is more than “only not dying.” Our purpose in being here is to learn how
to live sustainably and compassionately within a living universe. Our life is our
gift from the universe and how we choose to live is our gift to the universe. We
are on a journey of discovery. In freedom, we are discovering our identity as
beings of both earthly and cosmic dimensions. After nearly 14 billion years of
evolution, we stand upon the Earth as agents of self-reflective and creative action
at a time of great transition for the entire Earth community.
A thriving planetary civilization: Through history, humanity’s capacity for
self-reflective consciousness has developed progressively—from the magical
world of the hunter-gatherer, to the nature-based world of the agrarian farmer,
then into the dynamic world of the urban-industrial society, and now into a
holistic perspective and collective consciousness rapidly awakening within our
global brain. This new consciousness provides the basis for a new, global
civilization. If our lives are nested within the larger aliveness of a living
universe, then it is only fitting that we treat everything that exists as alive and
worthy of respect. Every action has ethical consequences that reverberate
throughout the ecosystem of the living cosmos. Our collective purpose shifts
from seeking high-consumption lifestyles toward simpler ways of living that
enable us to connect more directly with a living universe of which we are an
integral part. Humanity’s journey of awakening has reached a critical turning
point. We now confront the supreme test of living sustainably on the Earth, in
harmony with one another, and in communion with the living universe.
104
21
The new media landscape is not only about cultivating stories that resonate and engage
with the outer world of the Internet but also narratives that inform and empower the
landscape of the ‘inner-net’. Our sense of self-worth as human beings -- and as planetary
citizens -- is crucial to the new media narrative.
New Media and the Politics of Conscious Citizenship
We cannot create a new world in the cultural context of the old media programming.
The old media is selling a culture of consumption. The new media must serve a culture
of conservation and compassion. As we think, so we will become. If we fill our social
mind with old media, there is no room to imagine new possibilities. Communication is
the lifeblood of democracy. To choose a sustainable future, citizens need to be able to
communicate among themselves about the future they want to bring into existence. We
require a “conscious democracy” that pays attention to what is going on and that uses
the modern tools of local to global communication to enable citizens to engage in
unprecedented levels of dialogue and consensus building about our future. A healthy
democracy requires the active consent of the governed, not simply their passive
acquiescence. Democracy has often been called the art of the possible. If we don’t know
how our fellow citizens think and feel about policies to create a sustainable future, then
we float powerless in a sea of ambiguity and are unable to mobilize ourselves into
constructive action. The most powerful and direct way to revitalize democracy is by
improving the ability of citizens to know their own minds—local, national, and global.
By combining televised dialogues on key issues with instantaneous Internet-based
feedback from a scientific sample of citizens, the public can know its collective
sentiments with a high degree of accuracy. With regular Electronic Town Meetings or
ETMs, the perspectives and priorities of the citizenry could be rapidly brought into
public view and the democratic process revitalized. When a working consensus emerges,
it would presumably guide (but not compel) decision makers. The value of ETMs is not
as a vehicle for citizens to attempt to micromanage government through direct
democracy; rather, its value is as a vehicle for citizens to discover their widely shared
priorities that can guide their representatives in government. Involving citizens in
choosing the pathway into the future will not guarantee that the “right” choices will
always be made, but it will guarantee that citizens will feel involved and invested in
those choices. Rather than feeling cynical and powerless, citizens will feel engaged and
responsible for our future.
A future of sustainable prosperity will emerge as citizens recognize the absolute
necessity of using these new media tools to undertake an unprecedented level of
dialogue about the most promising pathways ahead. With ongoing, local-to-global
communication comes mutual understanding and gradual reconciliation around a shared
vision of a sustainable future. With an emerging vision of workable living held in
common and a commitment to realizing that vision, the human family could make
dramatic reductions in military expenditures, begin to heal the global ecology, make
105
22
development investments in poorer nations, build new energy systems, and in many
other ways build a promising future.
With a witnessing consciousness or observer’s perspective offered by the new media,
citizens can cultivate the detachment that enables us to stand back, look at the big
picture, and make the hard choices and trade-offs that our circumstances demand. With
a reflective consciousness we look at our situation objectively and see how imperative it
is to begin the process of healing and reconciliation. The communications revolution
plays a critical role in this global consciousness raising and consensus building. With
the rapid development of sophisticated communication networks, the global
consciousness of humanity can awaken decisively. The Earth has a new vehicle for its
collective thinking and invention that transcends any nation or culture. From this
communications revolution can come a trailblazing, new level of human creativity,
daring, and action in response to the global ecological crisis.
Rather than feeling cynical or powerless, citizens feel engaged and responsible for
society and its future. As citizens are empowered to cope with mounting crises and to
participate in decision-making, democratic processes are revitalized. With a free and
open exchange of information and visions, and with safeguards to prevent any one
group or nation from dominating the conversation of democracy, a foundation for
building a sustainable future is firmly established.
A revitalizing society is a decentralizing society, with grass-roots organizations that are
numerous enough, have arisen soon enough, and are effective enough to provide a
genuine alternative to more centralized bureaucracies. Eco-villages and smaller
communities can take charge of activities ranging from education, housing, and crime
prevention, to child care, health care, job training, and many more. The strength and
resiliency of the social fabric can grow as local organizations promote self-help, self-
organization, a community spirit, and neighborhood bonding. With control over many
of life’s basic activities brought back to the local level, a strong foundation is
established to compensate for faltering bureaucracies at the state, federal and global
levels.
By breaking the cultural hypnosis of consumerism and using the new media as a potent
tool for active social learning, a new cultural consensus could emerge rapidly.
Industrialized nations could move beyond the historic agenda of self-serving material
progress to a new, life-serving agenda of promoting the well-being of the entire human
family. Despite enormous economic, ecological, and social stresses, an overarching
vision of a sustainable and satisfying future flourishing in a world of new media could
provide sufficient social glue to hold humanity together while working through these
trying times. A new sense of global community, human dignity, goodwill, and trust
could be growing. Although problems may continue to abound, a new springtime for
humanity could be emerging.
106
23
Conclusion
We are now participants in a profound cultural epoch of transition, change, and
recalibration like never before in human history. What makes this moment so pivotal is
that, as a global species, we are on the cusp of becoming a planetary society. As stated
in the Fuji Declaration Awakening the Divine Spark in the Spirit of Humanity: For a
Civilization of Oneness with Diversity on Planet Earth (provisional title), we have the
possibility now to witness a worldwide shift in consciousness and collaboration .
The recent revolution in global communications is having a profound effect and impact
upon human consciousness and the collective mind of our species. Increased physical,
digital, and emotional connectivity through our global-social networks appears to be
catalyzing the emergence of an empathic species mindset. The spectacular rise in a new
global media landscape also reflects a new form of participatory consciousness,
especially among younger people. This emerging landscape of connectivity,
communication, collaboration, and consciousness reflects a distributed engagement and
relational approach to living, rather than hierarchical. In this era the individual is no
longer constrained to be merely a passive receiver of information but can now be both
the user and the producer of knowledge: we have entered the era of the prosumers.
In this study we have drawn attention to a new media landscape in profound transition:
social media as a powerful tool of collective awakening; the rise of an Earth Voice
movement and a global citizen superpower; transformative approaches to global
education; the creative potential of computer games; the politics of conscious
citizenship; and the need for inclusive and transformative new stories for our collective
future. We have also, as a counterbalance, pointed to the hazards of living in an
’always-on’ media environment. Overall, however, this study has mapped and
highlighted the emerging terrain of a new media landscape that has incredible potential
for nurturing and sustaining a diversified, yet unified, human planetary society.
Unlike any previous time in human history, an unprecedented opportunity for change
and betterment is now present. The human community has a responsibility for rising to
this time of opportunity as the many media factors described above may never be
present again at exactly the right moment when they are so badly needed. The human
species is a witness to and participant in a time of great transition at an individual,
community, national, and planetary level. The new media landscape is critical for
building a promising future based on new cultural narratives of hope and change. As a
maturing species, we have a profound responsibility to actively engage in this time of
great transition with an awakening consciousness that informs practical visions of a
promising future.
