Social learning: my nephew's tool acquisition activities, with two cousins and a mom

Some may question all this noösphere stuff and argue against the existence of any such woo-woo thing as a “group mind”.  You may have more of a “black box” approach, thinking that human learning is personal, kind of mysterious, and that’s it.

“Given that we have for millennia become used to taking learning and thinking as activities of individual minds, it is hard to conceive of them as primarily group activities,” says Gerry Stahl, of of the College of Information Science and Technology at Drexel University.

For a long time I’ve seen everything, everyone, as interconnected and interdependent. That is indubitably a by-product of:

• studying Tielhard de Chardin at Tabor College and Marshall McLuhan at the J-School at the University of Kansas
• going over the top with the psychedelic mushrooms and cactus in my twenties
• a lifetime of meditation
• being a Canadian Mennonite and a Quaker
• being a member of the Benjamin Barber fan club
• too many hours on Facebook
• other socio-cultural factors yet to be analyzed

So for me, social learning is not a question of ontology, but rather of methodology. I am interested in learning the how interdependent cognition works. In other words, exactly what processes are involved in developing shared meaning amongst multiple individuals?  What are the various agents, and what are their possible interactions? What are the artifacts of their interactions?

As a designer of experiences for learning, I want to know what’s in my toolbox. In upcoming posts, I plan to explore those topics, of agents and their interactions in social learning.

Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative Learning. In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, April 2005, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p79-90.

Comment on a sugar cane field building, Jamaica, 2009

In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, Al Gore used the occasion to warn us:

“We, the human race, are confronting a planetary emergency—a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. The Earth has a fever, and the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself.  We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.”

Our noösphere is dis-eased. There are places in the noösphere where interactions are thin and lacking dimension.  The connections between agents are sparse. An example occurs with large-scale organization which are not accountable to any civic entity, such as:

• transnational corporations which compete with each other for scarce resources, especially in Eurasia where extreme population growth makes massive demands on technological advance
• transnational churches
• some institutions of global governance, such as the World Bank

These are unaccountable organizations — agents with power which exceeds that of municipalities, provinces and nations. There are no standards for their behavior, and no way that any individual, or any existing civic entity can make it accountable.  To use Benjamin Barber’s language, these organizations are not interdependent with the rest of us.  As a result, the energetic flow between these agents and the rest of us is compromised.   The overall result is insufficiency in stewardship and distribution of physical resources, and longstanding global conflicts around those issues.

I invite you to visualize, however, a healthy noösphere which regulates the biosphere so that our planet can be sustained.  Because I like the Earth, and I want it to be around in good shape for those who come after me.

How can we change those thin and flat interactions in some parts of the noösphere so that they become rich, juicy and lively?

We will have to learn, fast.

But will our current ways of learning support us?

Etienne Wenger argues passionately in his prospectus for Learning for a Small Planet, “Our current ways of learning have fallen behind; they are not up to the task. We need new models about how to proceed and new visions of what is possible. Learning how to learn is a key to taking our problems into our hands and solving them. We need a new blueprint for learning how to learn—as individuals, communities, organizations, nations, and as an interconnected world.”

Fundamental is changing our systems of formal education.  Broadly speaking, young people are run through a linear, factory system to prepare them to work in linear, factory systems. Around the world, the design of educational systems reflects the theories of learning available at the time they were built—behaviorism, cognitivism, even the relatively conscious approach of constructivism.  These educational systems, however, were not designed with an understanding of how human and non-human agents are interconnected and interdependent parts of the biosphere. In today’s educational systems, uneven or no consideration is given to many of the agents involved in learning, such as collective agents, analytical software, databases, feeds, and user interfaces. Reflecting a materialistic world view, knowledge is viewed as a thing that can transferred from head to head – not as a system or a process that involves the whole person and the whole network, or as described by George Siemens’ book, Knowing Knowledge.

Distance education researcher Stephen Downes has commented that distance education is at the crossroads: “On the one hand, we have developed tools and systems intended to support traditional classroom based learning. On the other hand, we could (should?) be developing tools and systems to support immersive learning. We should be developing for dynamic, immersive, living systems.”

We will have to make basic changes to our learning systems,  in order to be able to  grow thick connections in our own neural networks, or between persons and in our larger networks.

Introduction

In 1974 Raymond Williams wrote an essay about the impact of television on society, “Television: Technology and Cultural Form.” In it, he expressed concern that while television had the ability to offer “extreme social choices” and could potentially lead to a “more educated and participatory democracy,” it also has the ability to further limit and regionalize the way we think and interact with one another to the few choices offered to us by large corporations and institutions.

In today’s reading, “The Lo(n)g Revolution: the Blogosphere as an alternative Public Sphere?”, Anna Notaro begins with this excerpt from Williams’ article in order to put her own into context. While Williams’ assertions are seemingly out-of-date, they can be reapplied to the technology of today, which is the Internet. Her goal for this essay is to explore the political implications of the Internet and she wonders whether the Internet will remain a delimited public arena in which intellectual exchange freely flows between ordinary people, or become highly monitored and limited by potentially anti-democratic values. She concentrates on the “blogosphere” in particular (a term coined by William Quick in 2001 to refer to the “intellectual cyperspace” that bloggers inhabit), and its role in relation to “the intersection between technological change and a reformulation of the public sphere.”

Notaro goes on to explain Williams’ idea from his 1961 article “The Long Revolution,” that there are three long, simultaneous revolutions occurring—the democratic revolution, the industrial (technological) revolution, and the cultural revolution. Williams had an optimistic view of these revolutions, arguing that the public’s desire to govern themselves was directly related to the development of industrial organization (or in more modern terms, the development of new technologies), and that the cultural revolution then, reflected the public’s desire to allow everyone to actively learn and participate in culture as opposed to a small group of people. The link between these three revolutions is less obvious today, and Notaro wonders whether it is possible to continue to be optimistic about this relationship. Is this democratic desire still relevant in a time when large companies are all fighting to be the ultimate controllers of our consumption?

Habermas’s Public Sphere

Notaro next explores Jurgen Habermas’s idea of the public sphere, and how much of it has changed or remained the same in today’s technological world. Habermas’s idea, in “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere written in 1962,” was that in 18th century Europe, the public sphere emerged as a forum for critical discussion amongst the public, which would allow for the free sharing of ideas, ultimately serving as a check to state power. In the more modern times of the Internet, the public sphere has evolved. Notaro is skeptical about applying a concept that was formulated in a different media world to the current media environment, especially due to one aspect of Habermas’s idea of the public sphere—discussion strictly as a form of rational debate, ignoring any sort of emotive language that could be used in a free flow of ideas. He believed that everyone should have “a common interest in truth, no matter their status.”

This idea has been critiqued due to its narrow-minded nature. Modern theorists argue that this idea implies a “public” only open to the elite and educated, while more realistically in today’s technological world, there are many publics that include anyone and everyone, in the form of list-servs, chat rooms, blogs, and gaming communities. Many media scholars seek to discard Habermas’s view of the public sphere completely. Others believe that there are still modern implications of his theory. Notaro is hesitant to discard Harbermas’s idea of the public sphere as being completely irrelevant to the modern media world, however she argues that even if it can be applied, Habermas’s public is only a small component of the numerous publics that exist on the Internet today.

Internet and Electronic Democracy

Many scholars believe that computer-mediated communication opens the doors for democratic progress by enabling widespread discussion and the ability to make each and every voice heard. Rheingold, one scholar, among many others, who believes in this newfound democracy, strongly believes that technology, “if properly understood and defended by enough citizens, does have democratizing potential in the way that alphabets and printing presses had democratizing potential.” These scholars see the Internet as a utopian, electronic agora (public forum of ancient Greece). In line, to some extent, with Habermas’s public sphere, blogs and news groups engage people in discussions of public and political relevance, promoting a more widespread democracy.

However, there are also many media scholars who lack this optimistic view of an electronic democracy. Benjamin Barber conjured three different scenarios of what could happen with the relationship between technology and democracy: the Pangloss scenario, the Pandora scenario, and the Jeffersonian scenario. The Pangloss scenario refers to the ability of technology to serve corporate agendas. The Pandora scenario refers to the idea of the government utilizing technologies in order to control the public and create an “invisible tyranny” which takes away freedoms and limits privacy. The Jeffersonian scenario is refreshingly optimistic compared to the first two, and refers to a society in which the government and its citizens use technology in order to promote active participation in democracy online and elsewhere.

Backtracking for a moment, Barber’s Pandora scenario directly ties in to the second reading of the day, “Scroogled” by Cory Doctorow. In this highly imagined story, a Google employee comes back from a long vacation in Mexico to find that the Department of Homeland Security, along with the entire American government, has partnered with Google to gain access to the search histories of citizens in order to monitor their actions online as a way to eliminate any sort of threats to the security of the nation. I won’t get into too many details of the story, but the main character, Greg, is interrogated by the DHS on his way home for some completely innocent, yet seemingly threatening searches he made while he was away. His friend and fellow Google employee, Maya, explains to him exactly what happened while he was gone and informs him that once the government gain access to a person’s Google identity, it monitors it forever. There is no more privacy whatsoever. Maya tells Greg she has created a software capable of completely wiping out and masking online identities so that the government can no longer track them. Chaos ensues, and by the end of the story, the software is used by Google as a form of political corruption, in order to erase the questionable histories of certain political candidates.

