[Advisors] Let community re-think community
James Van Leeuwen
jvl at ventus.ca
Sat, 5 May 2012 01:19:52 -0600
--Apple-Mail=_E6C95DE5-145F-4CE9-AF1D-1437D30F4BEE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
Garth asks:
What kind of a society do we want? =20
I think the very essence of the challenge we Canadians face today is =
that we have so many conflicting visions of what we want our society to =
look like.
Some want the future to look more like the past; e.g., the Conservatives =
want to take us back to the Diefenbaker era, before the great cultural =
disruptions of the 60s and 70s.=20
Others want our society to look more like whatever distant society they =
came from, with similar moral rules and social conventions.
Progressives want a society that is genuinely responsible in relation to =
social, environmental and economic welfare.
Responsibility... will this sell to a generation whose common aspiration =
(apparently) was to be carefree?=20
(Boomers)
Where is the common ground?
What we lack is sufficient moral capital to bind the nation into a =
common and cohesive society with a meaningful purpose and a coherent =
vision for itself.
Our moral landscape is more complex, chaotic and fragmented than it has =
ever been.=20
A direct outcome is that we are bringing ourselves low... probably lower =
than we have ever been in the eyes of history and the rest of the world.=20=
We used to be renowned and respected for brokering and keeping peace =
between nations.=20
Now we've become a small-time global enforcer, renowned and respected =
for producing raw resources and elite hockey players.
We need a fresh idea of ourselves, something we can build an exciting =
and engaging cultural and historical narrative around.
Beyond the hockey arena, how can we lead the world in the 21st century?
What kind of leadership is most needed in the 21st century?
What do we want to be respected for?
In the words of the Aga Khan, we are the world's most successful plural =
society... something else we've become renowned and respected for.=20
Social and cultural inclusion have been the foundations of this success, =
but these foundations are under attack.=20
Conservatives would love to replace our plurality with a melting pot =
that casts all Canadians in their own image, morally speaking.
I can certainly understand why, because there is no question that =
plurality has eroded our moral capital and our cohesiveness as a nation.
Morally speaking, almost anything goes in Canada.
Progressives have yet to define a new morality and emergent narrative =
that effectively binds our plurality into a whole society that is =
greater than the sum of its many parts.
By default, the Conservatives want to go back to the same binding moral =
narrative that prevailed up until half a century ago.=20
So we're back to the Royal Canadian Armed Forces, for starters.=20
Broadly speaking, the Conservatives want to enforce (yes, enforce) a =
moral agenda of their own design.
Their entire political franchise rests on two policy pillars - low taxes =
and tough on crime - and every day they are working to add or strengthen =
pillars that build on their moral foundation.
They have never made this moral foundation explicitly clear to us, =
because it would compel most of us to vote against them.
We don't like anyone legislating our morality, and the recent Alberta =
election offered a rather sobering example of this.=20
The Wildrose Party carelessly exposed too much of its small-minded moral =
vision, and Albertans turned out to vote against them (not enough in my =
riding, unfortunately).
The small-minded moral vision that underpins our current federal =
governance is a throwback to half a century ago.=20
While romantically nostalgic, it is practically devoid of imagination =
and sadly irrelevant to the issues and realities of the 21st century.
We are stuck with this vision and narrative until we come up with =
something better, and this is the critical task at hand.
Without an appealing new moral vision and narrative to bind us together, =
collaboration and cooperation across groups will be next to impossible.
I believe this is where we'll need to start in Canada if we are to =
realize the immense potential of ICT for human development.
JvL
On 2012-05-04, at 6:53 PM, Garth Graham wrote:
> The alternative to second-guessing the direction of the federal =
government is to begin by thinking though what we ourselves see as TC=92s =
role now. Yes, TC has always said that local business development is =
key component of community-based socio-economic development and =
political change in a digital society. But it is only one component of =
many. To use a double negative, I don=92t disagree with James and =
Michael. But I think TC=92s mandate goes broader than what they have =
addressed.
>=20
> Having said earlier, =93So play where the puck is,=94 on 2012-04-07, =
at 11:44 AM, James Van Leeuwen wrote:
>> The Conservatives have indicated interest if there is a new champion =
and a new plan (i.e., no connection back to the Libs). =85The plan will =
have to revolve around economic development.
>=20
> On 2012-04-25, at 9:26 PM, James Van Leeuwen wrote:
>> If small business development is where the $$ are, how can we be =
about small business development? =85 At risk of stating the obvious, =
the present political climate doesn't lend itself to initiatives rooted =
in social justice and inclusion. =85 The federal government is going in =
the opposite direction.