107
24
References Brand, Stewart, Whole Earth Discipline, New York: Viking 2009, pp.275, 298. Castronova, Edward, Exodus to the Virtual World, Palgrave and MacMillian, 2007. The Committee to Protect Journalists, USA Today, February 5, 2014. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/05/top-ten-internet-censors/5222385/ Dennis, Kingsley L., New Consciousness for a New World. Rochester: VT: Inner Traditions, 2011. Dennis, Kingsley L., The Struggle for Your Mind. Rochester: VT: Inner Traditions, 2012. Dennis, Kingsley L., New Revolutions for a Small Planet. London: Watkins Books, 2012. Dennis, Kingsley L., The Phoenix Generation: A New Era of Connection, Compassion & Consciousness. London: Watkins Books, 2014. Diamandis, Peter & Kotler, Steven Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think. New York: Free Press, 2012. Dobey, Jean “Five ways to turn a Social Media Campaign into a movement,” The Guardian, 25 June, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2014/jun/25/five-ways-to-turn-social-media-campaign-into-movement Elgin, Duane , "Is Communication Revitalization the Secret to Avoiding Collapse?,” posted November 19, 2013 on the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere: http://mahb.stanford.edu/topic/ethical-revitalization Elgin, Duane , "Great Transition Stories For Becoming A Global Eco-Civilization,” posted on www.GreatTransitionStories.org, May 1, 2013. Also see the section, “The Global Brain Awakens” on this website at: http://www.greattransitionstories.org/wiki/Story:Global_Brain Elgin, Duane , Voluntary Simplicity, New York: Harper Collins, 2nd revised edition, 2010, excerpt from Chapter Seven: "Living in a Green World.” Elgin, Duane , "Mass Media, Consumerism, and the Consensus Trance,” posted June 30, 2013: http://www.terrypatten.com/blog/lighthearted-sobriety-in-our-interesting-times#comment-1123
108
25
Elgin, Duane , "A New Superpower—An ‘Earth Voice’ Movement,” posted July 16, 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/duane-elgin/a-new-superpoweran-earth-_b_1675081.html Elgin, Duane , "Integral Activism in the Social Commons,” posted March 27, 2012: http://www.integralrevolution.com/integral-activism-in-the-social-commons Elgin, Duane , "Change the Story to Change the World,” posted February 1, 2012: Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/duane-elgin/change-the-story-to-chang_b_1247046.html Elgin, Duane and Peter Russell, “Take Back the Airwaves,” posted on YouTube November, 2011, part I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOY-VqIrVPk and part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a53hL5Z1WHE Elgin, Duane , "The Power of a "Community Voice’ Movement,” posted November 18, 2011: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/duane-elgin/future-occupy-movement_b_1100549.html Elgin, Duane , "Occupy the Airwaves!”, posted October 18, 2011: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/duane-elgin/occupy-the-airwaves_b_1014433.html Elgin, Duane , "Take Back the Airwaves!”, posted July 29, 2011: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/duane-elgin/the-last-taboo-on-televis_b_870497.html Elgin, Duane , "Can Television Help Awaken a Healthy World?,” posted July 21, 2011: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/duane-elgin/mass-media-world-health_b_883616.html Elgin, Duane , "The Last Taboo on Television,” posted June 2, 2011: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/duane-elgin/the-last-taboo-on-televis_b_870497.html Elgin, Duane , "Our Collective Awakening and the Politics of Consciousness,” in Enlighten-Next Magazine, May-July 2004. Elgin, Duane , “The Self-Guiding Evolution of Civilizations,” Systems Research and Behavioral Science Journal, April 2002, http://duaneelgin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/self_guiding_evolution.pdf Elgin, Duane , Promise Ahead, New York: Harper Collins, 2000, see Chapter Five: “Communicating Our Way Into a Promising Future." Elgin, Duane , “Collective Consciousness and Cultural Healing,” a report for the Fetzer Institute, October 1997, http://duaneelgin.com/collective-consciousness-and-cultural-
109
26
healing/ Elgin, Duane , Awakening Earth, New York: William Morrow, 1993, See chapter 5: “Reflective Consciousness and the Era of Communication and Reconciliation." Elgin, Duane , “Revitalizing Democracy Through Electronic Town Meetings,” in Spectrum: The Journal of State Governments, Spring 1993, http://duaneelgin.com/wp-content/uploads/1993/12/ETMs-Spectrum-Journal.pdf Elgin, Duane , "Let's Put The Vision In Television!,” In Context Journal, Summer 1983, http://duaneelgin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/vision_in_tv.pdf Hillis, Danny, Interviewed by Bente Milton. Judith, Anodea, Awakening the Global Heart, Shift Books Second edition, 2013, p.35. Laszlo, Ervin; Dennis, Kingsley, Dawn of the Akashic Age: New Consciousness, Quantum Resonance, and the Future of the World, Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2013. Mason, Paul, Why It’s STILL Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolutions. London: Verso, 2013. McGonigal, Jane, Reality is Broken, Jonathan Cape, 2011, chapter 14. Rifkin, Jeremy, The Third Industrial Revolution. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Rifkin, Jeremy. The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010. Shirky, Clay Here Comes Everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. Penguin Press HC, 2008. Steele, Robert D., The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency,Truth & Trust. Berkeley, CA: Evolver Editions, 2012. Viewpoint, Interview with Will Right, September 17th. 2008. Wu, Timothy., The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Atlantic Books, 2010.
110
1
GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION, FUNDAMENTAL POLITICAL
AND SOCIAL CHANGE, CONSTRUCTIVE POLITICAL INNOVATION
AND RESPONSIBLE SOCIAL SCIENCES
A study on practical steps toward creating a new civilization
Ferenc Miszlivetz and Jody Jensen
111
2
A New Norm for a New Age: New Terminologies
Scientists have recently begun to meet to discuss the possibility, or inevitability, of
addressing the question as to whether it is time to call an end to the epoch we are presently
living in, the Holocene, and announce the arrival of the Anthropocene. This new geologic
epoch (as oppose to 'periods’ which are longer, and 'ages’ which are shorter) is meant to
signify humanity’s imprint on the planet. This is highly controversial, especially since there is
no common understanding of the meaning of term ’Anthropocene’.
The term ’Axial Age’ (Karl Jaspers) has also reappeared in attempts to denote that all
over the world, people are struggling to find new meaning in the very new conditions of
existence as a result of industrial, technical and communications revolutions. Existential needs
for meaning and comfort now require, some believe, a new spiritual revolution (Karen
Armstrong), or a global awakening (Michael Shacker) which envisions a paradigm shift from
a mechanistic world view to a holistic world view.
In another vocabulary, we live in the time of structural crisis, a “macroshift” (László
2001, 2008, 2009), or a systemic “bifurcation” and transition from one world system to
another (Immanuel Wallerstein). Although we do not know what the new world system or
structure will look like, as individuals and collectives we can have more impact at this time,
because we are not under the constraints of the old or emerging new world system. Therefore,
the age we live in is more open to human intervention and creativity. As such a profound shift
has no inevitable or predictable outcome, it will be shaped by the totality of collective action
(Wallerstein 2008). The attempts to describe and analyse the morphology and the possible
solutions to today’s global crises have been numerous regarding institutions (Szentes 2006),
civil society (Miszlivetz and Jensen 2006 and 2013) and the construction of the supranational
economic and political system (like the European Union, Miszlivetz 2012 and 2013,
Miszlivetz and Jensen 2015). Calls for a “New Green Deal” are forthcoming at local, regional
and global levels (Holland 2015).
Karl Polányi in The Great Transformation, presented a set of interrelated and
intertwined phenomena. With extraordinary prescience, he warned that crisis would come. He
rejected the idea that the market is "self-regulating" and can correct itself. There is no
"invisible hand" such as the market fundamentalists maintain, so there is nothing inevitable or
"natural" about the way markets work: they are always shaped by political decisions. These
observations and propositions were for the most part rather neglected during the past decades
112
3
and by the explicit or tacit consensus of both social scientists and political analysts. In most
cases analysts deal with each crisis as separate, isolated phenomena. This negligence and
restricted perception (based upon the paradigm of the sovereign nation state and doctrine of
independent academic disciplines) is greatly responsible for the present global turmoil which
is at its heart a civilizational crisis (Miszlivetz and Kaldor 1985, 2009).
The concern lately of nation states, the EU and global multilateral organizations, has
been to minimize irrational panic in response to crises and it can be argued that this reveals a
dysfunctional pattern of thinking. The real challenge is not the particular crisis of the
financial system which everyone talks about, but lies in the pattern of derivitive thinking that
has sustained the system and denied its problematic nature all along. Is the sovereign debt
crisis and its consequences for financial and political systems and societies an indicator of a
dysfunctional mode of thought in which we collectively participate today? Alternatively, can
the crisis of confidence better be understood as a credibility crisis? A major danger is the
current assumption that the only "confidence" that needs to be (re)built is defined by market
terminology and not by democratic terminology. Why are "solutions" only being dreamt up
after a crisis has struck? Does our way of thinking deny the existence of other systemic
challenges and repress consideration of potential implications in other areas? Can a more
vigilant analysis of the financial crisis as it evolves, and the language used in "saving the
system" help to develop a framework to analyze emergent crises that have been subject to the
same neglect through "derivative” and not "innovative” thinking.
It is important to identify the systemic role of actors (states), instruments (financial
mechanisms and authorities), concepts and dynamics, as well as how long and short-term risk
is managed in a context of fear, mistrust and a false notion of what has happened and why.
The question is whether more vigilant analysis of crises as they evolve, and the language used
in "saving the system" can be used to develop a framework to analyze developing crises
that have been subject to the same neglect through ‘derivative’ and not ‘innovative’
thinking.
One of the major negative results of this is the lack of responsibility taking for global
or transnational disasters by the dominant players and stakeholders – from national and
regional political leaders and institutions via institutions of knowledge creation and
113
4
distribution including eminent social scientists.1 Alternative voices are emerging, but the
question is whether it is too little, too late.
This institutionalised irresponsibility and indifference surrounded by a tacit concensus
about dividedness as an unchangeable given is to a significant degree reponsible for
undermining and emptying out democracies as well as for endangering the future of human
existence on the planet. The recent return of the nation state and accompanying nationalistic
cliches and prejudices within Europe and all around its borders resulted in the rise of
rightwing and religious extremism, populism and an increasing rejection of multiculturalism.
Xenophobia, racism and anti-semitism has been growing not only in the peripehries but also
in the core countries of established democracies of affluent societies.
One of the key challenges is the demand for new and innovative ways of thinking to
resolve the threats to the sustainability of our social relations, environment and economies.
New knowledge is required by the social sciences to meet the demands of technological
innovation, management and public policy. New knowledge accumulation, or informational
capital, would include the important contribution of civil societies.
Paradigm Shift
Our whole world society appears to be following a distinct pattern that occurs very
rarely in history, one that has led in the past to total reinventions of the world within
very short periods of time. In short, we are in the midst of a classic paradigm shift and
are fast approaching the tipping point of the whole process.
