a few weeks ago at a big talk (an anti-small talk dinner group - link forthcoming), i was introduced to the overton window.Ā
in short, the window is a tool of analysis that was created to make clear how viable a policy was. in any particular context, ideas closer to the center of the window were more viable as policy. the further one gets from the center of the window, the less politically viable a policy is.
while a useful framework on its own, the overton window makes me think about lots of other things.
the window obviously excludes the radical and unthinkable. however, over time, what’s radical and unthinkable shifts. for example, in america, the idea that black people could marry white people or that two same-sex people could marry each other, were both previously untenable. however, now both of those things are federally legal and acceptable.
so then i ask, how does something move from unthinkable, to radical, to acceptable on and on until it becomes palatable and acceptable policy?
people need to be able to imagine the unthinkable. and how to they imagine the unthinkable? someone needs to make it real.
there is wehre i think imagination comes in. #the4thbox is a project cooked up earlier this year by some friends and i and it was designed to do just that: help people imagine an alternate reality.
but beyond just supporting people to imagine these other realities, i think the role of change makers (organizers included) is to create actual visions of other realities.
this is the type of social change work i’m the most excited about it and drawn to. yes, tearing down old, oppressive systems is critical. AND. without knowing where else to go, it’s really hard for people to unplug from the systems that support them (oppressors and oppressees alike). this is what i think i’m committing myself to and i’m pretty excited about it.
the part of the conversation that has stuck with me is this question: does capitalism, in the long-run, result in the spreading of liberal values (equality and justice, in all of their forms)?
i know up front that probably sounds weird, especially for anti-capitalists (myself included). but the logic discussed in the episode actually did make me think for bit.
basically, the argument went like this: in the short-run, industrial capitalism produces incredible amounts of stuff which people use to improve their quality of life. food, energy, water, and shelter is able to be provided for a huge number of people with much less resource.
now, much of the systems that produce the goods are terrible destructive and extractive. however, this increased quality of life allows people, usually over multiple generations, to understand the impact of their systems of production. this creates subsequent generations of people who are concerned with issues like this. this is the process of moving upwards on maslow’s hierarchy. then, based on the material gains and lessons learned from earlier systems of production, the later generations turn those destructive systems into regenerative systems.
of course, one counter-argument is that the pathway to produce the things required for such a high standard of living is more destructive than the planet or its inhabitants (of which humans are just one species) can handle.
the environmental destruction that has resulted in the climate warning has already (directly or indirectly) destroyed many species. Ā industrial capitalism also seems to result in the personal and spiritual destruction of many, many people along the way.
of course, the way industrial capitalism rolled out in the west was very much predicated on oppression (largely sexism, racism, and colonialism), but i wonder if industrialization would have happened in the same way (or would i have happened at all?) if all people had always been seen as equals with no one being disposable.
i’m definitely over time for today, but i do wonder if humans can turn this ship around fast enough to keep ourselves alive.
the globally wealthy consume less by substituting consumption for meaning
another part of the conversation i had last night with two friends, annemarie and louise (which also spawned this post) was about my strategy for social change (but also climate change and everything else).
right now, it’s pretty obvious to me that overconsumption and consumerism in the wets contribute an inordinate amount of environmental destruction. americans consume so much. and not only is waste generated in the production of the things we want massive, but then we tend to dispose of the things themselves at alarming rates. honestly, i think it’s because people have a core set of needs, including needs to love and be loved, but consumerism has tricked us into thinking that those needs can be met by consuming. however, after we’ve done the consuming (and earn the corporations their profits), we find that the need isn’t met. and yet, instead of changing tactics, we dive deeper into our consumption. which is crazy. and yet we still do it.
so my theory, which isn’t unique or probably even mine, is that we actually need to focus more concretely on meaning as a way to reduce consumption.
i can think of so many friends who have salaries of over $100k (some even over $200k) who live unhappy and/or unfulfilled lives. if those people could just get off the consumption drug (fueled by their exorbitant incomes), not only could they make more space for meaning (and also meaningful work), but they would free up resources for people who are actually under-consuming (i.e. the poor).
last night i had a really nice convo with two friends (annemarie and louise) in nyc. during our wandering conversation, we got on the subject of work and the problems with “following your passions.” as most people know, there are are many structural problems with trying to make a living out of your passion. some of them are because of the structure of our economies. we economically value things that don’t line up with the passions of people. in fact, some of the most highly paid work doesn’t add value to anyone’s life other than generating more money. and other work that actually is valuable is undervalued (art, for example).
there are many more, but one of the more fundamental problems we discussed is how strongly people in america tie their identity to their work/job. we need a cultural shift to get away from this. i’ve written about my alternatives to the “what do you do” question and hope that that can be part of the shift.
but i also believe that we are going to need other things to identify with when we stop relying on work so heavily. the vision i mapped out during the conversation was something along these lines (and inspired by boggs’ thinking her book the next american revolution):
young people in any society should be supported to be visionary and imagine what’s next. because they haven’t existed or been shaped by existing systems, their dreams should shape where we’re going.
elders, having seen a few generations of people and change should be repositories of history and information. as knowledge bearers, they should be guiding Ā (but not controlling) the progress of society with their wisdom and experience.
middle-aged people should act as bridges between the young and the elders. having the most amount of energy and just the right ability to understand the elders and the youth, they should be tasked with building and evolving societal systems.
there are five phases/stages in all romantic relationships. this may apply to even non-romantic relationships, but i haven’t thought that out really. the five phases are:
romance
power struggle
stability
commitment
co-creation
the best way to get a full run-down of each stage is in bruce’s post. in this post i just want to highlight some of the takeaways that resonated with me the most.
the romance phase
the romance phase is effectively the only phase you can observe in popular media. most romance movies that i’ve seen barely make it through the romance phase. and even if they do, it’s a pretty superficial progression.
the feelings experienced during the romance phase are great AND strategic. your body literally produces chemicals that make you ignore the parts of someone that would normally repel you. i believe this is an evolutionary tactic designed to help us form close bonds for the purpose of creating and raising children. however, our societies are changing much faster than our physiology can and so our bodies still do things that our society has evolved past… (there are many implications of this, but that’s for another time).
the power struggle phase
most relationships in the us end in the power struggle. muzik calls this phase the love hangover. basically, all the chemicals have worn off and we start to recognize that the person we fell in love with doesn’t exist. once that sets in, we start doing all sorts of crazy things that don’t make sense. if we’re unable to recognize what’s happening, we tend to end things. either because we’ve hurt each other enough to make it not worth it or because we realize that what we thought we had, we didn’t actually ever have.
the co-creation phase
almost every relationship mentor i’ve ever had was in the co-creation stage. in this stage, a partnership ceases to be inwardly directed and becomes outwardly directed. this doesn’t mean there isn’t energy spent inwardly (date night, communication, mutual appreciation and support, physical attention, etc.). what it means is that the purpose of those things is to allow the individuals and the couple as a unit to be loving outwardly as well as inwardly.
overall
the phases aren’t always linear. sometimes couples cycle back to the power struggle phase repeatedly. other times, life changes (adding kids, losing kids, job changes, location changes, parent care-taking, whatever) can push a couple into a different phase. having a shared language and consciousness of the phases, where you are, where you’ve been, and how to move towards the co-creation phase is super important.
ok. that’s all i got.
if this stuff is interesting, really really check out the original post from which i learned most of these lessons.