>=20
> On 2012-04-10, at 3:34 PM, Michael Corbett wrote:
>> =85. I wholeheartedly agree with both James and Marie=85.A new plan =
and program is needed that has some social aspects to it but focuses =
around economic development=85. As James pointed out it has to have no =
connection to the Liberals and needs to show ROI and not just social =
infrastructure.
>=20
> On 2012-04-26, at 11:10 AM, Michael Corbett wrote:
>> The new parameters that must be included are those that the =
government will feel comfortable recognizing as important, critical, =
deliverable and will generate votes. =85. The new CAP must show how it =
contributes directly currently and in the short term to the economy, How =
it is part of the solution and can supply some of the tools for growth =
and broaden the economic base at the community and regional and =
territorial/provincial and national levels. Economies of scale. And, as =
was said during the call yesterday, having some private sector partners =
is always advantageous. =85 James is right on below - its about jobs, =
the economy, and growth.
>=20
> Ever since the abandonment of =93Connecting Canadians=94 by the Martin =
Government, the approach to telecommunications policy of both the =
liberals and conservatives has been =93market-based.=94 That is to say =
they abandoned responsibility to regulate the uses of ICTs for =
development in favour of the incumbent telecommunications carriers. =
Nothing in the draft or discussion of the =93digital economy strategy=94 =
has suggested this will change. Since we=92ve always known that =
incumbent telecommunications carriers don=92t do economic development, =
common sense has warned us that a market-based policy was always going =
to be a dead-end. What then would be our intention in telling the =
federal government what they want to hear? Our entire history has been =
taken up by telling them exactly what they don't want to hear!
>=20
> The Mission Statement that prefaces TC=92s website states:
>> =95 To ensure that all Canadians are able to participate in =
community-based communications and electronic information services by =
promoting and supporting local community network initiatives.
>> =95 To represent and promote the Canadian community networking =
movement at the national and international level.
>=20
> TC was and remains community-based and focused, not market-based or =
federally focused. Now we are in no danger of committing the sin of =
biting the hand that feeds us, since we aren=92t being fed. That=92s =
good news, because it frees us to get back to first principles. We do =
not exist to act as an agent for the implementation of federal policy, =
although we do have a responsibility and mandate to state what good =
policy might be.=20
>=20
> Here is one of best and most succinct statements of what that mandate =
means to us and of what it means to be grounded in community in the =
Internet Age:
>> Beyond the Information Society: Enabling Communities to Create the =
World We Want.
>> http://www.tc.ca/TCWSIS_flyer_e_low.pdf
>=20
> I think we need to be asking ourselves, how has that changed, or has =
it? If it hasn=92t, then what do we need to do or say that puts =
community at the center of any current articulation of our strategy? =
We also need to be asking ourselves, how are we doing with acting on =
that statement, and what should we do differently now to be more =
effective?
>=20
> By focusing on =93playing where the puck is,=94 I believe that James =
and Michael are pointing to tactics, not strategy. As long as the =
objectives we have set for ourselves, in support of the central and very =
much changed role of community in digital society, are both clear and =
clearly grounded in voices that emerge from community, I see no harm in =
a tactical component of a strategy=92s action plan that looks at the =
role of governments. But the position I take on that role in my own =
work is that the actions of states that are being transformed against =
their will into informational states are mostly attempts to avoid =
alternative modes of governance that are replacing them. If it=92s =
broke, then we have to fix it ourselves.
>=20
> One major next step is thinking through the PROCESS of strategy =
formulation. Here=92s a neat cautionary note on how NOT to do it!
>> Why Innovation Dies:
>> http://steveblank.com/2012/05/01/why-innovation-dies/
>=20
> Here=92s a note on what to do, even if the how still needs a lot of =
work:
>> =93The future is completely in motion=97it isn't this fixed point out =
there that we're all sort of running for and can't do anything about. =
The future is made every day by the actions of people. Because of that, =
people need to be active participants in that future. The biggest way =
you can affect the future is to talk about it with your family, your =
friends, your government.=94 Brian David Johnson, Futurist, Intel =
Corporation, quoted in: Larry Greenemeier. Professional Seer. Scientific =
American, May 2012. 80-83.
>=20
> Here=92s some thoughts on what to keep in mind in talking about that =
future:
> 1. All adaptation to digital society is local
>=20
> 2. Adaption to anything gets harder when the focal points of attention =
are uncertain and complex.