Shacker 2013: 31
All of the present crises are connected by a mechanistic world view that has
dominated for the past 300 years and endangered the environment and quality of life, societies
and individuals. In a mechanistic world view, we all become parts of the machine and mere
objects. The fatal flaw of a mechanistic world view is eloquently elaborated by Michael
Shacker (2013) in his work, Global Awakening, New Science and the 21st Century
Enlightenment. Referring to William Barret’s (1979), Illusion of Technique, he explains that
1 E.g., the Euromemorandum group, The European Trade Union Confederation, the Manifesto
of Appalled Economists in France, the Be Outraged Manifesto constructed by an international
group of economists and social scientists, manifestations of the Occupy movements across
Europe and the US, etc.
114
5
the smooth operation of the machine becomes everything in the mind of the technician; and
since there is no meaning that can be derived from a machine, life becomes meaningless.
Our whole mechanistic society now reflects this meaningless and purposeless world
view. … The illusion of technique helps us understand this fatal flaw of mechanistic
dogma and how it fails to confront reality. In short, the lure of the machine outweighs
the mounds of scientific data showing the fragile interconnections of Earth and its
biosphere. Social, environmental and health concerns are swept under the rug and
ignored. The mechanistic paradigm is thus dysfunctional at its core – so we find
ourselves in the mechanistic dilemma (Shacker 2013: 29-30).
He continues by addressing the necessity of “more-than-ordinary” thinking and action
to transcend the mechanistic dilemma to extract the planet and humanity from its current
precarious situation.
The crisis is further exacerbated by the collusion between big business and
increasingly nationalistic governments who, in order to maintain their power positions and
monopolistic control of market forces, will not willingly relinquish their power positions. This
is clearly seen in the increasing incidents of state violence by state sanctioned police forces
against populations that have arisen to protest against economic and social inequalities
resulting from the crisis of the world system, as well as aspirations for a more democratic
politics of participation.
What is common in these in many ways different old/new bubbling up movements and
political worldviews is the strong insistence to historic dividedness and cultural differences as
well as the complete lack or rejection of the holistic approach in dealing with grave social,
political, and ecological problems. Threatened in their existence and legitimacy, old
institutions, interest groups and other powerful global, regional and national stakeholders are
keen to entrench themselves and fight one another to secure their interests and survival. The
new wave of desintegration and self-isolation is a result of the failure of global and regional
institutions such as the UN, the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF or the European Union.
Instead of contributing globally and regionally to more democracy, equality, peace and human
security, these institutions themselves contribute to the survival of the old paradigm of
unequal dividedness, onesided dependency and manifold insecurity. Therefore, the New
Norm should establish the perception of oneness of the human race and with the planet on
which we live. This means the acceptance and understanding of the inevitability of a holistic
view of humankind, together with its self-created institutions, markets, nationstates and means
115
6
of violence. The vision and practice of a wisdom based society (Falk 2013) that turns
knowledge into organic and holistic practices has to replace gradually the old paradigm of a
knowledge-based society that was established on the premise and special historical
understanding of fragmentation and un-alterable dividedness. Awareness of increasing
interdependence in various spheres of our common existence is a slow process that needs to
speed up. The discussion of the dynamics of interdependence, of those in the center and those
in the peripheries, needs to be translated into action, thus empowering communities through
knowledge and legitimation. In order to challenge existing power structures, organizing those
marginalized groups and communities that have been historically left out into solid alliances
at the local level, such as women, racial-ethnic and religious minorities, gender and age-based
groups and indigenous populations, has increased over the past forty years (Wallerstein 2008),
but it has not been enough.
From a Medieval World View to a Mechanistic World View to an Organic World View
Every world view needs to answer the fundamental questions of who we are, how we
got where we are and where we are going that are delivered in a new story or narrative frame.
The current crisis of world view requires a paradigm shift which will move humanity into a
new world system and mind-set. Paradigm shifts or “flips” have occured before, from the
Medieval to the Mechanistic world view via the Enlightenment, towards a future Organic
worldview according to Shacker (2013). The composite tables are provided here to review
these paradignamic shifts:
Table 1: Comparison of Medieval and Mechanistic World Views (Shacker 2013: 36)
Medieval World View Mechanistic World View
God is responsible for all events on earth. God or nature merely sets universe in motion,
natural law determines the rest; clockwork
universe of Newton.
God’s creation only 6000 years old. Universe very old, Earth millions to billions
years old, formed by natural forces.
Two sets of laws: one for Earth, one for
heaven.
One set of natural laws governs Earth and the
universe.
Geocentric universe: Earth does not move. Helocentric solar system: Earth orbits the
sun.
King and nobility have devine right to rule. The right to govern derives from the people;
kings are tyrants.
Medieval laws and value system designed to Laws and values designed to provide liberty
116
7
protect the lands and power of kings, the
aristocracy and the church.
and equality to all men, to protect the pursuit
of happiness, and to derive power from the
people in a democracy.
Table 2: Comparison of Mechanistic and Organic World Views (Shacker 2013: 41).
Mechanistic World View Organic World View
Limited mechanistic models underlie
traditional science and medicine and cannot
explain living systems adequately; ecological,
health and economic breakdowns.
Encompassing organic/biological models
underlie new-paradigm sciences from physics
to agriculture, medicine, technology,
economics, and psychology.
Clockwork universe, no purpose assigned to
humanity or universe; we live in a vast static
cosmos.
Complexity-centered universe and evolution
means we are always evolving to the next
level.
Anthropocentric universe; planet Earth
treated as a non-living thing to be exploited.
Complexity-centered universe: planet Earth
shown to be a living system.
Newtonian physics limited to macroworld,
non-living things only.
New physics studies sub-atomic realm; law
od organics and other theories explain living
systems.
Time and space quantified. Life, evolution, consciousness quantified and
given meaning.
Studies objects and things as separate parts. Studies the relationship between objects and
things
Old paradigm culture based on oil,
ultranationalism and militarism; huge military
budget, small foreign aid; top 1% owns 45%
of wealth.
Counterculture based on transition from oil,
world peace and sustainable development;
increase foreign aid to $50 billion to stop
terrorism; new economics to eliminate
poverty.
Laws and values designed to protect the
rights of men, especially corporations and
men with property.
Laws and values designed to protect the
rights of all, from women to blacks, gays and
all minorities, especially the poor and middle
class.
Belief that war has always been a part of
human nature.
War has been invented and can be
transcended in a future world of peace.
If we look at the four stages of social transformation as outlined by Kuhn (1962), we see
that first of all, there is the emergence of an anomaly that contradicts the existing world view
and new science and philosophical concepts shock the existing world with radically new ideas
to account for the anomaly. A revolutionary period ensues that upsets the stability of the
system. The 1960s have been represented as a precursor in terms of beliefs and behavior that
underpins the movement from one system to another. Perhaps, the discussions and analysis
related to global warming could be considered in the contemporary context as one of the focul
points for the emergence of radically new ideas related to humankind’s place in the world.
117
8
The new sciences and the study of micro-worlds (e.g., quantum physics, complexity and
chaos theories, string theory) confront the scientific world view with a new view of
humankind’s role in the universe.
Subsequently, the second phase can be described as the conservative backlash period that
sets back the new paradigm with fundamentalist conservative and political counter-reactions.
There is a paradigm resistence from old scientists and bitter paradigm wars are fought
between the new realities presented by the new world view, and the ideology and rhetoric of
the old world view. In the contemporary sense, the rise of the new right and conservative
governments in the 1970s in reaction to the movements of the 1960s can be viewed in this
context. At the same time, anomalies and scandals related to the workings of the old world
view mount and create pressure on existing structures (large bail outs starting in 1984 of the
Savings and Loan industry, invasion of Lebanon, rise of Sadam Hussein, neglect of AIDS and
women’s rights, increasing environmental catastrophes – Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl, Bhopal).
These incidents and the underlying neglect of addressing increasingly pressing social,
political, economic and environmental issues, with adequate responses from institutons and
authorities contibutes to undermining trust and belief in the system. They underscore that the
mechanistic world view can never solve the problems of its own making.
What follows is an intensive phase that continues the polarized culture war between world
views. Again, it can take the form of regressive and reactionary governments (as in the US in
the 1990s-2000s), and the increasing evidence of corporate world domination both in the
economic and increasingly in political spheres where the ramifications of coporate-state
collusion have devastating consequences for democracy in both old and new democracies.
New thinkers begin to construct and popularize a new narrative for the new era that explains
the emergent anomalies. The new narrative engages and activates societies that, once they
reach a critical mass, provide the tipping point for transformation to the new world view. In
fact, our contemporary period is also characterized by the greatest global mobilization of
populations in opposition to perceived systemic injustice endemic to the old world system and
institutionalized political and economic power relations. The Occupy movement and the
breadth of its organization and impact is only one example. Other organizing principles are
discussed later in this chapter. But besides new movements and new methods and forms of
mobilization, new formulations are emerging and taking shape in the areas of global
education, integrative/holistic healthcare and medicine, and in regenerative regional planning.
These new perspectives and strategies contribute to the formulation of the new narrative in
118
9
science and societies and help to push the new paradigm further forward. This phase
encompasses basically the contemporary period from the early 1990s until today.
The last stage is the transformational phase. This is what is beginning today. In this phase
new conflicts may arise, but also increasing solidarity/cohesion/one-ness at the local and
global levels. The old ideology, system and structure are replaced with the underlying
precepts of the new world view with its correspondent scientific models and changed sets of
rules. This can take decades to realize and could, in the present circumstances, as it is
predicted, last up to 50 years. This is when a regenerative revolution proposes new, alternative
economic models, and new technological and social models replace the macro-economic
machine models with organic/regenerative/holistic development models based on the axiom
of the interdependence of life processes.