This whole scenario seems completely fantastical, but at the same time it is unsettling to realize that this sort of government control is completely possible with today’s technology. This story, combined with many of the ideas I will discuss shortly, brings up my own questions about the democratic value of the Internet as well as ties back to questions of freedom in the use of the computer due to interfaces. But I will come back to that at the end.

Now, back to Barber’s last scenario (Jeffersonian), which envisions a more democratic society. This scenario again reflects people’s tendency to think that new technology allows for some democratic utopia to form. Rheingold, while he advocates this utopia, still realizes that the Internet can be easily commodified and while it seems like the Internet allows the public to break free from traditional media’s monopoly over their attention, in reality it is just another means for companies and the government influence public discourse. Carl Boggs is one scholar who seriously doubts the Internet’s democratic capabilities, saying that it does not in fact “empower ordinary people,” but rather “the global village…operates at the expense of real communities.”

At the end of this section Notaro leaves us with a paradox: the online public sphere will always lack a certain democratic value due to the inequality and irrationality of certain online discourse, but at the same time, the Internet draws in many different people, enables many new connections and allows for democratic discussion. She concludes that our understanding of democracy and the Internet need to be reworked and continuously developed on a “glocal” scale, and that this democracy is worth fighting for in order to protect ourselves from media conglomerates.

The Blogosphere

Notaro briefly outlines the development of weblogs by referring to Rebecca Blood’s Weblogs: a history and perspective (2000). Blogs began as a way to discuss specific scholarly topics to a more personal diary, that transformed consumers into creators of information.

Blood stresses the importance of blogs today in a world where we are exposed to so much information so frequently that it is difficult to stop and reflect on any given piece of information anymore. She claims that modern blogs are one remedy. Notaro notes that since Blood’s article in 2000, blogs—both directly political in nature and simply reflective—have contributed to national and international political dialogue, especially after September 11th. One example she gives is that of Salam Pax from Baghdad. He wrote a blog about the mood of the city as it awaited the U.S. bombing, which created a buzz around the world. These random, unprofessional blogs have begun to have a real impact on the journalistic world. Notaro argues that bloggers and journalists are all part of the same family of writers, and that all blogs have some journalistic aspect, whether or not they live up to professional standards.

Notaro then defines the blogosphere. She explains how blogs are collective in nature and foster ongoing active participation—through comments—by tons of people anywhere in the world. The computer language is a common one that eliminates certain political and cultural divisions between different regions of the world. She says that this transcendence of physical and cultural borders “presents a case of interactivity in a local/global public sphere that may re-energize democratic values.” Despite this, Notaro questions the novelty of such a public sphere. She thinks that perhaps the idea of ordinary people discussing in the public sphere is old news, and connects it back to Habermas’s idea of the public sphere emerging way back in the 18th century.

Andrew Baoill sets out to find this connection between Habermas and the blogosphere. He identified three factors of Habermas’s theories: inclusivity, disregard of external rank, and rational debate. He claims that while the blogosphere is somewhat inclusive in that anyone can start a blog, it cannot help but favor certain blogs over others, failing to disregard rank. Further, the fact that there are so many blogs out there, very few of them will be given a chance for rational discussion. Therefore, the blogosphere does not live up to Habermas’s ideal public sphere. Notaro concludes that the blogosphere is just a “constellation of intellectual space” where people can freely express themselves, as they feel necessary, without much order to it.

One problem is that because there is so much information out there, people begin to filter out only the things they want to hear without listening to what other people have to say. It creates “echo chambers” where the individual becomes important and the public sphere begins to decline. This divide between the individual and the public is becoming more and more apparent.

Notaro then describes a report done by the Hansard Society, which assessed the state of political blogging in the UK. These are some of the findings:

• Blogging has the potential to significantly impact on political engagement and political processes as they provide an opportunity for alternative informal voices to enter into the political debate without a great deal of cost or effort.

• Blogging breaks down the barriers between public and privates spaces and allows elected representatives to put across their individuality and personality.

• The availability of low-cost, low maintenance authoring software means blogs are far easier to construct and update than conventional websites.

• The most appealing blogs are those which provide genuine debate between bloggers and visitors to the blog. Blogs that do not offer this facility give visitors little reason to return.

• At the moment, political blogging is still regarded as the pursuit of internet connoisseurs rather than ordinary members of the public. While our jury found blogs easy to navigate, they found the tone of content unappealing.

• Blogging has the potential to be of enormous benefit to MPs and other elected representatives who use it as a listening post rather than another tool to broadcast their ideas, achievements or party dogma.

Notaro notes a paradox in these findings: while politicians are needed in order to represent the diversity of the public, blogs wind up eliminating the need of individuals to be spoken for by someone else. This feeling of individualism provides a great sense of democracy in that individuals no longer feel the need to have their opinions represented by others, but instead people want to express their own opinions for themselves. Notaro celebrates the death of one ideology and the birth of a “digital nation” full of individuals. She calls them Digital Citizens. 

I would like to connect parts of this reading back to our discussion of the desktop interface. In my last post on the reading by Steven Johnson, I mentioned that the original desktop released by Apple was considered revolutionary in that it enabled the ordinary person to be able to use the computer and “understand” its functions. Apple advertised the interface as providing a sort of freedom, which would allow people to have an equal understanding and ability to use the computer. We discussed, however, that in reality this understanding is false and that while we think we are being given choices and freedom within the interface, we are actually being completely influenced by the designs of the interface designers and only know and understand what they allow us to. This ties back to the skepticism of scholars like Benjamin Barber about the true freedom that the Internet allows us. Perhaps we believe that we have complete freedom on the web, but in reality the Internet is filled with advertisements and agenda of all sorts, so that the content we see is in fact regulated to some extent, whether we realize it or not. Do you think that the Internet is limiting or is it truly free? Further, do you think that something like “Scroogled,” where we literally have no freedom whatsoever, could actually happen? Are we heading in that direction?

today i skipped classes, i felt so sick ((( …but i did a lot of work home, i finished reading the 4 chapters from Barber’s book and i took some interesting notes that nooowww will help me write my asignment…

the weather sux, today it was so so cold..brrr..and now it’s a spanish storm outside..yuck. where are the 22 degrees from monday? where is the sun..nooooo… (…

i’m sleepy and tired, but i need to finish my study before going to bed..cause tomorrow i’m pretty sure i will find anything else to do but writing and i’m afraid i won’t finish the paper in time.. oh well..the life of a grad student..it’s like a rollercoaster:)) so..back to work..!

ps. i hate bad weather. i hate it.

From An Aristocracy of Everyone: The Politics of Education and the Future of America by Benjamin Barber:

“…academic specialization has turned the study of culture into the study of the study of culture – self-conscious preoccupation with method, technique, and scholarship displacing a broad humanistic concern for culture itself.”

“Souls are deep in many different ways, and reading is hardly the only road to virtue.”

“[university teaching has become]…all questions and no answers, all doubt and no provisional resting places.”

“Deconstruction may rid us of all our illusions and thus seem a clever way to think, but it is no way to live.”

“[the object of public schools]…is not to credential the educated but to educate the uncredentialed.”

“[democracy as]…an extraordinary and rare contrivance of cultivated imagination.”

Ieri La Repubblica ha pubblicato nella sezione Cultura un intervento di Benjamin Barber che rilancia il tema delle città globali e del ruolo che queste città hanno e possono avere nella governance del pianeta. Barber, politologo americano condierato un guru, lavora sui temi dell’interdipendenza, della partecipazione e della democrazia, ed è divenuto famoso quando nel 1996 ha pubblicato il suo lavoro Jihad vs. McWorld divenuto poi un bestseller.

Nell’articolo di ieri, intitolato “Benvenuti nelle città globali”, Barber affronta la questione della cultura delle città globali, tema che è stato messo in crisi in questi primi anni del millennio connotati dalla paura, come se la riscoperta o il rifugio nel localismo avesse fatto pensare che si potesse tornare indietro rispetto ad un mondo interconnesso, globalizzato e, passatemi il termine, meticcio. Il politologo americano riafferma un ruolo guida in questo mondo delle città globali, sia come cultura che come governo. I cittadini delle città globali iniziano a riconoscersi in esse:”…Un autista di taxi a Londra recentemente mi ha raccontato di aver lavorato a New York, a Nuova Delhi e a Londra e che stava pensando di raggiungere un parente che faceva lo stesso mestiere a Città del Messico. Gli ho chiesto quale paese gli fosse piaciuto di più, ma il tassista sembrava non capire la domanda: aveva vissuto in un mondo fatto di metropoli diverse tra di loro, ma con una familiarità urbana più significativa, per lui, delle differenze nazionali dei singoli paesi a cui queste città appartenevano.”

Barber poi tocca i temi della cittadinanza, della democrazia e della partecipazione, affermando che le città globali sono la struttura portante di un’architettura civica di un mondo globalizzato. Tanto che, come si parla di un mondo di stati o di regioni, si parlerà di un “mondo di città”: “…le città globali possono diventare elementi ancora più solidi e appropriati per alimentare l’ appeal della democrazia globale. Nella prima età della democrazia le città sono nate come piccoli centri e sono prosperate come centri industriali, culturali e commerciali solo nella sua seconda fase. Sono proprio le attività commerciali, comunicative, finanziarie, i sistemi di trasporti e la creatività culturale delle città globali a renderle indispensabili nella prefigurazione della governance globale. Ovviamente queste città non possono essere in sé le basi della rappresentatività, escludendo le comunità rurali o i centri minori dalla partecipazione politica. Tuttavia, sono destinate a occupare un ruolo dominante, rappresentando lo scheletro interconnesso di una politica globale confederata“.