>=20
> 3. Now well into that digital society, most communities no longer have =
a clear picture of what focuses a community's attention and thus what =
attractors affect its self-organization and definition.
>=20
> 4. Yet there are communities of practice encompassing the stewards of =
community-based uses of ICTs for development that have a very clear =
picture of what focuses the attention of community in a digital society.
>=20
> 5. Rule one of community development has always been and still remains =
- people want to talk. Let them.
>=20
> On 2012-04-25, at 1:36 PM, James Van Leeuwen wrote:
>> Where to Start: Posing the Right Question
>> For the purpose of ultimately defining clear and meaningful shared =
objectives and an effective strategy for achieving them, we need a =
single question that will lead directly to a clear delineation and =
articulation of moral common ground, and a shared framework of values =
that facilitates coherent and constructive deliberation and discourse. =
=85.Here is my best shot at it:
>>=20
>> How do we deploy and employ ICT to best enable protection and =
creation of genuine wealth for present and future generations?
>>=20
>> The objective is to clearly define a HOW that best enables us to =
function as communities and societies in realizing the immense potential =
of ICT for human development.=20
>=20
> But!!! If that=92s the objective, then why not turn that into the =
question, instead of tugging our forelock in the direction of the feds =
and focusing the content of discussion towards wealth? In as many =
different forums as possible, simply ask:
>=20
> What kind of a society do we want? What best enables us to function =
as communities and societies in realizing the immense potential of ICTs =
for human development?
>=20
> GG
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Advisors mailing list
> Advisors@tc.ca
> http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/advisors
--Apple-Mail=_E6C95DE5-145F-4CE9-AF1D-1437D30F4BEE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=windows-1252
<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><div><div>Garth asks:</div></div><div><br></div><div>What kind of a =
society do we want? </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I =
think the very essence of the challenge we Canadians face today is that =
we have so many conflicting visions of what we want our society to look =
like.</div><div><br></div><div>Some want the future to look more like =
the past; e.g., the Conservatives want to take us back to the =
Diefenbaker era, before the great cultural disruptions of the 60s and =
70s. </div><div><br></div><div>Others want our society to look more =
like whatever distant society they came from, with similar moral rules =
and social conventions.</div><div><br></div><div>Progressives want a =
society that is genuinely responsible in relation to social, =
environmental and economic =
welfare.</div><div><br></div><div>Responsibility... will this sell to a =
generation whose common aspiration (apparently) was to be =
carefree? </div><div><br></div><div>(Boomers)</div><div><br></div><di=
v><div>Where is the common =
ground?</div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>What we lack is =
sufficient <b><i>moral</i></b> capital to bind the nation into a =
common and cohesive society with a meaningful purpose and a coherent =
vision for itself.</div><div><br></div><div>Our moral landscape is more =
complex, chaotic and fragmented than it has ever =
been. </div><div><br></div><div>A direct outcome is that we are =
bringing ourselves low... probably lower than we have ever been in the =
eyes of history and the rest of the =
world. </div><div><br></div><div>We used to be renowned and =
respected for brokering and keeping peace between =
nations. </div><div><div><div><br></div><div>Now we've become a =
small-time global enforcer, renowned and respected for producing =
raw resources and elite hockey =
players.</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>We need a =
fresh idea of ourselves, something we can build an exciting =
and engaging cultural and historical narrative =
around.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Beyond the hockey arena, how can =
we lead the world in the 21st century?</div><div><br></div><div>What =
kind of leadership is most needed in the 21st =
century?</div><div><br></div><div><b><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
size=3D"4">What do we want to be respected =
for?</font></b></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>In the words of =
the Aga Khan, we are the world's most successful plural =
society... something else we've become renowned and respected =
for. </div><div><br></div><div>Social and cultural inclusion have =
been the foundations of this success, but these foundations are under =
attack. </div><div><br></div><div>Conservatives would love to =
replace our plurality with a melting pot that casts all Canadians in =
their own image, morally speaking.</div><div><br></div><div>I can =
certainly understand why, because there is no question that plurality =
has eroded our moral capital and our cohesiveness as a =
nation.</div><div><br></div><div>Morally speaking, almost anything goes =
in Canada.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Progressives have yet =
to define a new morality and emergent narrative that effectively binds =
our plurality into a whole society that is greater than the sum of its =
many parts.</div><div><br></div><div>By default, the Conservatives want =
to go back to the same binding moral narrative that prevailed up until =
half a century ago. </div><div><br></div><div>So we're back to the =
<b><i>Royal</i></b> Canadian Armed Forces, for =