Economic Consolidation and Disruption
Where there is great inequality, there is great injustice and where there is great
injustice, there is the inevitability of instability.
Marshall (2013)
After 2007, when the financial crisis surfaced, and in its aftermath, it became
increasingly clear that for a critical mass of world society existing economic and financial
models were seriously limited, oversimplistic and overconfident and actually helped to create
the crisis. This is a combination of opinions not from people who are skeptical of capitalism
but who actually work at the heart of finance: a governor of the European Central Bank, and
from the head of the U.K. Financial Services Authority.
What is implied in these opinions is that we do not understand the complexity or
interdependence of, for example, our economic systems that drive our modern societies. In
reality, we are surrounded by interconnected and complex systems. Complexity theory tells us
that what looks like complex behavior from the outside is actually the result of a few simple
rules of interaction. To begin, therefore, to understand a system you need to look at the
interactions.
Complex systems have a unique characteristic that is called „emergence” which means
that a system as a whole cannot be understood or predicted by examining the components of
119
10
the system, because the system as a whole starts to reveal a particular behavior. Therefore,
the whole is literally more than the sum of individual parts.
Networks also represent complex systems and the nodes in a network are its
components and the links are the interactions. Applying this analysis to economic networks is
new and reveals a surprising gap in the literature. The following analysis was originally
presented in the work entitled The Network of Global Corporate Control in 2011 (Vitali,
Glattfelder, Battiston 2011). Starting with a list of 43,060 TNCs identified according to the
OECD definition,2 and taken from a sample of over 30 million economic actors contained in
the Orbis 2007 database, they singled out, for the first time, the network of all the ownership
pathways originating from and pointing to TNCs. The resulting TNC network included
600,508 nodes and 1,006,987 ownership ties.
The center contains about 75% of all players, and in the center there is a tiny but
dominant core of highly interconnected companies. Although they only make up 36% of total
TNCs, they make up 95% of the total operating revenue of all TNCs.
After computing network control, they found that global corporate control has a
dominant core of 147 firms radiating from the center. Each of these 147 firms own shares in
one another and together they control 40% of the wealth in the TNC network. The top 737
shareholders have the potential to collectively control 80% of the TNC’s value. Keep in mind
the value of the 600,000 nodes of interconnections, and that these 737 top players make up
0.123%. These are mostly financial institutions based in the US and UK and together they
have the collective potential to control 40% of the TNC’s value.
Figure 1. Flow of Control (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston 2011: 4).
2 [TNCs] comprise companies and other entities established in more than one country and so
linked that they may coordinate their operations in various ways, while one or more of these
entities may be able to exercise a significant influence over the activities of others, their
degree of autonomy within the enterprise may vary widely from one multinational enterprise
to another. Ownership may be private, state or mixed (OECD 2000).
120
11
This level of hyperconnection is dangerous because of the extremely high degree of control,
and because the high degree of interconnectivity of the top players in the core could pose a
significant systemic risk to the global economy. Any kind of disturbance felt in the core
would expand exponentially like a virus to the other parts of the system.
The study concludes not with a global conspiracy but rather likens this development
with such biological structures such as fungus and weeds. The study concludes that the
network is probably the result of self-organization which is an emergent property and that the
network depends on the rules of interaction in the system. By ‘emergent property’ what is
meant is that the system as a whole reveals behavior that can not be understood or predicted
by looking at the individual components of the system. In fact, the whole is literally to be
understood as more than the sum of all parts. Beyond the potential for catastrophic instability,
the system reveals an undeniable imbalance in terms of power and wealth. The study does not
attempt to derive implications in terms of inequality and increased potential of social unrest,
nor in terms of political instability and costs to democratic representation and practise. In
what follows, we will endeavor to illustrate the consequences for politics, economies and
societies of the anomalies that have been identified in the old world view that have been
elaborated so far.
World of Resistance and Global Awakening
121
12
The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in
the phenomenon of global political awakening.
Brzezinski (2008)
In 2014, Oxfam reported that the world’s 85 wealthiest individuals had a combined
wealth equal to the collective wealth of the world’s 3.5 billion people, at USD 1.7 trillion. At
the same time, the global top 1% owns about half the world’s wealth at USD 110 trillion.
Oxfam commented:
This massive concentration of economic resources in the hands of fewer people
presents a significant threat to inclusive political and economic systems … inevitably
heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown (Oxfam
2014).
In 2005, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about a global awakening that is potentially
socially massive and politically radicalizing. He clearly articulated that populations in the
developing world are awakening and stirring with unrest in response to a growing
consciousness of social injustice and political indignity. He argues that since the breakdown
of the bipolar system which pitted a Marxist/Communist ideological opposition to Western
capitalist democracies, an ideological vacuum emerged in terms of ideas that oppose the
current world order. He argues that a ‘community of shared perceptions’ is being created by
old and new technologies that transcend national borders, challenge current nation state
structures and existing global hierarchies. In a 2010 speech to the Canadian International
Council he spoke of a totally new reality in which “most people know what is generally going
on … and are consciously aware of global inequities, inequalities, lack of respect,
exploitation”. He concludes that “Mankind is now politically awakened and stirring”. Years
earlier he warned of a demographic time bomb of impatient and unemployed youth is just
waiting to be triggered (Brzezinski 2005).
Many sources are warning of increasing, and increasingly wide spread unrest. In 2011,
the International Labour Organization warned that the unemployment resulting from the
global financial crisis threatens waves of unrest in both rich and poor countries, pointing out
that 45 of 118 countries that were studied already saw rising unrest (particularly in the EU,
Arab world and Asia).
122
13
The Economist (2009 December, 2013 November) has frequently reported on
increasing global social unrest due to painful austerity measures, growing expectations from
emerging market middles classes, and revolts against dictatorships. The Economist
Intelligence Unit estimates that 43% of the 150 countries it studied will be at high or very
high risk of social unrest in 2014.
A recent OECD publication states that “Income inequality has a ‘statistically
significant impact’ on economic growth,” where as the redistribution of wealth through taxes
and social benefits does not hamper economic growth. (OECD 2014). The report finds that in
the 34 OECD member states the gap between rich and poor has reached the highest level in 30
years; and the richest 10% in those member states earn 9.5 times as much on average as the
poorest. In the 1980s this ratio stood at 7:1. The only countries where inequality has fallen is
in the economically stressed Greece, and in Turkey where a new middle class continues to
emerge. Emphasis in the report was placed on the fact that lack of investment in education
was a key factor in the rise of inequality. The report found that fewer educational
opportunities for disadvantaged individuals had the effect of lowering social mobility and
hampering skills development, thus reproducing systemic poverty.
The 2013 study of world protests by the Initiative for Policy Dialogue and Friedrich-
Ebert-Stiftung New York outlined the following four main areas of grievance that sparked
unrest from the 2006-2013 period (Ortiz et al. 2013: 5):
Economic Justice and Anti-Austerity 488 protests on issues related to reform of public
services, tax/fiscal justice, jobs/ higher wages/labor
conditions, inequality, poverty/low living standards,
agrarian/land reform, pension reform, high fuel and
energy prices, high food prices, and housing.
Failure of Political Representation and
Political Systems
376 protests on lack of real democracy;
corporate influence, deregulation and privatization;
corruption; failure to receive justice from the legal
system; transparency and accountability;
surveillance of citizens; and anti-war/military
industrial complex.
Global Justice 311 protests were against the IMF and other
International Financial Institutions (IFIs), for
environmental justice and the global commons, and
against imperialism, free trade and the G20.
Rights of People 302 protests on ethnic/indigenous/racial rights; right
to the Commons (digital, land, cultural,
atmospheric); labor rights; women’s rights; right to
freedom of assembly/speech/press; religious issues;
rights of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered people
123
14
(LGBT); immigrants’ rights; and prisoners’ rights.
A lesser number of protests focus on denying
rights to specific groups (eg. immigrants, gays).
The report explains that although it appears that the demand for economic justice takes
precedence, the overwhelming demand was not for economic justice per se, “but for ’real
democracy’ … and frustration with politics as usual and a lack of trust in the existing
political actors, left and right” [our emphasis]. This demand is seen in every type of political
system, from authoritarian regines to representative democracies that are failing to listen and
respond to the needs and views of the people.
Protesting Failures of Political Representation/Political Systems by Region,
2006-2013
Source: world protests in media sources 2006-2013 as of July 31st 2013 (Ortiz et. al. 2013:
21)
The report forcefully concludes that
124
15
… policy reforms will be insufficient if governments fail to guarantee democratic
participation and curtail the power of elites—not only in local and national
governments but in the institutions of global governance as well. Leaders and
policymakers will only invite further unrest if they fail to prioritize and act on the one
demand raised in more of the world’s protests between 2006 and 2013 than any
other—the demand for real democracy (Ortiz et al. 2013: 43).
In addition to the insurrection that results from political invisibility and
disempowerment, unregulated capitalism is charged by these movements with creating wealth
but not effectively distributing it and that it takes no account of what it cannot commodify,
neither the social relationships of family and community nor the environment, which are vital
to human wellbeing and survival, and indeed to the functioning of the market itself. There has
been a surprising sustained character to global protests over time which could signal a new
impetus for civil society and demands for new social contracts between citizens and power
holders. Dissenting groups mobilize and form, submerge, and re-emerge in new, diverse and
innovative morphologies.