Serie Globalización

Extraída de la Sección Geopolítica de La Enciclopedia Latinoamericana

Actualizada a Abril 2009

By Juan Chamero, Caece University at Buenos Aires, Argentine,May 10^th  2009

Globalización IV

 ¿Globalización  versus Anti-Globalización?

 Actualización

Los conceptos, observaciones y sobre todo proyecciones  aquí vertidos continúan siendo validos y vigentes. No obstante vamos a proceder a incluir lo acontecido en los últimos ocho años, transcurridos desde nuestra  primera edición.

 Lo que decíamos en Julio del 2001

Presentamos dos puntos de vista sobre la Globalización y sus reacciones en el mundo, que algunos dan en llamar anti-Globalización. Una, la de Guy Verhofstadt, Primer Ministro de Bélgica y actual Presidente en ejercicio de la Unión Europea y la invocación del Papa a la pobreza efectiva dirigida a los obispos en el Sínodo del Tercer Milenio. Creemos que estas dos opiniones cubren bastante bien el espectro del conflicto planetario. Hemos puesto nuestras acotaciones en tipografía itálica de color azul.

 Una Apología sobre la Globalización

¿Qué pretende la anti globalización?, Por Guy Verhofstadt, Primer Ministro de Bélgica y actual (2001) presidente de la Unión Europea.

 La gran serpiente multicolor antiglobalizadora recorrió las calles de Evian (Jerome Delay, AP)

Nota de la Redacción: Resulta increíble que una persona de tan alto rango pueda decir cosas tan inconexas. Se dirige inicialmente con todo tipo de generalizaciones torpes a los que denomina “Antiglobalizadores”, metiendo en una bolsa a la mayoría de la humanidad que no goza de los beneficios de algo indiscutiblemente universal, evolutivo y positivo como la Globalidad y a los que tilda de derechistas, racistas, populistas, fanáticos religiosos, incultos, antidemocráticos y deseosos de retrotraerse a la edad de piedra.

Luego de las diatribas reconoce que la Globalización actual es egoísta y propone una Globalización Ética y la creación de una entidad internacional “superadora del G-8”. Como  positivo realiza una autocrítica al cerrar su discurso refiriéndose a las diferencias existentes entre los países ricos del Norte y los pobres del Sur, diciendo:

 “Puesto que en este aspecto ustedes tienen razón, incluso cuando tengamos las mejores intenciones, a menudo estamos más interesados en los intereses de una compañía petrolera multinacional, o de los remolacheros europeos, que de la suerte del pueblo de Ogoni en el delta del Níger, o los escasos ingresos de los trabajadores de las plantaciones de caña de azúcar en Costa Rica.”

Mensaje a los antiglobalizadores

    Seattle, Goteburgo, Génova… miles de personas que salen a la calle a expresar su opinión. Un alivio en nuestra época pos ideológica. Si no fuera solamente violencia inútil, hasta darían ganas de aplaudir. La antiglobalización forma una resistencia bienvenida en una época en la que la política se ha vuelto estéril, aburrida y técnica. Esta resistencia es buena para nuestra democracia. Sin embargo, ¿Qué es lo que realmente quieren decirnos ustedes, los anti-globalizadores?

 ¿Desean reaccionar con violencia ante cualquier forma de propiedad privada, como el black bloc?, o bien, ¿son adeptos al movimiento slow food, un club mundano que edita lujosos folletos en donde siempre se pregona el consumo de alimentos correctos en los mejores restaurantes?

 Nota de la Redacción: El principio del mensaje alcanza casi nivel de grosería. No participamos de la idea del fin de las ideologías pues ello significaría que el ser humano involuciona. Creemos que la evolución no se ha detenido, todo lo contrario. La misma globalización es una ideología, lo que ha ocurrido es que no ha surgido sobre la base de ideas fuerza sino que ha sido el resultado de una acción conjunta y sinérgica del crecimiento, del neocapitalismo y de la alta tecnología. Es decir, no surge del crecimiento, ni del capitalismo ni de las motivaciones científicas que impulsan la alta tecnología sino de la sinergia de su acción conjunta.

 ¿Qué hay repentinamente de malo en la globalización? Hasta hace poco, incluso los intelectuales progresistas alababan el comercio mundial, que va a llevar prosperidad y bienestar a países en los cuales antes sólo había pobreza y recesión. Y con razón. La práctica nos muestra que cada porcentaje de apertura extra en la economía de un país hace aumentar en un 1% el ingreso per cápita de su población. Esto explica la riqueza de los habitantes de Singapur, en agudo contraste con la pobreza en la economía cerrada de Myanmar.

 Nota de la Redacción: No se ponen en tela de juicio las ventajas macroeconómicas de la Globalidad. Lo que se cuestiona es la distribución de sus beneficios. Puede demostrarse y vamos a intentarlo en nuestra próxima entrega, que incluso sin reacción violenta, la Globalización sin distribución justa lleva a la larga al colapso de la economía mundial.

 Hasta la cumbre de Seattle, la mundialización no era un pecado, sino una bendición para la humanidad. Un enorme contraste con la extrema derecha que seguía insistiendo acerca de la pérdida de identidad. Sin embargo, desde entonces, ustedes reniegan de la globalización como una especie de peste bubónica que solamente siembra pobreza y ruinas.

 Naturalmente que la globalización, el hecho de sobrepasar las fronteras puede decaer rápidamente en egoísmo sin fronteras. Para el occidente rico, el libre comercio es evidente, aunque de preferencia a productos que no afecten su propia economía. Nada de azúcar de países del Tercer Mundo. Nada de textiles o confecciones de África del Norte. Allí ustedes, los antiglobalizadores tienen razón. El comercio mundial anunciado a voces tan altas, por lo general se trata de un tráfico en un solo sentido: desde el norte rico hacia el sur pobre, y no a la inversa.

 Nota de la Redacción: ¡Al fin ataca la raíz del problema!. Insistimos que el rótulo de antiglobalizadores es reduccionismo. Yo me considero un “globalista”, opuesto al egoísmo del actual proceso de globalización liderado fundamentalmente por las grandes concentraciones de capital en unas pocas corporaciones gigantes.

No frenar la globalización, sino rodearla de ética: es el desafío al que nos enfrentamos

    Aunque también veo contradicciones en vuestra manera de pensar. Ustedes están en contra de las hamburgueserías estadounidenses, contra la soja genéticamente manipulada por consorcios multinacionales, contra nombres de marcas mundiales que determinan el comportamiento de compra. Para algunos de vosotros, todo debe volver a la pequeña escala. Debemos volver a los mercados locales, a las comunidades locales. ¡Pero no cuando se trata de migración! Entonces la globalización se convierte en objetivo. Enormes masas de exiliados que deambulan por las fronteras de Europa y Norteamérica y que se quedan admirando los escaparates de la sociedad de consumo. Millones de ilegales que viven como parias exiliados en las condiciones más míseras esperando poder coger aunque sea unos granitos de la riqueza occidental. ¿No es precisamente la falta de libre comercio e inversiones lo que les obliga a huir hacia occidente?

 Nota de la Redacción: No, los inmigrantes ilegales caen en masa sobre el mundo rico justamente por una mala praxis de la globalidad controlada por ese mundo desproporcionadamente rico.

 Por otra parte, ustedes también son partidarios de la tolerancia con respecto a diferentes formas de sociedades y estilos de vida. ¿No creen que es gracias a la globalización que actualmente vivimos en una sociedad multicultural y tolerante, que hace posible todo esto? Yo pensaba que eran solamente los conservadores los que ensalzaban el pasado, o la extrema derecha que jura por su propia raza, o fanáticos religiosos que idolatran la Biblia o el Corán, los que sentían nostalgia de las intolerantes sociedades locales de antaño.

 Nota de la Redacción: ¿Qué quiere el Ministro que haga la gente?. ¿ Morirse de hambre en sus localidades desbastadas?. Se huye hacia los lugares privilegiados de Occidente para poder sobrevivir. Los globalizadores o mejor dicho la gente que goza de los beneficios de la globalidad conforman una sociedad multicultural y tolerante. Los que se mueren de hambre son de hecho tanto o más multiculturales aunque obligadamente son más intolerantes ante las desigualdades porque las desigualdades que les toca sufrir son enormes. Los pueblos que hoy pasan hambre no quieren volver al pasado, ni a la Edad Media ni al Renacimiento ni al Paleolítico Inferior sino que van a apoyar a los que aún de palabra les comunican esperanzas de una vida mejor.

 De nuevo se expresa el Sr. Ministro, investido de Presidente de la Unión Europea, de una forma muy peligrosa, presentando a los que se oponen a la globalización injusta como de extrema derecha, racistas, o fanáticos religiosos. No se puede poner en una misma bolsa a bin Laden y al Papa Juan Pablo II.

