No matter how lofty the rhetoric about the beautiful, idealistic future to be built via education, if the foundation is mind arson and a refusal to teach reading well because it might foster an independent mind, the future will be one of exploiting people. If governments are directing the economy, who gets what will become parasitic. If I want someone to regularly buy my legal services or tap my knowledge, I have to be good. I better be right. And I ought to be polite and congenial to work with. That’s the private marketplace.
When the public sector controls and pays itself with taxpayer money or incurs debt, power is all that matters. And people get paid not for what they know or can do but for what they are willing to do. Or push. Or advocate for. Even if it’s a terrible idea. Beyond the inherent political favoritism of which companies get chosen when politicians and bureaucrats make economic decisions instead of consumers, there’s no real personal penalty for being wrong or wasteful or pushing abusive ideas like a psychological approach to education grounded in research from the Soviet Union. If the charitable foundations with their compounding annually, untaxed assets push socially and economically destructive ideas, there will still be money for salaries and benefits and more destructive grants next year.
That may all be obvious but it creates huge problems with the idea of research universities, government agencies, politicians, nonprofits, and connected Big Business collaborating and coordinating together to direct a new kind of 21st century economy and society. Only the parasites are getting seats at the decision-making table or they can greatly outvote the productive sector that ultimately has to fund it all. Making my own way in the private economy, I have to get the big picture and appreciate likely consequences. Even the hard to foresee ones. But there’s really no incentive for someone who gets paid for what they push on others from the public trough to figure out what the consequences will be. The only consequence that counts is the inability to get a lucrative consulting contract or research grant or promotion. That’s what controls. It’s why dirigiste economies ultimately produce stagnancy if not worse.
So Sunday and Monday I was at the first ever (co)lab, A Collaborative Leadership Summit in Atlanta with all sorts of Big Business sponsorship. It was to be the template for what is to go on in other cities to push this new economic/social vision for the future. Tom Friedman flew in to give the closing address and Sir Ken Robinson and Tony Wagner from Harvard were just two of the famous education reformers who laid out the ed component for getting to the new desired future. The Fulton County School District’s Conversion Charter that I have been so horrified by ever since I read it was featured as a key component of getting to this reimagined society. A woman by the name of April Rinne spoke on the collaboration, support economy of the future. And since she is also with the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders, there’s our link of what Atlanta inaugurated and what went on a week earlier in Dalian, China (Sept 18, 2013 post).
When I went to look into the whole concept of collaborative leadership a bit more, I discovered it is being pushed hard globally by the same group that planned that Dalian conference. http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/stone-soup-global-leadership-new-model-collaborative-leadership-address-today%E2%80%99s-global-challeng Ah, sustainability as the excuse for government control of the economy. That was another key component of the (co)lab vision of the future. I could spend the next few weeks laying out all the troubling aspects of what was presented as The Vision for Our Collective Future. Like it or not, here it comes. No more of an emphasis on the individual and making their own choices. This is an imposed vision and education with a curriculum of affect designed to make students either like it or simply accept it as inevitable. Hopefully though they will act to help make it so, completely unaware of what I laid out in the first few paragraphs of this post.
I want to focus today on a comment in just one of the speeches. It was so inspiring to the audience the speaker got a standing ovation. I sat there in horror though wondering precisely what was coming at Atlanta and the rest of the country in the name of honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. Now I have encountered and written about so many examples of the communitarian mindsets the real Common Core implementation seeks to instill. So when the speaker, after pitching the need for all of us to develop empathy for all others so they no longer seem to be the ‘other’ and the need to ‘hold multiple truths’ at the same time (I wondered if maybe she had been listening to Robert Kegan describing his 4th Stage Consciousness or reading Psychosynthesis), then brought up the “blessed community,” I was very uneasy. She said (co)lab and what was being discussed there were supposed to help make Atlanta the “living embodiment of MLK’s ‘blessed community.”
Now I was already going to look that up when I got home even before the next line. Creating that ‘beloved community’ was going to require “qualitative change in our souls as well as quantitative change in our lives.” Sounds like wholesale noetic change and then redistribution. Well, I have heard that pitch so many times in recent years and it never bodes well. Change what we feel, believe, value, wish for, and how we live. How comprehensive that is. How transformative. How personally intrusive. That’s also the goal Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers had that we have covered and for similar reasons. It’s the goal of the humanistic education and the Curriculum of Affect. I have those Ford Foundation financed visions from the 60’s that we will go over in the next post.
What I did not know though is that there were so many people waiting to finalize King’s ‘blessed community’ revolution of civil society and the economy. Conducted through the schools and in the name of the disadvantaged and saving the inner Cities where ever they are located. The most explicit layout of what is really being contemplated dovetails with what King-aide Bayard Rustin laid out in 1965 that we discussed here http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/commencing-the-long-sought-bloodless-coup-via-education-to-make-equality-for-all-a-fact/ But the MLK ‘blessed community’ vision that virtually duplicates what we have learned to associate with little ‘c’ Marxist Humanism is described here http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/a-conspiracy-of-hope/the-beloved-community-of-martin-luther-king as being where Dr King had gone in the last two years of his life. And it is this vision that (co)lab and Fulton’s charter and the described reforms consistent with changing the purpose of education are now unquestionably linked to.