Even before the financial crisis broke out in 2008, research was being carried out on
new social and economic justice and democratic movements worldwide that were very much
under the radar of the media. What was discovered was that something profound and
pervasive was occurring in terms of social organization at the local, national, regional and
international levels. This could not be called a “movement” in conventional terms, because it
did not coalesce around a particular ideology or even topical focus. The world has become too
complex for that today. What amazed researchers was the breadth and scope of this new
phenomenon on a scale never seen before. Elements of this new formulation for activism
extend to all parts of the globe; it cannot be divided because it is already atomized, although it
shares a basic set of values regarding our world, how it functions, and our role in it. These
new social organizations are based in environmental and social justice movements and
movements of indigenous peoples and cultures, all of which are intertwined and
interdependent.
Not just the forms of organizational structures are changing, but also the underlying
values, especially as regards participatory democracy. The assertion “Nothing about us
without us” is flourishing, increasing the voice of previously marginalized and excluded
groups. This could be the means and the medium for implementing a new path towards
inclusion and tolerance, based on respect for individual cultures and the environment, and it
125
16
has powerful potential.
According to research, there may be as many as 114,000 international NGOS and,
depending on the criteria, the Union of International Associations estimates about 65,000
international organizations operating at the global level today. This should be weighed against
the estimates of 43,00 globally operating TNCs. Combined efforts, then of international
NGOs and international organizations represent an enormous scope and potential power for
change in terms of expertise, organization and activism. These estimates reveal an exponential
increase since the 1950s, and do not even reflect millions of local or national initiatives in the
civil sector.
Dunn (2005) argues that the reaction of popular forces against global corporate
capitalism and the ideology of neoliberalism is generating new constellations of ideas and
new forms of organization. What is happening now is the emergence of large
transnationalized segments of the popular classes who are using new information technologies
to organize globally. There are already clear and important initiatives, particulary emerging in
civil society frames that are making attempts to reinterpret the content of contemporary
structured relations (between states and societies; between business and states; between
business and the societies within which they operate). There is an increasing cooperation and
collaboration within and across sectors in general. This can be clearly seen in, for example,
the Occupy Everything movements across the world that are still emerging, submerging and
reappearing in response to a broad spectrum of threats and challenges. The World Social
Forum, for instance, is an important arena for the organization of global networks and parties
that claim to represent the peoples of the Earth.
The insurrections can be recognised as events of radical change only retrospectively, if
the rules of politics change. This depends on who will uphold the possibility of changing the
rules of what counts as political. There are certain moments in history when significant
change is possible, it is not a certainty, but a possibility. It is very difficult for any single act
or national response to actually set the “momentum” for change in motion. But when that
historical wave arrives, it can be guided. We are in one of those moments now.
Some of the most salient examples of alternatives and a new and rising global civil
consciousness and organization are presented here.
Occupy and Global Democracy Movements: In October 2011 a “United Global
Democracy Manifesto was produced over four months through consultation among groups,
activists and people's assemblies in countries such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Britain,
Egypt, Germany, India, Israel, Mexico, Palestine, Spain, Tunisia, Uruguay, and the US. In
126
17
summary the manifesto states that united in diversity, people demand global change, global
democracy and global governance by the people. They call for a ’global regime change’
replacing the G8 with the whole of humanity. They criticize undemocratic global institutions
like the IMF, WTO, global markets, multinational banks, the G8/G20, the European Central
Bank and the UN security council. They demand that the citizens of the world take control
over the decisions that affect their lives, from the global to local.
Occupy Central (Hong Kong). The Umbrella Revolution: The ongoing pro-democracy
protests in Hong Kong have very specific local goals to achieve democracy but not in a broad
ideological sense. What they want explicitely relates to universal suffrage, elections,
reinterpretation of Hong Kong’s constitution by Beijing and the resignation of the current
chief executive. They do not claim to be a revolutionary movement.
Occupytogether. This is the internet face of the #occupy movement. The website
frames the international movement as by people with a variety of backgrounds and political
beliefs who feel change must come from the bottom-up, and not from distrusted political
institutions. It aims to fight back against the system that has allowed the rich to get richer and
the poor to get poorer. The main issues they address are corporate influence, corporate
personhood, student debt, wrongful foreclosures, too big to fail” banks, living minimum wage
levels, and budget cuts.
The “New Abduction of Europe” Congress in Madrid (February-March 2014). The
Congress was intended to mark a turning point in the recent history of European and
Mediterranean social movements. It was to close the so-called “revolutionary” period
(initiated by the Arab Spring, the events of 2011 in Spain, Greece and other Southern
European countries). These were the countries who experienced the most social turmoil as a
result of the economic crisis. A new period of a pan-European coalition of “old” and “new”
social movements, political and non-governmental organizations and public cultural
institutions was to be initiated at the conference. This new coalition is aimed at a democratic
and open Europe as an alternative to both the market-oriented technocratic vision of the EU
advocated by the Troika and the anti-European trends associated with increasingly strong
national tendencies.
MORELIKEPEOPLE. Their recent publication (Anarchists in the Boardroom) calls
for changes in the way social movements organize today in order to be more in touch with the
people and the cause they represent. At the same time, lessons have been learned from the use
of social media and technology from the new social movements that could improve impact
and change the world. The publication travels from worker-run factories, to Occupy
127
18
encampments and non-violent direct actions, and even to some forward-thinking companies.
More like people activists propose that social media and new technologies can help NGOs,
charities, trade unions and voluntary organisations to both stay relevant during the current
period of transitions.
Indigenous Movements: The objective of most of these movements is to protect the
sovereignty and control of land and resources. Indigenous peoples’ organizations recognize
the need to reach out to other movements and groups around the world because the nature of
globalization requires a global response. In Latin America, for instance, there has been a very
explicit effort of indigenous peoples to link with the environmental movement, and the
campesino movement, and other social movements. Their strategies involve legal action, i.e.
changing national laws and national constitutions, and using international law, direct action,
voicing their cause to the international arena as well as entering government. One fascinating
and successful group is the Pachamama Alliance begun among the Achuar people of Ecuador
and Peru who began building a world alliance in 1995. The “Pachamama Alliance is a global
community that offers people the chance to learn, connect, engage, travel and cherish life for
the purpose of creating a sustainable future that works for all”.
Food Safety and Food Sovereignty Movements: These groups typically address the
WTO, the World Bank, IMF, and multinational corporations like Monsanto and the roles they
play in agricultural production, at the same time advocating the rights of peasants. One such
group is the international movement Via Campesina. The movement operates in Asia, Africa,
America and Europe and comprises and coordinates 148 organizations of small and medium
sized agricultural producers and workers, rural women and indigenous communities. The
coalition of small producer organizations from around the world operates programs of seed-
sharing. They protect seeds against Monsanto patents and against genetic modification.
Two other notable examples are the food sovereignty movement and the zero waste
movement. Both movements exhibit features where the traditional meets the globalized world.
They are locally driven but organize widely across the globe. The food sovereignty movement
is largely comprised of small-families, peasants and landless farmers. Their activism fights
against the World Trade Organization and its role in agriculture, and the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund and their roles in destroying local agriculture through the spread
of corporate production.
The proponents of the zero waste movement are trying to find ways to step outside the
consumption model of capitalist-produced goods. They are finding ways to regenerate what
they need from what they have within their societies already, and thereby also produce
128
19
cooperative forms of income that foster community development and cohesion. They are
international in their reach and scope, and they are very clear and explicit in their analysis
about the role of corporations and the international financial institutions in destroying their
ways of life and lands.
Alternative Economic Models: There is a growing list of economic alternatives to
capitalism which include the green economy, blue economy and the global Zeri network,
Buddhist economics (aims to clarify the harmful and beneficial range of human activities
involving production and consumption in order to enhance human ethical maturity), Muslim
economics (where taxation is imposed in order to reallocate resources to the needy in
societies). These models already exist and more alternative economic models are emerging
with innovative tools and frameworks, like the sharing (mesh) economy or the participatory
economy.
Cultural Creatives – A Cultural Movement: The term was coined by Paul H. Ray and
Sherry Ruth Anderson (2000) in their famous book Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million
People are Changing the World. Ever since the book’s publication, a self-awareness has
formed in groups that promote innovative, non-mainstream lifestyles outside the flows of
global capital and that now call themselves ‘cultural creatives’. They have web sites, as well
as social media presence, and the movement has grown into a ’subculture’, also known as
LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability). It aims to promote creative forms of
capitalism and actively participate in making a better world. It is estimated that in America
more than 40 million identify with the movement, and in Europe around 60-80 million people
are involved with the cultural creatives (www.elasticmind.ca/innerpreneur/index.php/cultural-
creativity/).
It is a mentality as well as a way of setting up and conducting businesses and living an
organic life style. The attributes of being a culturally creative person are also formulated (see
website above) and its primary values are authenticity, social activism, idealism, globalism
and ecology, consciousness (feeling empathy and sympathy for others, understanding
different viewpoints, valuing personal experience), and personal growth. The collective
awareness of people advocating such values is not historically new, but the wide scale of this
collective identity, and the number of people it connects are rather unprecedented – even with
the common tendency that they are often isolated and not well-informed about each other.
Although the number of alternatives to the current paradigm of neoliberalism may
appear small, it is important to know that their number is growing, and growing fast. They are
129
20
not often connected to a larger super-structure of a hierarchical movement and they are not
always articulated as anti-capitalist or anti-globalization. There has been a clear surge in
attempts to create real alternatives. This is being done by stepping outside the current system
of relations and creating more fulfilling parallel micro-systems. This can also take the form of
overcoming obstacles to fulfill needs within the dominant system, or changing unjust
structures altogether.