 De esta manera, y aunque no lo experimenten así, muchos de los antiglobalizadores avanzan peligrosamente en la dirección de la extrema derecha o populista, con la diferencia de que los primeros están en contra de las multinacionales debido al presunto perjuicio que provocan al sur, mientras que la extrema derecha, como Le Pen en Francia, condena a las multinacionales porque desea que la economía nacional siga en manos nacionales.

 A menudo, ustedes plantean las preguntas correctas. Sin embargo, ¿presentan ustedes las respuestas correctas? ¿Quién puede desmentir las modificaciones climáticas y el recalentamiento de la tierra? ¿Pero no es menos cierto que la única manera de hacer frente a ello es mediante acuerdos globales a escala mundial? ¿Quién no ve la utilidad del libre comercio mundial para los países pobres? ¿Pero esto no exige normas sociales y ecológicas globales? Veamos por ejemplo la inmoral especulación contra las monedas débiles, como ocurrió hace unos años con el peso mexicano, o el ringgit en Malaisia. ¿No es menos cierto que es gracias a las zonas monetarias más grandes, es decir, la globalización, que se puede hacer frente a la especulación? Porque especular contra el dólar o el euro, asusta a los especuladores más que cualquier impuesto.

 Nota de la Redacción: En cualquier declaración de técnicos y científicos sobre Desarrollo Sustentable hay propuestas concretas para resolver los problemas ecológicos de una forma sensata y para el bien de todos. Vaya a los informes de la FAO, de la UNCTAD y encontrará centenares de propuestas inteligentes y bien fundamentadas con sólidas estadísticas.

 Creo que no tiene sentido estar a favor o en contra de la globalización sin espíritu crítico. Sin embargo, la pregunta es más bien, ¿de qué manera todos, inclusive los pobres pueden gozar de los manifiestos beneficios que trae consigo la globalización sin experimentar sus perjuicios? ¿Cuándo podemos estar seguros de que la globalización no es solamente para unos cuantos privilegiados, sino que también ofrece beneficios para las grandes masas de pobres en el Tercer Mundo?

 Nota de la Redacción: Al fin se hace la pregunta fundamental, vamos a ver si esboza alguna respuesta.

 Una vez más, vuestras preocupaciones como antiglobalizadores son correctas. Aunque para encontrar también buenas soluciones a vuestras preguntas, no necesitamos menos, sino más globalización, como muy bien lo plantea James Tobin. Esta es la paradoja de la antiglobalización.

Sí, si están de acuerdo con eso comiencen entonces a implementar en la Unión Europea la Tasa Tobin.

 Además, la globalización [...] puede ser utilizada para bien o para mal. Por consiguiente, lo que realmente necesitamos es un enfoque ético mundial tanto para el medio ambiente, las relaciones laborales como para la política monetaria. En otras palabras, no frenar la globalización, sino rodearla de ética, este es el desafío al cual nos enfrentamos. Yo le llamaría globalización ética, un triángulo compuesto de libre comercio, conocimientos y democracia. O dicho en otras palabras: comercio, ayuda y prevención de conflictos.

 Nota de la Redacción: ¡No está mal la propuesta!. Ahora deberíamos analizar cómo obtener conocimientos y como se puede vivir en una democracia al estilo de loa países ricos partiendo de condiciones de extrema miseria: caso concreto Latinoamérica.

 La democracia y el respeto a los derechos humanos es la única manera durable para evitar violencia y guerras, para crear comercio y bienestar. Sin embargo, la comunidad internacional todavía no ha sido capaz de imponer una prohibición a nivel mundial de armas pequeñas, o de instalar un tribunal de justicia internacional permanente.

 Además, es necesario contar con más ayuda del occidente rico. Por otra parte es un escándalo que más de 1,2 mil millones de personas todavía no dispongan de cuidados médicos y una sólida educación. El comercio solo, no va a sacar del subdesarrollo a los países menos desarrollados. También con un aumento del comercio sigue siendo necesaria la cooperación al desarrollo para la construcción de puertos y caminos, para la creación de escuelas y hospitales, para desarrollar un sistema jurídico estable.

 Finalmente, seguir liberando el comercio mundial. 700 mil millones de dólares al año, catorce veces la cantidad total de ayuda al desarrollo que reciben actualmente: ese sería el aumento de los ingresos para los países en vías de desarrollo en caso de una liberalización total de todos los mercados.

Ya no más dumping del superávit agrícola occidental en los mercados del Tercer Mundo. Ya no más excepciones injustas para plátanos, arroz o azúcar. Únicamente para armas [...]. ‘Everything but arms’ (cualquier cosa menos armas) debe ser el lema para las siguientes rondas de negociaciones de la Organización Mundial del Comercio.

 Más libre comercio, más democracia y respeto por los derechos humanos, más ayuda para el desarrollo. ¿Es de esta manera un hecho la globalización ética? ¡Por supuesto que no! Lo que falta es un arma política para su imposición. Una respuesta política mundial que sea tan poderosa como el mercado globalizado en el que vivimos. El G-8 de países ricos, debe ser reemplazado por un G-8 de las organizaciones de cooperación regionales existentes. Un G-8 en el cual el Sur reciba un lugar importante y justo, y que conduzca por buen camino la globalización de la economía. En otras palabras, un foro en el cual las importantes organizaciones de cooperación continental puedan hablar en igualdad de condiciones: la Unión Europea, la Unión Africana, Mercosur, Asean, el Acuerdo Norteamericano de Libre Comercio NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).

 Este nuevo G-8 puede y debe convertirse en un lugar para realizar acuerdos obligatorios acerca de estándares éticos globales para condiciones laborales, propiedad intelectual, good governance (buena gestión). Y al mismo tiempo, desde este nuevo G-8 pueden salir las directivas e impulsos necesarios hacia las grandes instituciones internacionales y foros de negociaciones, como por ejemplo la Organización Mundial del Comercio, el Banco Mundial, Kioto. Un G-8 que ya no esté dominado exclusivamente por los países ricos, sino del que formen parte todos los integrantes de nuestra comunidad mundial, y en donde también se pueda dar una respuesta fuerte a los problemas mundiales, como por ejemplo el tráfico internacional de personas.

 Nota de la Redacción: ¿Y las Naciones Unidas?. ¿Ya son cosa muerta?. Eso implica que el ente máximo de la globalización en el planeta sería ese nuevo cuerpo?. Al respecto ya existe el G20 y todo parece indicar que nada excepcional y diferente podría esperarse de este nuevo ente planetario. 

De manera embrionaria, hemos visto crecer un proceso de este tipo durante la ronda de negociaciones sobre el protocolo de Kyoto en Bonn, en donde finalmente se logró un adelanto mediante acuerdos entre el grupo Umbrella, la Unión Europea y el grupo de los países menos desarrollados, contra la potencia más grande del mundo, los Estados Unidos de América.

 Naturalmente no tenemos que esperar a la primera reunión de este nuevo G-8 para iniciar la globalización ética. Podemos empezar en nuestro propio patio europeo. ¿Por qué no podríamos verificar cada vez el impacto que tendrían las decisiones que toma la Unión sobre los más débiles del planeta? ¿Aumenta la distancia entre el norte rico y el sur pobre? ¿Cuáles son las consecuencias de tal o cual decisión para los problemas ecológicos mundiales? ¿Y por qué no pedir la ayuda de personas inteligentes fuera de la UE?.

 Nota de la Redacción: Creo que no tiene sentido estar a favor o en contra de la globalización sin espíritu crítico. Sin embargo, la pregunta es más bien, ¿de qué manera todos, inclusive los pobres pueden gozar de los manifiestos beneficios que trae consigo la globalización sin experimentar sus perjuicios? ¿Cuándo podemos estar seguros de que la globalización no es solamente para unos cuantos privilegiados, sino que también ofrece beneficios para las grandes masas de pobres en el Tercer Mundo?

 Una vez más, vuestras preocupaciones como antiglobalizadores son correctas. Aunque para encontrar también buenas soluciones a vuestras preguntas, no necesitamos menos, sino más globalización, como muy bien lo plantea James Tobin. Esta es la paradoja de la antiglobalización.

Además, la globalización [...] puede ser utilizada para bien o para mal. Por consiguiente, lo que realmente necesitamos es un enfoque ético mundial tanto para el medio ambiente, las relaciones laborales como para la política monetaria. En otras palabras, no frenar la globalización, sino rodearla de ética, este es el desafío al cual nos enfrentamos. Yo le llamaría globalización ética, un triángulo compuesto de libre comercio, conocimientos y democracia. O dicho en otras palabras: comercio, ayuda y prevención de conflictos.

 La democracia y el respeto a los derechos humanos es la única manera durable para evitar violencia y guerras, para crear comercio y bienestar. Sin embargo, la comunidad internacional todavía no ha sido capaz de imponer una prohibición a nivel mundial de armas pequeñas, o de instalar un tribunal de justicia internacional permanente.

 Nota de la Redacción: Coincidimos en que es necesario contar con más ayuda del occidente rico. Por otra parte es un escándalo que más de 1,2 mil millones de personas todavía no dispongan de cuidados médicos y una sólida educación. El comercio solo, no va a sacar del subdesarrollo a los países menos desarrollados. También con un aumento del comercio sigue siendo necesaria la cooperación al desarrollo para la construcción de puertos y caminos, para la creación de escuelas y hospitales, para desarrollar un sistema jurídico estable.

