Playfully Changing the Prevailing Climate of Opinion: Climate change as focal metaphor of effective global governance

-

Reflections inspired by the Trajectories conference at the Centre for Alternative Technology (Machynlleth-Wales, May 2005) of which this is a playfully partial interpretation in the spirit of the transformative approach advocated here.

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Introduction

There is rapidly rising concern regarding the effects of climate change -- and their imminence. This has been accompanied by a range of initiatives to deny or minimize the evidence and the nature of any consequences [more].

Seemingly unrelated to the issue of climate change has been the widespread rising concern about the need for "new thinking", "paradigm shifts", and changes away from dangerous "patterns of consumption". These are understood as being essential to sustainable development and to more effective responses to the many actual and latent conflicts around the world.

The following is an exploration of the preoccupations of a recent conference at the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) with climate change. Given the unusually self-reflexive emphasis of the event, climate change is understood self-reflexively here as a metaphorical template for new approaches to global governance based on changing the climate of opinion as a means of effectively engaging with climate change.

At the time of writing, the urgency of a response to climate change is expected to figure in the declaration of the forthcoming G8 summit (Gleneagles, July 2005). But the leaked draft text for the July summit at Gleneagles was denounced by environmental groups for lacking substance. It was described by Greenpeace as "a mush of warm words carefully crafted by civil servants to make sure no one is committed to anything" [more]. Indeed the politics are such that it is expected that the only outcome will be ineffectual pious intentions and tokenism -- with little genuine strategic direction and implementation.

Furthermore it must be said that, although global civilization has a capacity to articulate and implement strategic plans with a technical focus on material construction (or destruction), it has very limited proven capacity to undertake projects with a psychosocial or behavioural dimension. The incapacity to invest in new approaches to dialogue with those who disagree is an example -- and terrorism is an extreme result. It could be argued that thinktanks and policy-makers are unnconsciously recognizing their incapacity to respond to the complex challenges of global governance -- and that reducing them to simplistic threats, such as terrorism, is then a convenient way of claiming to do so effectively and responsibly.

The argument below builds on a recognition of a polarization of social processes into two forms of playing. On the one hand, there is the game-playing that is so characteristic of political processes and strategic initiatives, and the mind sets associated with competitive business and sport. On the other hand there is the pursuit of pleasurable play in its many forms, framed as irresponsible hedonism by some with incompatible social change agendas. In both senses it might be said that humans have already evolved from Homo sapiens into an unfortunate variant of the Homo ludens foreseen by Johan Huizinga (Homo Ludens: a study of the play element in cultures, 1938).

The merit of this approach might be summarized by the adage "if you cannot beat them, join them". Rather than "pushing the river", and bemoaning the predilection for playing, there is the possibility of "guiding the canoe". The argument being that the increasingly evident phenomena of climate change can provide a carrier for fundamental insights into actions that are increasingly vital -- provided that these are understood as offering scope for a more psychologically engaging form of playfulness that would facilitate deployment of resources in ways responsive to the challenge.

Rather than use threats (such as terrorism) as both a guiding principle for global governance and as a dubious justification for repressive directives by the few, there is a case for transforming the "threat" of climate change in ways that engage meaningful action by the many alienated by current approaches to governance. The focus here is therefore on what currently engages the many, rather than on what the few believe the many should be engaged by.

In the regretable absence of a verb form, "climate" is mistakenly understood as a noun -- as daily adaptation to the dynamics of changeable weather indicates. Treating it as such is strategic oversimplification relying on statistical aggregates and averages (which have proven so methodologically inappropriate in socio-economic response to the marginalized). Similarly "play" is most meaningfully understood as a verb. Engaging playfully with climate is therefore more consonant with its dynamics and dimensionality -- and the strategic opportunities they offer. How this might be fruitfully achieved in relation to "climate change" is what is tentatively explored here.

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]