Pathways to the Formulation of New Norms
New norms cannot be achieved in a linear way via indoctrination, preaching or
sanctions, especially not in a deeply divided world with a rapidly developing planetary or
even cosmic technology of destruction, surveillance and manipulation. During the
consecutive waves of democratization of the past century, new norms developed rather via
open public discourse based upon the evaluation of failed political, cultural and social
practices and the increasingly convincing moral, academic and artistic criticism of concerned
citizens and the institutions run by them. It is impossible to forecast or prescribe the way a
new discource or narrative will emerge from the cacophony of the different movements, civil
society networks, responsible academic institutions and creative and courageous individuals.
Their increasingly dense networks seem to guarantee, however, the creative chaos for an
emerging global civil society. This global civil society is far from chrystallized; it exists rather
in fragments and only expresses itself in sporadic global and regional rallies (such as the
World Social Forum, the European Social Forum) or spontaneous solidarity actions. A more
systematic and interrelated structuring of these transnational and local events, combined with
an efficient methodology of collection and dissemination of documents, appeals and analyses,
would have significant impact on global public opinion. These are the embryonic seeds of
transnational democracy. If their activities would be coordinated and shared, they might more
effectively act as the controllers of today’s uncontrolled and nontransparent decision makers,
holding them accountable for decisions that determine our planet’s and humanity’s destiny in
the long run.
This path of global democratisation will not be easy, linear or rapid. It presupposes a
new and complex perception of democracy, accountability and social responsibility from the
side of concerned civil initiatives, movements and organisations. It also needs a new tacit
consensus based on a new set of social contracts. All actors first of all have to make
themselves as transparent and accountable as they claim state authorities, multinational
130
21
companies, global financial and trade institutions should be. They also have to develop a new
attitude and practice towards horizontal (civil lateral) systematic cooperation. During the past
50 years there were many forecasts, warnings, protests and one issue movements and
crossborder initiatives to discuss, influence and alter questions of public concern. These
initiatives (professional, intellectual or political) were largely ignored or quickly forgotten
partly because they hurt the interests of unaccountable global marketplayers, the mainstream
media and public authorities, and partly because of self-imposed isolation and narcissistic
ideological divisions and the shortsightedness of civil organisations, NGOs and social
movements. This attitude and non-cooperative behaviour might change for the positive as the
negative impacts of global challenges and crises continue to accumulate. There will be fewer
and fewer convincing and credible answers given by democratically elected governmnets for
solving them.
In a globalizing world of instant and constant communication the utilization of
collective synergies is better suited to meeting the challenges than individual visions and
pursuits. The acceptance of constant change and intransigence must replace the compulsive
desire for permanence, which is only illusionary in any case. New frameworks and strategies
need further development to assist the confrontation and management of complex and
interdependent crises in a coalition of stakeholders (governments, business and civil society).
Another path leading to changing norms is a fundamental restructuring of our
educational systems. We need holistic, inter-and transdisciplinary methods and interpretation
of the growing uncertainties, social, political and religious-cultural polarisation, ecological
catastrophies, unsustainability and amorality in the world today. We need a new appraoch to
science and research that is embedded in, speaks to and is relevant for societies, not isolated
in ivory towers of so-called objectivity. Compartmentalisation and fragmentation of
’knowledge’ into ’disciplines’ and higher education kept under the control of national
authorities fundamentally hinders the development of the much needed new knowledge that
might develop into collective wisdom that serves the future of all humankind. We need
completely new institutions with horizontal and open structures that can be called Future-
universities where the generation and accumulation of knowledge serves the interests of local,
regional and global societies, instead of irresponsible and uncontrolled global political and
market actors.
Integrative Cognitive Tools: Towards One-ness in Scientific Analysis
131
22
For many years, Immanuel Wallerstein has written about the two cultures of
scholarship, that is science and philosophy. The gulf between these two cultures of thought
was deliberate and a clear product of 19th century thinking. Science was assigned the task of
looking for truth; while philosphy and what become know more generally as the humanities
(history, and later economics, sociology, and political science) was positioned to search for
goodness. The progress of the last 200 years has tried to reunite the search for truth and the
search for goodness under the label of social science as it was established in the 19th century.
Wallerstein observes, that rather than reunifying these two cultures, social science has itself
been torn apart by the dissonance between the two searches.
Wallerstein recognizes two remarkable intellectual developments of the last two
decades that constitute something and perhaps provide evidence of a process of overcoming
the split of the two cultures, and in the terms of this study, point towards a movement of one-
ness in scientific analysis. The first is called complexity studies in the natural sciences,
examples of analysis found in this paper; and the other is called cultural studies in the
humanities. The reason complexity studies was given that name is because reality is complex.
It rejects the Newtonian science (found in Table 2) that assumed that there were simple
underlying formulas that explained everything.3 “Complexity studies argues, rather, that all
such formulae can at best be partial, and at most explain the past, never the future”
(Wallerstein 1997). The universe is filled with ever evolving structures which reach points at
which their equilibria can no longer be maintained and bifurcation takes place where new
paths are found and new orders established, but we never know in advance what these new
orders will be.
If physical scientists and mathematicians are now telling us that truth in their arena is
complex, indeterminate, and dependent on an arrow of time, what does that mean for
social scientists? For, it is clear that, of all systems in the universe, human social
systems are the most complex structures that exist, the ones with the briefest stable
equilibria, the ones with the most outside variables to take into account, the ones that
are most difficult to study (Wallerstein 1997).
Cultural studies do not study culture as such, but rather how, when and why they were
produced in the forms they were, and how they were and are received by others, and for what
3 “Einstein was unhappy that e=mc2 explained only half the universe. He was searching for
the unified field theory that would in an equally simple equation explain everything”
(Wallerstein 1997).
132
23
reasons. Thus, the study of cultural products has moved away from traditional humanities into
the realm of the social sciences and the explanation of reality as a constructed reality.
With the move of natural science towards social sciences via complexity studies, and
the move of humanities towards the social sciences via cultural studies, we are in the process
of overcoming the two cultures through the ’social scientization’ of knowledge that
recognizes reality as constructed. With this movement, we are in the process of overcoming
the artificial construction of hard and separate disciplines and are moving towards a
unification of scientific and human endeavor, overcoming 19th century constraints, and
providing the basis not only for holistic scientific enquiry, but for the basis of new,
regenerative educational models.
In academic scholarship (research as well as education), particularly in the social
sciences, there is an increasing recent tendency to try to bridge the fragmentary nature on
knowledge to create truly transdisciplinary methodologies. New methodology is needed that
is not tied to compartmentalized disciplinary categories that reflect and reproduce a
mechanistic world view. Knowledge produced through the cross-fertization of tools,
information and methodologies requires a new type of university that can aid in the
production of a complex understanding of contemporary global challenges.
In addition to Wallerstein, Christopher Chase Dunn (2005) and others repeatedly make
the plea for the necessity to transform the social sciences and make them more global or
cosmopolitan (Beck and Sznaider 2006). They convincingly argue that there is a necessity to
renew the dialogue within the social sciences between activism (as public sociology) and
scholarship (as professional scientific sociology). The two should not be thought of exclusive
realms in conflict with each other, but rather as realms that are complementary and are thus
equally necessary (Dunn 2005). Since “contemporary social change can only be
comprehended in its world historical context,” Dunn emphasizes the importance of taking a
more comprehensive, global (and less nation-based, reductive) perspective as it yields a
deeper and more accurate understanding of the larger processes of an emergent global system.
He develops a typology borrowed from Michael Burawoy (2005) – i.e., professional, critical,
policy, and public – that could be used to make the social sciences relevant, 4
applicable and
4 Burawoy’s typology is summarized by Ericson (2005: 365-366) as the following:
Professional knowledge refers to institutionally defined and regulated theories and
methods of sociology. Conceptual frameworks and methods are agreed upon. Scientific
knowledge “[produces] theories that correspond to the empirical world” (Burawoy 2005:
276). This he calls ‘mainstream sociology’ to differentiate it from critical sociology.
Critical sociology, on the other hand, “largely defines itself by its opposition to
133
24
accountable in describing today’s complex global realities like the crisis of and challenges to
neoliberalism and neoconservatism, and the dynamics of core and periphery. The
responsibility of a global public social science could be enormous in explaining global
historical processes to people while actively engaging with global civil society. Dunn
maintains that the institutional boundaries between contemporary social science disciplines
are “annoying obstacles” to a scientific understanding of social reality as well as politically.
Instead of abolishing the disciplines, however, he proposes a more effective transdisciplinary
approach for both professional and public sociologists, who know the basic theories and
methods of several social science disciplines.
He describes the following sub-fields for sociology as follows:
Global professional Social Science is a field that studies social realities on a global
scale incorporating the methodological tools and theoretical perspectives of various
social sciences.
Global Critical Social Science is a field that critiques, deconstructs and reformulates
important global social science concepts (e.g. globalization) and global institutions
and proposes critical ways of categorizing social forces, contradictions and
antagonisms in ways that are intended to be of use for transnational social movements
(e.g. Hardt and Negri 2004, Starr 2000).
Global Policy Social Science is responsible for formulating global policies that plan
ways and strategies to cope with global economic, social and political forces (e.g.
Global Policy Institutes).
Global Public Social Science comprises social scientists who use their research skills
and analytic abilities to address global civil society and also serve transnational social
movements (e.g. teaching and writing textbooks for students). Many universities have
professional (‘mainstream’) sociology’ (Burawoy 2005: 269–70). It is driven by normative
frameworks and broader moral issues.
Policy knowledge is in the service of a client who defines a problem and asks the
sociologist to help with solutions. It is judged by its practicality, effectiveness and usefulness
to the client in making policy interventions.
Public knowledge appeals to broader public audiences. The sociologist is a public
intellectual, communicating outside university contexts, especially in the media in public
debates and fora. This public knowledge, according to Burawoy, is based on a consensus
about the relevance between sociologists and the public.