Movimiento antiglobalización: la revolución que viene

 Nota de la Redacción: Presentamos aquí el otro extremo. Se plantea decididamente un movimiento “anti”, en el cual también se pone en una bolsa a todo el que no está de acuerdo con la Globalización o con sus resultados a la fecha. Podría ser  definido como “La Revolución que viene”. Creemos más en un acercamiento inteligente entre las partes en conflicto en la medida que se demuestre que es posible un escenario “gana-gana” armonioso. Internet, que es un modelo libertario, anárquico pero democrático puede contribuir en forma catalítica a ese acercamiento. El mensaje del Presidente de la Unión Europea pese a su incoherencia es un ejemplo de acercamiento. Sin renunciar abiertamente a su postura  admite que goza de una globalización egoísta y propone una Globalización Ética pues en su yo íntimo no desea la violencia generalizada.

 También desde Seattle hasta Génova, el movimiento antiglobalización ha conseguido en menos de dos años hacer llegar sus mensajes hasta las primeras páginas de los medios de comunicación mundial. Las reuniones del Fondo Monetario Internacional, el Banco Mundial, la Organización Mundial del Comercio, el G-8 o la Unión Europea han generado cada vez mayor oposición, las más de las veces frontal de grupos que han multiplicado con su accionar el número de militantes hasta convertirse en un germen revolucionario del siglo XXI, quizás una primera manifestación organizada de la “Multitud”. En Londres, Ginebra, Praga, Niza, Gotemburgo, Barcelona o Génova ya se ha hecho sentir incluso la capacidad subversiva de ciertos sectores radicales de los denominados grupos “antiglobalización” o “anti sistema”.

 Pero detrás de esta oposición se parapeta un amplio y heterogéneo abanico de organizaciones que barren todo el espectro político, ONGs religiosas y de defensa del medio ambiente, feministas, grupos de libre opción de la sexualidad, de libertad religiosa, grupos en defensa de los derechos humanos, y grupos que de una u otra forma reclaman justicia e igualdad de oportunidades y que hoy perfectamente comunicados y coordinados a través de Internet, defienden sus postulados que empiezan a ser sino aceptados al menos considerados como recclamos v{aidos.

 El frontal rechazo al neoliberalismo, la lucha contra el sistema capitalista, el rechazo fundado a las multinacionales, la instauración de la denominada “tasa Tobin”, la exigencia de la condonación de la deuda externa de los países subdesarrollados y la defensa a ultranza del medio ambiente son algunos de los mandamientos del más amplio ideario que podamos imaginar hacia un mundo más justo.

 Cualquiera que tenga algo contra el “sistema” tendría de hecho ganado un lugar dentro del “Movimiento Antiglobalización”. Y también de hecho este movimiento es no solo la oposición a una mala globalización, a una globalización opresora sino germen quizás de la próxima revolución de alcance planetario hacia un Mundo Justo.

 Las palabras del Papa Juan Pablo II

Resumen extraído de un artículo de Elisabetta Piqué, Corresponsal del diario La Nación de Buenos Aires en Roma. Se reproduce también el texto original de la Homilía del Papa: Sínodo del Tercer Milenio, 30 Septiembre 2001

 Nota de la Redacción: Finalmente tenemos la palabra del justo medio, la del Papa Juan Pablo II. Todo indicaría que la Iglesia Católica estaría dispuesta a cambiar significativamente en cuanto a su posición efectiva, “terrenal”, entre el lujo y la pobreza extrema y en cuanto a su democratización. Nunca se lo ha visto tan decidido en ésta justa al decirle a los obispos: ser “profetas que evidencien con coraje los pecados sociales vinculados con el consumismo, el hedonismo y una economía que produce una inaceptable diferencia entre lujo y miseria”.

 En oportunidad del Primer Sínodo del Tercer Milenio, el Papa pide a los Obispos ser “efectivamente pobres” para levantar con autoridad la voz en defensa de los marginados

En la reunión inaugural del Sínodo del Tercer Milenio ante unos 280 Obispos, el Papa Juan Pablo II los instó a ser efectivamente pobres para ser creíbles y a estar al lado de los marginados. Dijo textualmente:

“Es la vía de la pobreza la que nos permitirá transmitir a nuestros contemporáneos los frutos de la salvación: como obispos, estamos llamados a ser pobres y al servicio del Evangelio”, dijo Juan Pablo II en su fuerte homilía, que giró en torno del tema central de este importante sínodo: ¿cómo tiene que ser el obispo del tercer milenio?

El Papa enfatizó la labor de servicio de ministro y demostrar con el ejemplo la actitud que hay que tener ante los bienes terrenales y su uso individual y colectivo.

 ”La pobreza es un rasgo esencial de la persona de Jesús y de su ministerio de salvación, y representa uno de los requisitos indispensables para que el anuncio evangélico sea escuchado por la humanidad de hoy”, sostuvo el Santo Padre ante una multitud de 6000 personas reunidas en la imponente basílica de San Pedro.

 Categórico, pese al cansancio acumulado en su gira de seis días, el Papa llamó a los obispos a “levantar su voz en defensa de los últimos”. También les pidió ser “profetas que evidencien con coraje los pecados sociales vinculados con el consumismo, el hedonismo y una economía que produce una inaceptable diferencia entre lujo y miseria”.

 ”Para que la voz de los pastores sea creíble -dijo-, es necesario que ellos mismos den prueba de una conducta desapegada de los intereses privados y solícita hacia los más débiles. Es necesario que sean el ejemplo para la comunidad a ellos asignada, enseñando y sosteniendo ese conjunto de principios de solidaridad y justicia social que forman la doctrina social de la Iglesia.

 ”Aunque se trata de una tarea ardua y fatigosa, que nadie pierda el ánimo”, los exhortó el Pontífice.

 Nota de la Redacción: En medio de coros, el Papa utilizó el ya habitual “papamóvil” empujado por transportadores humanos para trasladarse en ocasión de la ceremonia, que concelebró junto a los participantes del Sínodo, es decir, junto a 55 cardenales, 7 patriarcas, 70 arzobispos, 106 obispos, 10 presbíteros, 5 auditores y 15 colaboradores. La reunión, que durará hasta el 27 de este mes, tiene como lema “El obispo: servidor del Evangelio de Cristo para la esperanza del mundo”, y apunta justamente a aggiornar la figura de los que pertenecen al purpurado.

Si bien la agenda de este sínodo es amplia, uno de los temas centrales será el rol de los obispos en la Iglesia universal, y su relación con la Curia de Roma. En los últimos años, en efecto, algunos obispos criticaron abiertamente a la Curia por ostentar demasiado poder y por actuar como un cuerpo aparte entre ellos y el Papa.

 También se abordará el espinoso tema del primado papal, aunque el cardenal belga Jan Schotte manifestó anteayer en una conferencia de prensa que para ello haría falta llamar a un “sínodo extraordinario”. Los vientos de guerra que soplan en el mundo después de los ataques en los Estados Unidos también estarán presentes, y se espera que esta reunión concluya con un mensaje sobre el terrorismo. 

 El sínodo de obispos es una institución permanente creada por el papa Pablo VI el 15 de septiembre de 1965, en respuesta a los deseos de los padres del Concilio Vaticano II, para mantener vivo el buen espíritu nacido de la experiencia conciliar. La palabra sínodo deriva de los términos griegos “syn” (que significa “juntos”) y hodos (que significa “camino”).

 Analfabetismo

Durante el sínodo, los obispos debatirán lo que el cardenal belga Jan Schotte, a cargo del encuentro, definió como “analfabetismo religioso” de los fieles, es decir, la falta de conocimiento de muchos principios de fe. Según Schotte, los obispos indicaron que querían hablar de lo que el Vaticano llama “colegialidad”, una manera de denominar la democracia en la Iglesia. A principios de este año, algunos cardenales plantearon la posibilidad de que las diócesis compartieran algunas facultades vaticanas, por ejemplo, en la selección de obispos.

SOLEMNE INAUGURACIÓN DE LA X ASAMBLEA GENERAL ORDINARIA DEL SÍNODO DE LOS OBISPOS , 30 Septiembre 2001

 HOMILÍA DEL SANTO PADRE (Resumen)

 En la noche de Navidad de 1999, inaugurando el Gran Jubileo, después de haber abierto la Puerta Santa la he cruzado teniendo entre las manos el Libro de los Evangelios. Era un gesto altamente simbólico. En él podemos ver incluido, de algún modo, todo el contenido del Sínodo que hoy abrimos y que tendrá como tema: “El Obispo servidor del Evangelio de Jesucristo para la esperanza del mundo“.

El Obispo es “minister, servidor”. La Iglesia está al servicio del Evangelio. “Ancilla Evangelii”: así podría definirse evocando las palabras pronunciadas por la Virgen en el anuncio del Ángel. “Ecce ancilla Domini”, dijo María; “Ecce ancilla Evangelii”, continúa diciendo hoy la Iglesia.

“Propter spem mundi”. La esperanza del mundo está en Cristo. En Él las esperanzas de la humanidad hallan un real y sólido fundamento. La esperanza de todo ser humano emana de la Cruz, signo de la victoria del amor sobre el odio, del perdón sobre la venganza, de la verdad sobre la mentira, de la solidaridad sobre el egoísmo. Es nuestro deber comunicar este anuncio salvífico a los hombres y a las mujeres de nuestro tiempo.