When the vision attached to education reforms or political reforms to restructure the nature of cities is attached to language about ” a new more human society” with ‘new values” we all need to pay attention. That aspiration has never worked out well. In the name of avoiding exploitation and oppression and achieving justice and equality, the exact opposites occur because political power and its ability to coerce with minimal consequences to the pushers become dominant. But there is such reverence now for King. Will anyone recognize in time the dangers of blindly advocating for fulfilling his vision “to develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole”?
What about putting the public sector and charitable foundations in charge of shifting us all from a “thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society?” Wouldn’t a curriculum of affect grounded in psychology as the new focus of education be a useful tool for that goal?
We are all being hurdled towards uprooting what we have now to design and create anew. And most people are not in the meetings where this is being laid out at. And there are lots of lies being told in meetings we are at to cover this up so we do not rebel before it is all done. And most of the people advocating for all this are doing it because such advocacy is their livelihood.
No one getting paid to push this has to bear the likely atrocious long-term consequences and they have no incentive to even be aware of them. The people who do have to bear the consequences are largely unaware of what is even intended.
Which is why my typing fingers are getting calloused and my voice hoarse from trying to sound the alarm in time.
As soon as I hear it or see it or read it. Sometimes all three like this time.
“The reality is that society lacks structures to act in a coordinated fashion to create true change.”
Yes, correct. Limited government, the rule of law, checks and balances between the various branches of government, and an emphasis on the individual liberty based in individual rights that are “unalienable” does not allow for vast, megalithic projects of human redemption or “change” (whatever this means, and I speak rhetorically because of course we know just what it means, in essence) across either nations or borders.
The same state apparatus that would have to be constructed to see that “society” undertakes programs of coordinated change on a global, yet alone national level, is also powerful enough to send six million Jews to ovens and let ten million Kulaks starve in the streets as a matter of government policy.
These people are mad.
There’s upside in pushing all this and no personal downside. That’s why concentrating planning and economic power in the public sector is so dangerous.
Read some more of what I put up last night and this morning on the other thread on collaborative leadership and also that collaboration economy. It sounds good except there is no assumption anyone has a legitimate zone of privacy and resources are no where as finite as these people are leading us to believe.
It’s just more excuses for control.
I am nowhere near the researcher you are, but my initial search for information about “collaborative leadership” was interesting, if only in the fact the results turned up 100% positive returns (at least what I saw). How can this be? Am I to believe that (a) everyone LOVES the collaborative leadership style; (b) collaborative leadership has replaced all other forms of leadership (or at least is THE wave of the future); or (c) whatever studies that have been done relating to the effectiveness of collaborative leadership compared to other forms of leadership all had the same glowing results? I could not find a single criticism in the ten pages of search results I looked at.
I also did a search for “vision for collective future”. I was (sort of) surprised that many cities and organizations world-wide have the same (or very similar) vision of their future…same terminology, same use of “vibrant data”. Imagine that. This is so obviously related to Agenda 21, but we don’t hear much about that anymore, do we? I read that Agenda 21 was being re-branded to FutureEarth (“research for global sustainability”), but haven’t heard much about it recently.
Rebranding to Future Earth is consistent with the Belmont Challenge and Future Earth Alliance posts I wrote back in mid-June 2012. Coming across those perverse intentions at the March Planet under Pressure conference in London in March 2012 was a huge reason why I put book manuscript aside and started this blog to sound the alarm on what was coming. There has been a Futurefest in London in recent days that is quite similar to (co)lab. Without any references to King’s beloved community though. Probably just communitarianism in general since Cameron was a member of the UN Commission that prepared that post-2015 report affecting all of us. The US member was John Podesta from the Center for American Progress. We have covered their new vision as well and it also fits.
I think the collaborative leadership style also fits with Peter Senge’s vision of the reorganised workplace and Shoshana Zuboff’s as well. April Rinne has a Harvard law degree and seems to have partaken large amounts of the Donald Schon/Chris Argyris action research for a new society vision that seems to enthrall plenty of people in the graduate programs at both Cambridge campuses.
Perhaps we should see the phrase ‘collaborative leadership’ as one of Schon’s generative metaphors?
Sorry I could not respond earlier. New computer left me incommunicado during transition.
Stone Soup… “paradigm identifies the key personality traits”! Sure does. Just one magician leader like this “collaborating” with any number of other “leaders”, especially those trained in non-rational, emotion driven, herd think, will invariably result in “magician’s choice” decisions. Nothing collaborative in that at all!
Terrific site, by the way. I recently found it and am feasting on your facts. Thanks.