While Burawoy acknowledges the overlap and interdependence among the types of
knowledge, this can be better expressed as ‘antagonistic interdependence’ and each type of
knowledge as relatively discrete.
134
25
established interdisciplinary undergraduate majors in global studies (e.g. University of
California at Santa Barbara, The Global Studies Association, UCR Institute for
Research on World-Systems, The Giordano Bruno GlobalShift University).
One of the drivers for a revolution in the social sciences and eduation is the
conceptualization of a Future University. A Future University needs to be different in
fundamental ways from today’s obsolete, out-of-touch, and petrified institutions. New
institions should be ’learning’ and not just teaching institutions where the co-creation of
knowledge is translated into programs that promote self-reflection and self-correction, in
systems, policies and societies. This way new knowledge hubs can steadily reconfigure their
own capacities to include new partners and methods to assess and address changing realities.
The social and natural sciences, as well as technical innovations, should also be
socially responsible. In the first place the question needs to be asked: does the research serve
the interests of societies and if so, in what ways will it be useful identifying and providing
relevant alternatives for the solution to problems. The Future University:
1) should not only be a teaching institution, but also a ‘learning institution’ that offers
space, infrastucture and connectedness for creation and co-creation. The co-created,
new knowledge produced and disseminated should be translated into developmental
programs. That way research is connected to practice directly contributing to social,
institutional and ecoonomic reforms and policies as well as to new, integrative and
complex regional and city development strategies;
2) should benchmark social responsibility. The recent global crisis brought to the surface
legitimacy questions caused by the lack of social reponsibility in scientific research.
Academia should become one of the strongest stakeholders in finding alternatives to
the negative spirals and destructive tendencies of globalization. Researchers of
humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and technical innovation should ask the
same questions before starting a new project: does our research and if so in what way,
contribute to finding the proper answers to increasingly intertwined, complex
problems and challenges;
3) should be built upon the principles and methodologies of inter- and transdiciplinarity.
Divided knowledge undermines the solidarity of humanity and impedes development
and achievement (UNESCO 2013). Complex problems caused by the pervasive global
transformation cannot be understood and therefore solved without a new complex and
135
26
holistic approach and methodology. New visions of sustainability will not be provided
by divisive and one-sided scientific paradigms. This presupposes a move from multi-
and interdisciplinarity towards transdisciplinary thinking and research;
4) should be open towards all of the decisive actors of the globalizing world such as
global and local market actors, including MNC-s and international financial institions,
representatives and experts from local via national to regional and global
governmental institutions, as well as towards representatives of civil society and all
forms of Media. The representatives of these seemingly separate but de facto in many
ways interconnected spheres should be active participants of the new process of
knowledge co-creation. An institutionalized dialogue among these artificially
separated spheres of production, reproduction and interpretation might pave the way
towards a new common language and vocabulary of the emerging global culture of
problem solving. Looking for solutions to common global problems such as
environmental crisis, poverty and growing social polarization needs the broadest
possible understanding, the details of which can only be provided by the broadest
spectrum of stakeholders. A conscious development – co-creation – of a new common
language might also be an inevitable precondition for new - global, regional and
local social contracts;
5) should be responsible for its own ‘human products’ – for that reason the walls and
boundaries between different levels of institutionalized learning and teaching should
be eliminated. This open and integrative nature of Future Universities would guarantee
the effective, rapid and broad new knowledge dissemination to the spheres of culture,
society, economy and politics. The broad, effective and rapid socialization of
knowledge, combined with guarantees of feedback mechanisms might be the base for
the co-creation of a new widom based society.
Concluding Remarks: Towards a New Global SOcial Contract
It will not be easy to bring down the mental, political, and physical walls of division
and separation and replace them with a holistic view and requisite behaviors. In our our
deeply divided world, the ideology and practice of ’absolute sovereignty’ and the security of
states (and not societies) still dominates the realm of politics. Democracy is restricted to
136
27
certain spheres of existence and human activities within the geographical units called nation
states. It does not exist in institutionalised forms on global or regional/transnational levels. In
political reality the idea of equal nation states as independent actors possessing the same
rights is overwritten by the rule created by the biggest and mightiest actors.
The cognitive sphere of this world is equally dominated by separation: knowledge
production and distribution is realized by so called ’disciplines’ which usually guarantee the
maintenance of a fragmented and one-sided academic picture of the world. This is why
mainstream social sciences or academia as such has little to nothing relevant to say about the
complexity, nature and potential impacts and consequences of damaging and intertwined
processes we usually call ’crisis’. In fact we are in the midst of a great global transformation
without adequate explanatory and intellectual tools. Nation state authorities are themselves
having trouble understanding the complexities of their own positions and potentials of both
conflict and cooperation. All these creates a dangerous and fragile Weltzustand in a world
without global leadership and well-functioning, accountable and predictable international
economic, financial, and political institutions. The world system is unbalanced and reached
the phase of bifurcation.
There are, however serious signs of fundamental change both in the functioning of the
world system and in the way of thinking about it and analyzing it. Since the breakout of the
global crisis in 2007, there is an identifiable new set of social and polical movements,
protests, networks and individual initiatives that are formulating the core of a democratic
global civil society. Revolutionary developments in ICT, the very new phenomena of social
media, gives space for entirely new versions of self-mobilization, expression and the sharing
of opinions and for transnational, regional or global deliberation. This new family of anti-
systemic players is not yet chrystallized but is gaining a new level of self-awareness, self-
understanding and self-confidence. Their criticism has reached the official sphere of
dominating institutions; their new vocabulary and narrative is more and more often echoed
from international institutions such as the IMF or the World Bank and their representatives. In
other words, we are witnessing a cognitive revolution whose outcome is yet unpredictable.
Powerholders and opinionmakers have an increasingly hard job to maintain the ideological,
intellectual and institutional pillars of the old world order. The new paradigm of a possibly
more democratic and just future world order can already be identified in the thinking,
behaviour, networking, and associations of the new players.
We can and should make efforts towards re-unifying or integrating artifically
separated elements of the whole (one-ness) in the different spheres at one and the same time:
137
28
In our cognitive sphere of existence representatives and believers of complex and integrated
thinking can pursue inter- and transdisciplinary research projects and re-configure existing
institutions such as universities and research institutes accordingly or simply create new ones
like the one we call the Future University. A new ethical base for social sciences is emerging
worldwide and has begun to seriously influence academic discourse within international
institutions such as UNESCO and the UN. For institutions under nationstate surveillance, a
breakthrough seems take longer and be more troublesome, but cracks can be identified in the
walls of old and obsolete knowledge factories as well. The need for new thinking and acting is
growing worldwide. The concept of the Future University could integrate the fragments of
these conscious or often unintended efforts of redefining the meaning and role of knowledge,
academic research and scientific innovation in our lives.
In the sphere of real politics and action the changes are more obvious and dramatic.
From the late 1970 s the world has wittnessed the emergence of new social movements, civil
society networks, protest and resistance against dictatorships and authoritarian rule. The new
way of thinking and strategy of civil society was based on nonviolence and open, rational, and
continous dialogue with authorities representing power systems. This new civil culture of self-
mobilization has reached a global dimension and global consciousness today. Strenghtening
networks of civil initiatives, movements and organizations can pursue public dialouge with
global players if they find the right strategies of cooperation and coalition building and
withold their narcissistic-individualistic attitudes. On the basis of this new thiniking and
acting, complex and global strategies can built which can result in a new socal contract on all
– global, regional and local – levels. This might lead us towards the notion of species
consciousness that binds us all together with the other life forms on the planet we share.
How we have used and abused the Earth’s physical resources in the pursuit of economic
performance and profit at the expense of ethical values and societal and environmental well-
being is the narrative of our societies that explains how we got to where we are today. We
need to re-engage with our capacity to wonder by intuiting the resonance of a world alive with
energy and a relentless spirit of creativity. A world of instant global communication, where
time and place are no longer central, is a world less suited to individual visionaries and more
to the synergy of collective action. The new narrative expalining who we are and why we are
here is in the making. It has been proposed that humanity is finally reaching the level of
concsiousness. Scientists are studying the effects of our combined consciousness in, for
example, the Global Consciousness Project. They say that “Large scale group consciousness
has effects in the physical world. Knowing this, we can intentionally work toward a brighter,
138
29
more conscious future”. The construction of a new narrative to take us into the future requires
the input of each of us, and the time for action is now.
139
30
Bibliography
Balibar, Étienne (2005). “Europe is a Dead Political Project”. In The Guardian. May 25,
2010. Available online at
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/25/eu-crisis-catastrophic-
consequences
Barret, William (1978). The Illusion of Technique. New York: Anchor Books.
Beck, Ulrich and Sznaider, Natan (2006). „UNpacking Cosmopolitanism for the Social
Sciences: A Research Agenda”. In The British Journal of Sociology. 57(1): 1-23.
Bello, W. (2004). Deglobalization. Ideas for a New World Economy. Cox and Wyman.
Bateson, Gregory (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bohm, David (2002). Wholeness and Implicate Order. New York: Routledge.
Brown, Garrett Wallace, and David Held, eds. (2010). The Cosmopolitan Reader. Malden,
Mass.: Polity Press.
Brundtland Report (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew (16 December 2008). The Global Political Awakening. The New York
Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-
YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew (2009). “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President,”
International Affairs 85: 1.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew (2005) “The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign”. The American Interest
Magazine (Autumn).http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=56.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew (23 April 2010). America’s Geopolitical Dilemmas. Speech at the
Canadian International Council and Montreal Council on Foreign Relations.
http://www.onlinecic.org/resourcece/multimedia/americasgeopoliticaldilemmas.