 ”Bienaventurados los pobres de espíritu”, hemos cantado en el estribillo del Salmo responsorial.

La bienaventuranza evangélica de la pobreza que hoy, domingo, la Palabra de Dios propone nuevamente, constituye un mensaje valioso para la Asamblea sinodal que estamos iniciando. La pobreza es, de hecho, un rasgo esencial de la persona de Jesús y de su ministerio de salvación, representando uno de los requisitos indispensables para que el anuncio evangélico sea escuchado y acogido por la humanidad de hoy.

 A la luz de la primera Lectura, del profeta Amós, y aún más de la célebre parábola del “rico malo” y del pobre Lázaro, narrada por el evangelista Lucas, nosotros, venerados hermanos, estamos estimulados a examinarnos sobre nuestra actitud hacia los bienes terrenales y sobre el uso que de ellos se hace. Estamos invitados a verificar hasta dónde en la Iglesia ha llegado la conversión personal y comunitaria a una efectiva pobreza evangélica. Vuelven a la memoria las palabras del Concilio Vaticano II: “Mas como Cristo efectuó la redención en la pobreza y en la persecución, así la Iglesia está destinada a seguir ese mismo camino para comunicar a los hombres los frutos de la salvación” (Lumen gentium, 8).

Es el camino de la pobreza el que nos permitirá transmitir a nuestros contemporáneos “los frutos de la salvación”. Como Obispos estamos llamados, por lo tanto, a ser pobres al servicio del Evangelio. Ser servidores de la palabra revelada que en caso necesario elevan la voz en defensa de los últimos, denunciando los abusos de aquellos a los que Amós llama “los que se sienten seguros” y los “sibaritas”. Ser profetas que ponen de manifiesto con coraje los pecados sociales vinculados al consumismo, al hedonismo, a una economía que produce una inaceptable distancia entre lujo y miseria, entre pocos “malos” e innumerables “Lázaros” condenados a la miseria. En toda época, la Iglesia ha sido solidaria con estos últimos, y ha tenido Pastores santos que se han alineado, como apóstoles intrépidos de la caridad, con los pobres.

 Mas para que la voz de los Pastores sea creíble, es necesario que ellos mismos den prueba de una conducta distanciada de intereses privados y solícita hacia los más débiles. Es necesario que sean ejemplo para la comunidad a ellos confiada, enseñando y sosteniendo ese conjunto de principios de solidaridad y de justicia social que forman la doctrina social de la Iglesia.

 “Tú … hombre de Dios” (1Tm 6,11): con este título San Pablo califica a Timoteo en la segunda Lectura, proclamada hace poco. Es una página en la cual el Apóstol traza un programa de vida perennemente válido para el Obispo. El Pastor debe ser “hombre de Dios”; su existencia y su ministerio están completamente bajo el señorío divino y extrae del más que eminente misterio de Dios luz y vigor.

Continúa San Pablo: “Tú, … hombre de Dios … corre al alcance de la justicia, de la piedad, de la fe, de la caridad, de la paciencia en el sufrimiento, de la dulzura” (v. 11). ¡Cuánta sabiduría en ese “corre al alcance”! La Ordenación no infunde la perfección de las virtudes: el Obispo está llamado a proseguir su camino de santificación con mayor intensidad para alcanzar la estatura de Cristo, Hombre perfecto.

 Añade el Apóstol: “combate el buen combate de la fe, conquista la vida eterna …” (v. 12). Avanzando hacia el Reino de Dios nos enfrentamos, queridos Hermanos, a nuestra cotidiana fatiga por la fe, no buscando otra recompensa si no aquella que Dios nos dará al final. Estamos llamados a hacer esta “solemne profesión delante de muchos testigos” (vv. 12). El esplendor de la fe se hace, de este modo, testimonio: reflejo de la gloria de Cristo en las palabras y en los gestos de cada uno de sus fieles ministros.

Concluye San Pablo: “Te recomiendo … que conserves el mandato sin tacha ni culpa hasta la Manifestación de nuestro Señor Jesucristo” (vv. 13-14). ¡”El mandato”! En esta palabra está Cristo todo: su Evangelio, su testamento de amor, el don de su Espíritu que cumple la ley. Los Apóstoles han recibido de Él esta herencia y nos la han confiado a nosotros para que sea conservada y transmitida intacta hasta el final de los tiempos.

Actualizaciones y nuevas facetas

 Breton Woods: Un primer paso histórico hacia la Globalización Económica

 A los fines de reconstruir el Sistema Económico Mundial en Julio 1944, casi al fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, 730 delegados de 44 naciones aliadas firmaron el el Hotel Mount Washington de Breton Woods, de New Hampshire, Estados Unidos el Acuerdo de Breton Woods. Las instituciones creadas fueron el FMI, Fondo Monetario Internacional, El Banco Internacional para La Reconstrucción y el Desarrollo, que hoy es el Grupo Banco Mundial.

 El Capitalismo era y continúa siendo la doctrina de ese “Orden Establecido” aunque ya reconoce los siguientes desarrollos – propuestas de reforma:

 El “Turbo Capitalismo” de Edward Luftwak,

El “Fundamentalismo de Mercado” de George Soros,

El “Capitalismo Casino” de Susan Strange y;

El Capitalismo en etapa cancerígena de Benjamín Barber.

 Movimientos anti Globalización más aceptados: Movimiento Justicia Global; Movimiento Justicia Comercial del Reino Unido y La Otra Globalización (originada en Francia)

 Los principales reclamos son los siguientes:

 Fin del Status legal de la “personería” corporativa;

Disolución del Fundamentalismo del “Libre Mercado”;

La privatización económica radical del Banco Mundial, del FMI y de la OMC, Organización Mundial de Comercio;

 Con respecto al Neoliberalismo los activistas se oponen a la “Globalización abusiva” y a las instituciones internacionales que promueven el neoliberalismo sin respeto a estándares éticos. Específicamente se refieren a las siguientes instituciones:

 Banco Mundial

FMI

OECD Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico,

OMC, Organización Mundial de Comercio

Tratados de Libre Comercio:

NAFTA

FTAA, Área de Libre Comercio entre Las Americas

Acuerdo Multilateral sobre Inversiones

El GATT, Acuerdo General de Comercio para Servicios

 Los activistas se oponen también a algunas alianzas de negocios tales como

WEF, Foro Económico Mundial

APEC, Acuerdo de Cooperación Asia Pacifico

TABD, Dialogo de Negocios Transatlánticos

 Estos movimientos también arguyen que si las fronteras están abiertas al comercio deberían estar también abiertas  y permitir la circulación legal y residencia de migrantes y refugiados.

Noam Chomsky expresa:

    El termino Globalización ha sido apropiado para referirse a formas especificas de integración económica internacional, basada en los derechos de los inversores y solo incidentemente con los de la gente. Es por esta circunstancia que la prensa de negocios se refiere a los “Acuerdos de Libre Comercio” como “Acuerdos de Libre Inversión”. Por el contrario otras formas de globalización son descriptas como “anti globalización”; y algunos, desafortunadamente, aceptan este termino, que es solo una expresión propagandística qué debería llamar a risa. Nadie en su sano juicio puede oponerse a la globalización, esto es, a la integración internacional. Seguramente no la izquierda ni los movimientos de los trabajadores, que están fundados sobre principios de solidaridad internacional – esto es, ir hacia la globalización en una forma que atienda los derechos de la gente, de de los sistemas de poder privados.

Tags: Guy Verhofstadt, sínodo de obispos, tercer milenio, El papa, pobreza efectiva, serpiente multicolor, globalización, anti globalización, G8, Globalización ética, Seattle, Gotergurgo, black bloc, slow food, cumbre de Seattle, mundialización, egoísmo sin fronteras, Tercer Mundo, norte rico, sur pobre, globalista, antiglobalizadores, unión europea, bin laden, Juan Pablo II, Le Pen, libre comercio, fao, unctad, James Tobin, Tasa Tobin, derechos humanos, Latinoamérica, occidente rico, omc, organización mundial de comercio, unión africana, mercosur, Asean, nafta, banco mundial, naciones unidas, Kioto, grupo umbrella, la revolución que viene, multitud, anti sistema, antisistema, neoliberalismo, mundo justo, movimiento de movimientos, pobreza efectiva, Concilio Vaticano II, Jan Schotte, bienaventuranza de la pobreza, profeta Amós, san Pablo, Breton Woods, banco internacional para la Reconstrucción y el Desarrollo, BID, Turbo capitalismo, capitalismo salvaje, fundamentalismo de mercado, capitalismo casino, susan Strange, capitalismo, capitalismo en etapa cáncer, Benjamín Barber, la Otra Globalización, personería ejecutiva, globalización abusiva, ECDE, OECD, FTAA, GATT, WEF, WSF, TABD, APEC, noam chomsky, acuerdos de libre inversión,

“I don’t divide the world into the weak and the strong, or the successes and the failures, those who make it or those who don’t. I divide the world into learners and non-learners.”
-BENJAMIN BARBER

I’ll never forget my first talk that I gave. It was at Montclair State University with the great Dr. Rob Gilbert to Disney interns. I decided to speak on the topic of goal setting. I spent quite some time preparing for the big day.

Well, Dr. Gilbert introduced me and I started talking about goals. I only spoke for a few minutes when he interrupted me and took over.

