IS REAL CHANGE A POSSABILTY?

In essence when looking at housing possibilities or houses with HOMEplace potential, what is on display is a catalogue of 'what was and what is', not what might be/should be/could be. Then if we GOOGLE "modern housing architecfture" what is generally on display oversized dwellings that are resource hungry WEALTHstores that are anything but 'sustainable'  HOMEplaces. 

Moreover, if you listen in on a Local Govt Planning Authority meeting you will rarely hear the words "self-sustainable, off-grid, autonomous, water recycling" used in the deliberations. Looking around you in this way it is not hard to imagine that there is significant resistance to the kinds of change that might disrupt the status quo in any substantial way.

However, you are very likely to hear a lot about this or that regulation most of which 

seem to have been put in place eons ago and quite often ambiguous or at odds with each other. All too often "The Three Little Pigs"  fable about three pigs who build their houses of different materials come to mind. A 'Big Bad Wolf' blows down the first two pigs' houses which are made of straw and sticks respectively, but is unable to destroy the third pig's house that is made of bricks. 

LINK

In a kind of a way the fable reminds us of just what is invested in the one-size-fits-all MINDset that invokes 'properness'. And, then there is a proverb that goes "the proper way is that straight and narrow path that leads all the way to the land of mediocrity". The fable is 19th C and while it has relevance in the 21st C it is worth some time to think about the third little pig's BRICKhouse. In the 21st C standards have slipped and nowadays it is typically a cost cutting inside-out over engineered building that is hard to heat and difficult cool. Even so, the default position that too many planners and Planning Authorities adopt is all to do with status quoism and what it delvers to them.

 

The inherited Eurocentric middle-class standard that keeps on keeping on like BRITISH PAINT is as redundant as the planners who keep on talking about the 'proper way' ad nauseam. Along with the climate things do change – indeed, must change. Anyway, as  Amelia Earhart said “Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Status quoists do that all the time.

On 'leadership' David Pledger (Thinker and Provocateur) has this to say ... "Aborescent leadership is hierarchical, based on a tree-like conception of knowledge, which works with dualist categories and binary choices. An arborescent model works with vertical and linear connections. It is the dominant knowledge system of the globalised modern world. In Australia, it has taken the form of neo-libealism. ... Neo-liberal power structures may be read vertically, top-down silos with clear values, hierarchies and control flows. The vertical tends to ensconce power at the top, creating elites, perceived and actual."

Pledger  goes on to say that " In the arts space, I’ve been talking quietly about rhizomatic forms of leadership and organisational design. A rhizome is basically a plant stem that sends out shoots and nodes – things heading somewhere, and points for those things to go through. A rhizome works with planar and trans-species connections. The planar movement of the rhizome resists chronology and organization, instead favouring a nomadic system of growth and propagation.

Rhizomatic systems are worth a look because they consolidate growth horizontally whilst also having the capacity to shoot upwards. So, their behaviour is kind of familiar. There are some good examples already in the arts around collective artistic directorates and operational models in project contexts. The Tasmania-based Big hART are quite good at the latter.

As a model for culture, the rhizome resists the organizational structure of the root-tree system which charts causality along chronological lines and looks for the original source of ‘things’ and looks towards the pinnacle or conclusion of those ‘things.’ A rhizome, on the other hand, is characterized by ‘ceaselessly established connections between semiotic chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences, and social struggles'.

In the 21st C the case for the irrelevance of HIERARCHICALgovernance diminishes almost daily as 'The Enlightenment's' consequences continue to change and transform the world. In a way the 'status quoists' cum anti-transformers cling to a past where the 'authority of GOD' licences their self-serving aspirations and imaginings. Many come very close to 'authority and fiefdom aspirations' can somehow, albeit curiosly, be akin to the notions that underpinned 'The Divine Right of Kings'.

Real and meaningful change IS a possibility but it seems that the STATUSquoists must be dislodged from their ASSUMEDthrones that they generally occupy unsustainably.  'The Enlightenment' tells us that their authority is vacuous and that it is only possible for 'their power' to be there by default. Also,'the people', the STATUSquoists' imagine to be their 'subjects' just have not yet realised their authority and their capacity to dethrone them. Their power is only there because the adherents to Indirect Representational Democracy are by default STATUSquoists too because of the largesse it delivers to them.

If we look at Direct Deliberative Democracy it offers a vision that is that light at the end of tunnel.There is guidance available for public officials and policy makers that outlines eight models for institutionalising representative public deliberation to improve collective decision making and strengthen democracy. Increasingly, public authorities are reinforcing democracy by making use of deliberative processes in a structural way, beyond one-off initiatives that are often dependent on political will. The guide provides examples of how to create structures that allow representative public deliberation to become an integral part of how certain types of public decisions are taken. Eight models to consider for implementation: 

1. Combining a permanent citizens’ assembly with one-off citizens’ panels 

2. Connecting representative public deliberation to parliamentary committees 

3. Combining deliberative and direct democracy 

4. Standing citizens’ advisory panels 

5. Sequenced representative deliberative processes throughout the policy cycle 

6. Giving people the right to demand a representative deliberative process 

7. Requiring representative public deliberation before certain types of public decisions 

8. Embedding representative deliberative processes in local strategic planning

The case for RHIZOMATICthinking laying down the foundations for fundamental change in the ways 'sustainable'  HOMEplaces can be delivered and planned for is compelling. That is so even though HIERARCHICALgovernance's adherents will no doubt fight 'tooth and nail' to maintain the status quo.

The most inhibiting factor for a MINDset shift is, and will be, the accountability and transparency implications that it will bring with it. Warren Bennis' poignant insights alert us to a MINDset that is worth some time to think about ... "The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it." and that "Leaders are people who do the right thing; managers are people who do things right.".

Watch this Space!