Burawoy, M. (2005). “For Public Sociology.” British Journal of Sociology 56(2): 259–94
Bunting, Madeleine (2008). "Faith, Belief, Trust: This economic orthodoxy was built on
superstition.” The Guardian (6 October).
Cahn, Edgar (2013). “Empathy, democracy and the economy,”
http://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/edgar-cahn/empathy-democracy-and-
economy
Capra, Fritjof (1975). The Tao of Physics: An Explorationof the Parallels between Modern
Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Boston: Shambhala Publications.
140
31
Capra, Fritjof (1982). The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Capra, Fritjof (1997). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems.
New York: Anchor Books.
Chopra, Deepak (1990). Quantum Healing. New York: Bantam.
Declaration of the Occupation of New York City (2011 September 29). www.nycga.net/-
resources/declaration.
The Economist (28 December 2009). “Global Tinderbox.”
http://www.economist.com/node/15098974.
The Economist (18 November 2013). “Ripe for Rebellion?”
http://www.economist.com/news/21589143-where-protest-likeliest-break-out-ripe-
rebellion
deAngelis, Tori (2004). “Consumerism and its discontents,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 35, No. 6 (June). http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/discontents.aspx.
Diamond,Jared (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New York:
Penguin.
Dunn, Christopher Chase: “Global Public Social Science”. In American Sociologist, 2005,
36(3-4):121-132.
Ericson, Richard (2005). “Publicizing Sociology.” The British Journal of Sociology 56, No. 3,
365-372.
Falk, Richard (2013). “Living Together on the Planet, ” unpublished paper from the First
European Blue Sky Conference: Landscape of Crisis – or a New Age of Uncertainty? 7-9
November, Budapest.
Friedman,Thomas L. (2009). "The Inflection Is Near?” New York Times (7 March 2009).
Gilding, Paul (2011). The Great Disruption, New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Gill, S. (2000): Globalization, Democratization, and the Politics of Indifference. In:
Mittleman, J. H., ed. Globalization Critical Reflections. Lynne Rienner Press, 205–229.
Graber, David (2009). “Tactical Briefing.” Adbusters (10 February).
Habermas, Jürgen (2012). The Crisis of the European Union. Cambridge: Polity.
Hardt, Michael – and Negri, Antonio (2004). Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of
Empire. London: Penguin Books.
Held, D. – McGrew, A., eds. (2002). Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global
Governance. Cambridge: Polity.
141
32
Holland, S. (2015). Europe in Question – and what to do About it. Nottingham: Spokesman.
Holton, Robert (2012). "Culture, Politics, and the Global Financial Crisis,” The European
Financial Review (20 October).
Homer-Dixon, Thomas (2000). The Ingenuity Gap: How can we solve the problems of the
future? New York: First Vintage Books.
Homer-Dixon, Thomas (2006). The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, creativity, and the renewal
of civilization. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
International Labour Organization. (2011). World of Work Report 2011. Geneva: ILO.
Jensen, Jody (2010). Globalizing Governance in a Multi-Stakeholder World. Saarbrucken:
Lambert Academic Publishing.
Jensen, J. – Miszlivetz, F. eds. (2015). Reframing Europe’s Future. Challenges and Failures
of the European Construction. London – New York: Routledge.
Jensen, J. – Miszlivetz, F. (2006). “The Second Renaissance of Civil Society in East Central
Europe – and in the European Union”. In Wagner, P. ed. Languages of Civil Society.
New York – Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Jensen, J. – Miszlivetz, F. eds. Global Challenges – European and Local Answers. The Rise
of Glocality in Europe. Szombathely: Savaria University Press.
Jolly, Richard, et.al. (2012). Be Outraged: There Are Alternatives. London: Oxfam.
Kaldor, Mary– Selchow, Sabine– Moore, Henrietta L., eds (2012). Global Civil Society 2012:
Ten Years of Critical Reflection. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaldor, Mary, David Held, Danny Quah (2010). “The Hydra-headed Crisis,” Global Policy
(February).
Kaldor, Mary, Sabine Selchow, Sean Deel, Tamsin Murray-Leach (2012). The Bubbling-up of
Subterranean Politics
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/44873/1/The%20%E2%80%98bubbling%20up%E2%80%99%2
0of%20subterranean%20politics%20in%20Europe%28lsero%29.pdf.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1966). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edition.
Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
László, Ervin (2001). Macroshift. Navigating the Transformation to a Sustainable World. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
László, Ervin (2008). Quantum Shift in the Global Brain: How the New Scientific Reality can
Change Us and the World. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.
142
33
László, Ervin (2009). World Shift 2012: Making Green Business New Politics and Higher
Consciousness Work Together. McArthur and Company.
Lodhi,Maleeha (2012). “A World in Transition,” Khaleej Times (21 November).
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-
1.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2012/November/opinion_November52.xml§ion=opinion
Love, M. C. (2003). Beyond Sovereignty. Issues for a Global Agenda. Thompson.
Lundberg, M. – Squire, L. (2003). The Simultaneous Evolution of Growth and Inequality.
Economic Journal, 113 (487): 326–344.
Marshall, Andrew Gavin (2013). World of Resistance Report.
http://www.occupy.com/article/world-resistance-report-imf-world-bank-giant-
consultants-admit-storm-coming
Milanovic, B. (2005). Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality.
Princeton University Press.
Miszlivetz, F. (2012). “The Multiple Crisis of Europe”. In Bekemans, L. ed. A Value-Driven
European Future. Brussels - Bern - Berlin: Peter Lang.
Miszlivetz, F. (2013). “The Future of Europe: or how to Burst the Bubbles Around our
Heads?” in Open Democracy. March 22, 2013. Available online at:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ferenc-miszlivetz/future-of-europe-or-how-to-burst-bubbles-
around-our-heads
Miszlivetz, F. – Jensen, J. (2013). “Global Crises and Democratic Challanges for Europe and
the World”. In Jensen, J. – Miszlivetz, F. eds. Global Challenges – European and Local
Answers. The Rise of Glocality in Europe. Szombathely: Savaria University Press.
Miszlivetz, F. – Kaldor, M. (1985, 2009). “Civilizational Crisis”. In IDS Bulletin. 16(1): 56-
61.
Monbiot,George (2008). “This is What Denial Does,” The Guardian (14 October).
http://www.monbiot.com/2008/10/14/this-is-what-denial-does/.
OECD (2000). The OECD Guidelin4s for Multinational Enterprises. www.oecd.org.
OECD (9 December 2014). Trends in Income Inequality and its Impact on Economic Growth.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/trends-in-income-
inequality-and-its-impact-on-economic-growth_5jxrjncwxv6j-en.
Ortiz, Isabel–Burke, Sara–Berrada, Mohamed– Cortez, Hernán (September 2013). World
Protests 2006-2012. New York: Institute for Policy Dialogue, Columbia University;
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Oxfam (2014). Even it Up: Time to end extreme inequality. http://policy-
practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/even-it-up-time-to-end-extreme-inequality-333012.
143
34
Pianta, M. & Marchetti, R. (2007). “Global justice movements. The transnational
dimension”, in: D. della Porta, ed. The Global Justice Movements. A Cross-National and
Transnational Perspective, Boulder: Paradigm, pp. 29–51.
Ray, Paul H. – Anderson, Sherry Ruth (2000). Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million
People are Changing the World. New York: Three Rivers Press.
The Rise of the Innerpreneur. Available online at
www.elasticmind.ca/innerpreneur/index.php/cultural-creativity/
Rozak, Theodorer (1978). The Creative Distintegration of Industrial Society. New York:
Doubleday & Company.
Ruggie, J. G. (2001). "Global-Governance Net: The Global Compact as Learning Network”.
Global Governance, 7(4): 371–378.
Russell, Peter (1983). The Global Brain. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
Sakamoto, Y., ed. (1994). Global Transformation: Challenges to the State System. United
Nations University Press.
Saul, J. R. (2005). The Collapse of Globalism. Atlantic Books.
Shacker, Michael (2013). Global Awakening, New Science and the 21st Century
Enlightenment. Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press.
Scholte, J. A. (2003). "Governing Global Finance”. In: Held, D. – McGrew, A. (eds):
Governing Globalization. Polity, 189–208.
Starr, Armory (2000). Naming the Enemy: Anti-corporate Movements Confront
Globalization. London: Zed Books.
Stiglitz, Joseph (2010). Freefall. New York: W.W. Norton.
Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its Discontents. Penguin Books.
Szentes, Tamás (2013). “Global Crisis: Is the Keynesian Recipe Relevant if Applied Under a
Global Governance? (Some revisited issues)” In Jensen, J. – Miszlivetz, F. eds. Global
Challenges – European and Local Answers. The Rise of Glocality in Europe.
Szombathely: Savaria University Press.
Turner, Graham Turner (2007). A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of
Reality, CSIRO.
UNESCO. World Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments. Paris: UNESCO,
OECD joint publication.
Vitali, Stefania, Glattfelder, James B., Battiston, Stefano (19 September 2011). The Network
of Global Corporate Control. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.5728.pdf
144
35
Wagner, P. ed. Languages of Civil Society. New York – Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Wallerstein, Immanuel (2008). “Remembering Andre Gunder Frank While Thinking About
the Future”. In Monthly Review. 60(2), available online at
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/06/01/remembering-andre-gunder-frank-while-thinking-
about-the-future/
Wallerstein, Immanuel (1997). Social Science and the Quest for the Just Society.
http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/archive/iwquest.htm, first published in American
Journal of Sociology, CII 5, March 1997.
145