I felt bad. I felt like a failure. I felt that there was no hope.

But I didn’t give up. Instead, I thought, “What else could this mean?”

I later learned from Dr. Gilbert, that instead of just providing information, you need to use quotes, incorporate videos, tell stories, and give demonstrations to make your point.

And now, I feel very confident in my speaking abilities.

Instead of having a fixed mindset and thinking I wasn’t born to be a speaker, I had a growth mindset and focused on learning and improving.

That’s the key to reaching peak performance, it doesn’t matter whether you’re playing Bach or playing baseball.


Thanks for reading, and Happy Mother’s Day to all of you mothers out there.

For a free 10-minute peak performance consultation, email: ed10s26@yahoo.com

cokegirl12's photobucket stream

I remember reading a book quite sometime ago; to be precise about 4 years ago. But re-reading this particular book never seemed like a bad idea. The more I read it, the more I understood it. Maybe it was because I was exposed to more new ideas today than yesterday and these ideas were always of constant relevance to this book.

Ok I shall spare you from the suspense and reveal to you which book I’m talking about. I’m certain many of you have heard of the New York Times Bestseller “Jihad vs McWorld” by Benjamin Barber. For those of you who haven’t heard about it, the book generally covers the conflicting ideas of Jihad and McWorld. According to Benjamin Barber, our world is being pulled together by McWorld and at the same time it is also being torn apart by Jihad.

Although McWorld (the world we currently live in) itself has evolved over the years the term “McWorld” hasn’t. It still refers to the effects of globalization and how the spread of McDonald’s outlets all over the World has helped this word maintain its meaning.

I know that many of us are advocates of globalization and the many benefits it reaps for all the economies that are in favour of it. However after reading several other books and articles on this topic over the years, I have come to the personal consensus that globalization has created some form of sad uniformity among many of us.

Why sad? Because I’ve always thought that uniformity should be the last thing we should hope to achieve in our lives. I’m not saying it’s something that can be completely avoided nor am I saying that it’s a “bad thing” to have. What I am saying is that we should preserve what is truly ours without even having the struggle of striving to be different from everyone else.

Every time I travel to a different country, I make it a point to do something “local” while I’m there. It could be to simply savour the local delicacies or experience the culture through some meaningful exploration of that place. However in recent years it has gotten harder to do that. After a few failed attempts at being “local” I would usually end up giving in and succumb to what the majority do.

Every country that I have visited so far has made me follow the same predictable itenairy – I would end up shopping in some boring mall while sipping on a frappe from Starbucks and then on my way out I would grab a sub from Suwbway for a quick dinner.

Either McWorld has completely taken over me or maybe I haven’t been visiting the places where I can try being truly “local”. I sure do hope it’s the latter that’s true!

The banks are about to get a second infusion of money to make them do what they were supposed to do with the first infusion: Loan money. The first time, instead of loaning money, they kept the cash to make their financial ratios look good, or used it to buy other banks. This time Congress is trying to figure out rules that will induce or force them to do what they should have done initially.

On KPBS Radio today, heard the answer. Although I can’t find it on his website, it was reported on the radio that Benjamin Barber, Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos, a public policy research and advocacy organization, proposes that Congress provide the banks not money, but vouchers which could be redeemed only as a part of a loan transaction. There would be no way for the banks to hang onto it as cash, or to use for some other kind of transaction. Barber suggests a three to six month expiration period for the vouchers, “Use it or lose it”. I see no problem with letting the vouchers be valid up to a year.

This is the banking version of the debit card proposal for the taxpayers that I proposed in an earlier blog. I think both deserve serious consideration. Both proposals have the advantage of getting the money where it is needed and getting it there fast.

 Political theorist, playwright, academic and NCVO Annual Conference keynote speaker Dr Benjamin Barber is also a man who sees a brave new world rising from the ashes of Wall Street. He Spoke to Caitlin Mackesy Davies

When Barack Hussein Obama II became the 44th President of the United States, it was the culmination of one of the most innovative, expensive and exciting campaigns in US history. It was also a bid fed by an unprecedented show of grassroots support, prompted by Obama’s assertion that his run was not about him, but about us; that, when people work together, change can happen, and the US can rediscover its innate talent for creativity, regeneration and invention.

His victory speech reminded the US people that their birthright was a government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’, and that it is predicated on a spirit of patriotism –based not simply on a love of country, but on ‘service and responsibility, where each one of us resolves to pitch in and work harder, and look after not only ourselves, but each other’.

In the baldest terms, he appealed to the vanity of the country, asking it to prove to itself and ‘those watching from beyond our shores’, that the US was still the home of active, responsible citizens, and of a truly civil society.

If this is a radical new message for new voters brought into the Obama fold, for Dr Benjamin Barber it is very old news.

The author, academic and advisor to world leaders including Bill Clinton and Colonel Gadafy has spent four decades examining and explaining the character of America’s democracy and the foundations of its civil society.

A conversation with him includes reference to Thoma s Jefferson, Alexis De Tocqueville and John Dewey, as well as Bill Clinton– who Barber feels ‘squandered his charisma and power’ with the Lewinsky affair – and it’s clear that he never lost faith with the ideal.

In his America, the ethic of participation has never gone away. ‘Even under eight years of Bush, when the American people did not feel particularly represented and embodied, we continued to have an extremely robust local ‘government, municipal sector and civic participation,’ he says.

Anybody who thought, like Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher, that the state is the problem and the market is the solution knows better now’

And in Barber’s view, all civic participation – be it with a parent teacher association, volunteering for the Red Cross or offering time as a volunteer fireman – is ‘part of what it means to be a citizen’. So what is crucial about the Obama election, he says, is that newcomers to the political process don’t lose faith once the real work begins.

Inspirational character

‘We can talk in theory about the beauties of service and citizenship and the inspirational character of the Obama campaign, but if once he’s president, all of those young people who were so engaged in the process don’t have a way to exercise their citizenship, the inspiration will fade. They’ll go back to being passive spectators, where politics is what they watch on TV.’

The real test, he says, is what Obama does to harness this energy, and Barber has a characteristically bold suggestion: ‘It may sound utopian, but if Obama really wanted to make good on this he would institute a form of mandatory national service for every young man and woman in America.

‘They would serve, say, for a year in an international peace corps service, in a domestic community service programme, in military service, or some other form of service in which they learn the meaning of citizenship, the meaning of participation, and the meaning of responsibility.’

Roads to democracy

In return, he believes they should receive funding for continuing education, ‘which would cement the relationship between education and citizenship, which are both roads to citizenship and democracy.’

Bill Clinton, he explains, did just that, going out of his way to make that connection through his Corporation for National and Community Service, which provided an institutional framework in which community and national service could unfold, and gave young people who were excited by the administration a way to engage in something other than just getting the president elected.

Why mandatory service? Barber is unequivocal in his response: ‘Citizenship is not discretionary; it’s not something we can have or not have. More than one democracy has died of lethargy, when citizens don’t pay attention and before they know it they have lost their liberty. Just as [schools] mandate the rudiments of mathematics, citizenship should be mandatory in the same sense.’

While he seems unconvinced that Obama will be able toe this hard line, he must at least, Barber says, offer opportunities for ongoing engagement and participation.

This, he says, can reinforce and energise the existing ‘independent sector’ – his preferred term for the voluntary and community sector, including NGOs – which historically has seen traffic running the other way:

‘Generally speaking, people who work hard in the independent sector to be responsible citizens become better citizens in the government and state sectors. But, in fact, the arrows go in both directions. An engaged citizenry that has been inspired by a political leader can also become more active in the independent sector.’

Whichever way the current runs, it leads to the same understanding: ‘That people who volunteer and are engaged in that sector are exercising an important form of citizenship, that’s related to what they do when they vote, when they do jury service, when they do military service.’

There’s never been a better time to emphasise this link, he says, since in modern democracies, and he includes the UK in this, it has recently been obscured: ‘We’ve tended to reduce citizenship to voting – that’s how you keep the bastards accountable – and paying taxes – which is how you fund the stuff they do – and that’s about it.’

Muddying these waters further, has been dominance of the private sector over the past 30 years, which has, Barber says ‘tried to sell us on the proposition that being a consumer is what being a real citizen is about – you can simply make private decisions as a consumer and that is all that’s required of you as a citizen of a democracy.’

This dangerous myth, he says, creates a ‘civic schizophrenia’, which leaves us torn between acting in a way that benefits only our wants, or in a way that we know is right for the larger society, so it’s not so strange that he seems almost to welcome the current financial crisis.

‘What’s great about the fiscal meltdown,’ he says, ‘is that it has indicated the failure of the market sector, the failure of that mythology. Anybody who thought, like Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher, that the state is the problem and the market is the solution knows better now.’

And while he warns that there are people out there who want to simply ‘prime the credit pump and get things moving again’, he says confidently: ‘That’s not going to happen – we’re not going back.’

There’s no better time, then, for the US political momentum to spill over into every democratic society– including what he feels is currently a fairly cynical UK – and to signal a renewed partnership between the public, private and independent sectors, perhaps even a renaissance of civil society, in which we all play an important part.

‘We are moving into a period of greater partnership between democratic institutions, and for that to work we need a very robust and energetic conception of citizenship; people who take themselves very seriously as citizens – not just as voters, certainly not as consumers, but as active, responsible participants in civic processes at every level, and there the voluntary sector plays a very important role.’