starters. </div><div><br></div><div>Broadly speaking, the =
Conservatives want to enforce (yes, enforce) a moral agenda of their own =
design.</div><div><br></div><div>Their entire political franchise rests =
on two policy pillars - low taxes and tough on crime - and every =
day they are working to add or strengthen pillars that build on their =
moral foundation.</div><div><br></div><div>They have never made this =
moral foundation explicitly clear to us, because it would compel most of =
us to vote against them.</div><div><br></div><div>We don't like anyone =
legislating our morality, and the recent Alberta election offered a =
rather sobering example of this. </div><div><br></div><div>The =
Wildrose Party carelessly exposed too much of its small-minded moral =
vision, and Albertans turned out to vote against them (not enough in my =
riding, unfortunately).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The =
small-minded moral vision that underpins our current federal governance =
is a throwback to half a century =
ago. </div><div><br></div><div>While romantically nostalgic, it is =
practically devoid of imagination and sadly irrelevant to the issues and =
realities of the 21st century.</div><div><br></div><div>We are stuck =
with this vision and narrative until we come up with something better, =
and this is the critical task at =
hand.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Without an appealing new =
moral vision and narrative to bind us together, collaboration and =
cooperation across groups will be next to =
impossible.</div><div><br></div><div>I believe this is where we'll need =
to start in Canada if we are to realize the immense potential of ICT for =
human =
development.</div><div><br></div><div>JvL</div><div><br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On 2012-05-04, at 6:53 =
PM, Garth Graham wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>The =
alternative to second-guessing the direction of the federal government =
is to begin by thinking though what we ourselves see as TC=92s role now. =
Yes, TC has always said that local business development is key =
component of community-based socio-economic development and political =
change in a digital society. But it is only one component of many. =
To use a double negative, I don=92t disagree with James and =
Michael. But I think TC=92s mandate goes broader than what they =
have addressed.<br><br>Having said earlier, =93So play where the puck =
is,=94 on 2012-04-07, at 11:44 AM, James Van Leeuwen =
wrote:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">The Conservatives have indicated =
interest if there is a new champion and a new plan (i.e., no connection =
back to the Libs). =85The plan will have to revolve around economic =
development.<br></blockquote><br>On 2012-04-25, at 9:26 PM, James Van =
Leeuwen wrote:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">If small business =
development is where the $$ are, how can we be about small business =
development? =85 At risk of stating the obvious, the present political =
climate doesn't lend itself to initiatives rooted in social justice and =
inclusion. =85 The federal government is going in the opposite =
direction.<br></blockquote><br>On 2012-04-10, at 3:34 PM, Michael =
Corbett wrote:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">=85. I wholeheartedly agree =
with both James and Marie=85.A new plan and program is needed that has =
some social aspects to it but focuses around economic development=85. As =
James pointed out it has to have no connection to the Liberals and needs =
to show ROI and not just social infrastructure.<br></blockquote><br>On =
2012-04-26, at 11:10 AM, Michael Corbett wrote:<br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">The new parameters that must be included are those that =
the government will feel comfortable recognizing as important, critical, =
deliverable and will generate votes. =85. The new CAP must show how it =
contributes directly currently and in the short term to the economy, How =
it is part of the solution and can supply some of the tools for growth =
and broaden the economic base at the community and regional and =
territorial/provincial and national levels. Economies of scale. And, as =
was said during the call yesterday, having some private sector partners =
is always advantageous. =85 James is right on below - its about jobs, =
the economy, and growth.<br></blockquote><br>Ever since the abandonment =
of =93Connecting Canadians=94 by the Martin Government, the approach to =
telecommunications policy of both the liberals and conservatives has =
been =93market-based.=94 That is to say they abandoned =
responsibility to regulate the uses of ICTs for development in favour of =
the incumbent telecommunications carriers. Nothing in the draft or =
discussion of the =93digital economy strategy=94 has suggested this will =
change. Since we=92ve always known that incumbent telecommunications =
carriers don=92t do economic development, common sense has warned us =
that a market-based policy was always going to be a dead-end. What =
then would be our intention in telling the federal government what they =
want to hear? Our entire history has been taken up by telling them =
exactly what they don't want to hear!<br><br>The Mission Statement that =
prefaces TC=92s website states:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">=95 =
To ensure that all Canadians are able to participate =
in community-based communications and electronic information services by =
promoting and supporting local community network =
initiatives.<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">=95 =
To represent and promote the Canadian community =