Dr Benjamin Barber Live

Dr Barber delivered the keynote address at the NCVO Annual Conference, 18 February. Call Matt Gilfeather on 020 7520 3160 now to book your place.

This interview first appeared in Engage magazine, the magazine of NCVO

Leading service design company Live/Work have published a thoughtful article on their website today: Service Thinking. At first I felt chastened at having attempted to explain recently to a US visitor what service design was. I said that because of their appetite for solving problems of order and function, designers can apply their visual and spatial fluency to systemic problems and to services as well as to the material world, as if systems and services were things.

Woops. Live/Work would probably say this is exactly the wrong way to explain it, for as they perceive it: “The reason so many services under perform and disappoint customers is because we treat a service as if it is an industrially manufactured product”. A thing, in my terminology. Thus chastened, I read on. They talk really well on the rise of mass production and mass consumption in the last century, and, citing Alvin Toffler, on the dislocation of those phenomena that has alienated everyone from first products and then from services treated by all sectors as if they were products (in our times “a train journey is somehow a product”).

It emerges that it’s not the production and consumption that are wrong, but the mass factor, and what they’re getting at is the service imperative of personalisation, in which “producer and consumer must come together”. Now I feel a bit vindicated, as co-curator of My World: the New Subjectivity in Design, an international exhibition looking at the influence of craft in contemporary design. We the curators agreed that because of industrial production at first, then later of globalisation and the rapid advance of digital technologies, design very easily risks the banishment of personal meaning. We were talking about products, but the New Subjectivity has serious traction in services.

But one thing still bugs me. Product or service, what we see is a lemming-like flight to brands. Not warmly individuated, customised, personalised things shaped uniquely to your needs, but fierce evidence that people want what everyone else is having. This is most obvious in the consumption of commercial products – the powerful desire to belong to Nike’s global club – but might it equally be true of services? Is the perceived need for personalisation actually a perceived need to compete with the individuation and choice that is the received wisdom of commercial marketing? Ben Barber’s book Consumed: How markets corrupt children, infantilize adults and swallow citizens whole is as fantastically bracing a read on this subject as its title suggests.

Finally here’s a breakthrough in the recognition of intangible design. The RSA Academy in the West Midlands made it to Design Week’s Hot 50 last week. Surrounded in this league by personalities, commissioners, consultancies and cultural institutions who all damn well should know how to use design, there it is: a school. Not even a school in a fancy building, but a school operating an alternative to the National Curriculum. Neither product nor service; a curriculum. Now what kind of a thing is that?

Well, I am thinking about it,  but not getting too far.

But it is hard to discern any movement toward a wholesale rethinking of the dominant role of the market in our society. No one is questioning the impulse to rehabilitate the consumer market as the driver of American commerce. Or to keep commerce as the foundation of American public and private life, even at the cost of rendering other cherished American values–like pluralism, the life of the spirit and the pursuit of (nonmaterial) happiness–subordinate to it.

SOURCE

What Barack Obama has called sacrifice is actually good sense.  The costs of bringing our economy to some level of sustainability are well worth it long term. Propping up what we have and encouraging people to buy the same old is the real problem.

by ishein1

As the first week of Obama’s presidency passes, a top priority, set forth prior to his election, is to transform “the internet based machinery”, that helped him get elected, into an agenda setting tool.  The millennial generation tools within a new frontier of political interaction, i.e. social networking sites, like facebook, twitter, and YouTube are still in their embryonic form, particularly with regard to their impact on the political process.  It is clear, however, that if one wants to be a powerful political actor he or she must embrace these new forms of media.  There are a number of past politicians, once with substantial clout, who are now lying in the graveyard that this new media dug.  Trent Lott and George Allen, for example, were sidelined by the powerful quotidian torrent of Internet politics.  Obama’s campaign was an exposé of the galvanizing proclivities of this new medium.  Now, it is the telos of the Obama administration to turn its revolutionary campaign into revolutionary governance. 

Building off his campaign’s successful use of the new frontier, Obama’s first step was to revamp the white house website, modeling it after his campaign site.  The improved White house website can be continually updated with presidential orders and blogs.  Next, rather than utilizing the old medium of radio, Obama streamed his position on the economic crisis via video.  Presidential Obama’s utilization of new media provides for an unparalleled dissemination of information.  It successfully bypasses the conduits of the old watchdog media leaving the bypassed representatives of the older forms of media concerned.  It can be proffered, however, that citizens are now becoming the watchdogs, as they are provided with new forums for discussion and reaction.  Obama, differently than during his astonishing and meteoric rise to the presidency, will now have many more restrictions on his usage of the millennial generations tool kit.  Mr. Obama was unfettered in his usage of Facebook, instant messaging and twitter, President Obama will be more regulated.  Democracy theorist Benjamin Barber (1998 ) adroitly elucidates the potential of new technology’s proclivities for civics.  He states, “The bittersweet fruits of science will…serve as facilitator rather than a corruptor of our precious democracy”. The Internet is interactive and the viewer has much more control, thus, fostering democracy.  New technology has transformed the dynamics and structure of civics, political campaigning, and democracy.  Therefore, citizens, and politicians alike must embrace this new medium and shunt aside any desire to stultify the inexorable current of this new media.  We have entered the new political frontier and there is no turning back.         

 Read More

 Janet M. Ruaneand Karen A. Cerulo on Presidential Politics 

As it were.

The crisis in global capitalism demands a revolution in spirit — fundamental change in attitudes and behavior. Reform cannot merely rush parents and kids back into the mall; it must encourage them to shop less, to save rather than spend. If there’s to be a federal lottery, the Obama administration should use it as an incentive for saving, a free ticket, say, for every ten bucks banked. Penalize carbon use by taxing gas so that it’s $4 a gallon regardless of market price, curbing gas guzzlers and promoting efficient public transportation. And how about policies that give producers incentives to target real needs, even where the needy are short of cash, rather than to manufacture faux needs for the wealthy just because they’ve got the cash?

Or better yet, take in earnest that insincere MasterCard ad, and consider all the things money can’t buy (most things!). Change some habits and restore the balance between body and spirit. Refashion the cultural ethos by taking culture seriously. The arts play a large role in fostering the noncommercial aspects of society. It’s time, finally, for a cabinet-level arts and humanities post to foster creative thinking within government as well as throughout the country. Time for serious federal arts education money to teach the young the joys and powers of imagination, creativity and culture, as doers and spectators rather than consumers.

SOURCE

The new year is a wonderful time to plan new beginnings, and this year is no exception.

The inauguration today of US president Barack Obama brings the rare promise of change, despite the global economic problems that have gripped the world in recent months.
Placing all our hopes for a better world in the lap of one man, no matter how impressive he might be, would be an error. The important thing to take from Obama’s victory is that, by pulling together, unbelievable changes can be made.
This is true of organisations, as shown at the crisis summit held between NCVO, other charity leaders and the Minister for the Third Sector, Kevin Brennan. The summit showed how we can come together in pursuit of common
aims. In this case to ensure that the voluntary and community sector isn’t an afterthought as Britain faces the economic downturn.
It is also true of individuals, as the respected Dr Benjamin Barber says in our interview on page 14.

Harnessing the energy of the young and instilling a sense of civic responsibility from an early age should be one of Obama’s (and everyone else’s) first challenges.
It’s not just the young that have an important part to play in building civil society: in our article A Team for All Seasons (page 20) we look at how VCOs can make sure they engage the talents of all of their staff by acknowledging their different motivations. Of course, conflict can break out in even the best-run workplace and we look at new regulations for settling disputes in The Pressure’s Off (page 30).

We look forward to a year that promises to be both challenging and full of opportunities. Keep your letters and emails coming in and remember you are not alone, you’re part of growing and vibrant movement for good.

To subscribe to Engage or to request a free sample go to www.beEngaged.org

Guess what, Benjamin Barber was right!

As I was on the MRT train that day, I noticed an interesting sight that made me ponder over what Benjamin Barber had written in his insightful book, Jihad vs McWorld. Barber came up with his interesting theories about the two opposing forces working in the world today.

The first force is McWorld, the powerful globalising force which is so prevalent all around us. Everything because of Americanization (which comprises of all the Ms: Mcdonald’s, MTV, Michael Jordan etc.) is on the path to homogeneity. Americanization has infilitrated typically the globe such that all countries are embarking on pursuing the Ms.

The second force, Jihad (not the reference to the act of holy war), is the opposition to all the Ms. A group will go against the Ms or McWorld because McWorld threatens to eliminate existing cultures to usher in the homogeneity of American culture.

On first glance, these two forces seem to oppose each other, but Barber connotes that they both are interdependent upon one other. Within McWorld itself there is already Jihad while Jihad needs McWorld’s power to operate. I have just seen the second appear in front of me during the train ride:

The moment I entered the train, this Arab Muslim was using a camcorder and filming around. I presume she is a tourist.

I have nothing against Muslims, but Muslims are a typical example of Barber’s Jihad concept. They preserve their culture identity very strongly. But yet, I saw that they do not preserve it so well that McWorld has no place in Jihad. This lady was on an MRT train, she was using a camcorder, she might be a tourist.

Hello! Welcome to McWorld! Though she preserves her faith, McWorld is not totally shut out from her. In fact, it is a very major part of her lifestyle too.

Benjamin Barber is right!