networking movement at the national and international =
level.<br></blockquote><br>TC was and remains community-based and =
focused, not market-based or federally focused. Now we are in no =
danger of committing the sin of biting the hand that feeds us, since we =
aren=92t being fed. That=92s good news, because it frees us to get back =
to first principles. We do not exist to act as an agent for the =
implementation of federal policy, although we do have a responsibility =
and mandate to state what good policy might be. <br><br>Here is one of =
best and most succinct statements of what that mandate means to us and =
of what it means to be grounded in community in the Internet =
Age:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">Beyond the Information Society: =
Enabling Communities to Create the World We =
Want.<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><a =
href=3D"http://www.tc.ca/TCWSIS_flyer_e_low.pdf">http://www.tc.ca/TCWSIS_f=
lyer_e_low.pdf</a><br></blockquote><br>I think we need to be asking =
ourselves, how has that changed, or has it? If it hasn=92t, then =
what do we need to do or say that puts community at the center of any =
current articulation of our strategy? We also need to be =
asking ourselves, how are we doing with acting on that statement, and =
what should we do differently now to be more effective?<br><br>By =
focusing on =93playing where the puck is,=94 I believe that James and =
Michael are pointing to tactics, not strategy. As long as the =
objectives we have set for ourselves, in support of the central and very =
much changed role of community in digital society, are both clear and =
clearly grounded in voices that emerge from community, I see no harm in =
a tactical component of a strategy=92s action plan that looks at the =
role of governments. But the position I take on that role in my =
own work is that the actions of states that are being transformed =
against their will into informational states are mostly attempts to =
avoid alternative modes of governance that are replacing them. If =
it=92s broke, then we have to fix it ourselves.<br><br>One major next =
step is thinking through the PROCESS of strategy formulation. =
Here=92s a neat cautionary note on how NOT to do =
it!<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">Why Innovation =
Dies:<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><a =
href=3D"http://steveblank.com/2012/05/01/why-innovation-dies/">http://stev=
eblank.com/2012/05/01/why-innovation-dies/</a><br></blockquote><br>Here=92=
s a note on what to do, even if the how still needs a lot of =
work:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">=93The future is completely in =
motion=97it isn't this fixed point out there that we're all sort of =
running for and can't do anything about. The future is made every day by =
the actions of people. Because of that, people need to be active =
participants in that future. The biggest way you can affect the future =
is to talk about it with your family, your friends, your government.=94 =
Brian David Johnson, Futurist, Intel Corporation, quoted in: =
Larry Greenemeier. Professional Seer. Scientific American, May 2012. =
80-83.<br></blockquote><br>Here=92s some thoughts on what to keep in =
mind in talking about that future:<br>1. All adaptation to digital =
society is local<br><br>2. Adaption to anything gets harder when the =
focal points of attention are uncertain and complex.<br><br>3. Now well =
into that digital society, most communities no longer have a clear =
picture of what focuses a community's attention and thus what attractors =
affect its self-organization and definition.<br><br>4. Yet there are =
communities of practice encompassing the stewards of community-based =
uses of ICTs for development that have a very clear picture of what =
focuses the attention of community in a digital society.<br><br>5. Rule =
one of community development has always been and still remains - people =
want to talk. Let them.<br><br>On 2012-04-25, at 1:36 PM, James =
Van Leeuwen wrote:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite">Where to Start: Posing =
the Right Question<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">For the =
purpose of ultimately defining clear and meaningful shared objectives =
and an effective strategy for achieving them, we need a single question =
that will lead directly to a clear delineation and articulation of moral =
common ground, and a shared framework of values that facilitates =
coherent and constructive deliberation and discourse. =85.Here is my =
best shot at it:<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">How do we =
deploy and employ ICT to best enable protection and creation of genuine =
wealth for present and future generations?<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">The objective =
is to clearly define a HOW that best enables us to function as =
communities and societies in realizing the immense potential of ICT for =
human development. <br></blockquote><br>But!!! If that=92s the =
objective, then why not turn that into the question, instead of tugging =
our forelock in the direction of the feds and focusing the content of =
discussion towards wealth? In as many different forums as =
possible, simply ask:<br><br>What kind of a society do we want? =
What best enables us to function as communities and societies in =
realizing the immense potential of ICTs for human =
development?<br><br>GG<br><br><br> =
_______________________________________________<br>Advisors mailing =
list<br><a =
href=3D"mailto:Advisors@tc.ca">Advisors@tc.ca</a><br>http://victoria.tc.ca=
/mailman/listinfo/advisors<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_E6C95DE5-145F-4CE9-AF1D-1437D30F4BEE--