Monday, 11 April 2016

Only a Circular Economy Will Lead to Prosperity For All

Circular dichroism
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
by , Circulate: http://circulatenews.org/2016/04/only-a-circular-economy-will-lead-to-prosperity-for-all/

The majestic swell of the Southern ocean provides an endless spectacle. This seemingly simple succession of crests and troughs is perhaps one of the most striking memories I keep of my life at sea.

Over the years, in my mind, it ended up symbolising the subtle combination of constant change and continuity that characterises most living systems.

Just as Heraclitus famously said that “One cannot step into the same stream twice”, one cannot witness two identical waves building up and receding. Each one is unique, so similar yet so different, a perpetually evolving landscape, a perfect illustration of feedback-induced unpredictability.

The first age of machines, brought about by the Industrial Revolution, rationalised many informal processes and created a new worldview underpinned by the idea of control: we could predict what would come out of the man-made system, provided we guaranteed consistency of feedstock. 

Put in simple terms, if you pressed the same button you would always get the same result - the big machine’s levers did away with uncertainty, and paved the way for mass standardisation. It worked very well, and the unprecedented level of economic development experienced by western countries since the middle of the 19th century is a testament to that efficiency.

In order to refine the system, to make it better and faster, specialisation was a key tool and experts soon became the emblematic figures of progress…yet one could argue that along the way was lost a sense of interconnectedness: the notion of being part of the ‘bigger picture’ somewhat faded away. 

A rather strange thing, considering that the industrial “take, make, dispose” linear model is based on the ability to extract finite resources in order to produce the goods that get sold to consumers, thus powering the growth engine. A system very much relying on the environment within which it operates, but which somehow has to make a conscious effort to take a step back and consider its dependencies and level of resilience.



There are many voices currently calling out for a more transverse, less silo-like worldview, and to a large extent information technologies enabling global knowledge sharing contribute to advancing that agenda. What the Earth Timelapse tool allows us to see is the change happening to our system as a whole, and to understand the cascade of transformation that unfolds: it provides a pattern to think big picture, to use a “macroscope” as Joel de Rosnay would put it. 

Why would it matter? Because on the way towards a circular restorative and regenerative economic model, making sense of stocks and flows is essential in order to foster effective use of resources, identify areas of brittleness, and rebuild capital where necessary.

Furthermore, living systems’ metabolisms are anything but linear and only a bird’s eye view - with the right timescale - can reveal that characteristic in a plain manner. A quarter of a century might seem a lot at the level of an individual, yet it is but a blip on the scale of time, a ‘blink and you’ll miss it’ type of moment. Isn’t it then staggering to think, looking at these animations, that so much can happen in so little time? Shouldn’t we be inspired to believe that large scale change is possible within our lifetime, when we look at the Earth Timelapse?

As Janine Benyus’s biomimicry taught us, living systems work by building things (that includes organisms) up and breaking them down, never creating any component or substance that does not have a place or a use in the bigger system … now that we have a better view of it, we should adapt our economic models so they too actually fit that system, in order to achieve long-term prosperity and resilience. 

This post first appeared on the WEF Agenda blog on 23rd January 2016.

Wednesday, 6 April 2016

Political Process Theory: An Overview of the Core Theory of Social Movements

Protestors associated with Occupy Wall Street call for political and economic reforms, evoking the components of political process theory. - JB Consulting Assoc. LLC/Getty Imagesby Ashley Crossman, Sociology Expert, About Sociology: http://sociology.about.com/od/P_Index/g/Political-Process-Theory.htm

Also known as "political opportunity theory," political process theory offers an explanation of the conditions, mindset, and actions that make a social movement successful in achieving its goals.

According to this theory, political opportunities for change must first be present before a movement can achieve its objectives. Following that, the movement ultimately attempts to make change through the existing political structure and processes. 

Overview

Political process theory (PPT) is considered the core theory of social movements and how they mobilize (work to create change). It was developed by sociologists in the U.S. during the 1970s and 80s, in response to the Civil Rights, anti-war, and student movements of the 1960s. Sociologist Douglas McAdam, now a professor at Stanford University, is credited with first developing this theory via his study of the Black Civil Rights movement (see his book Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970, published in 1982).

Prior to the development of this theory, social scientists viewed members of social movements as irrational and crazed, and framed them as deviants rather than political actors. Developed through careful research, political process theory disrupted that view, and exposed its troubling elitist, racist, and patriarchal roots. Resource mobilization theory similarly offers an alternative view to this classical one.

Since McAdam published his book outlining the theory, revisions to it have been made by him and other sociologists, so today it differs from McAdam's original articulation. As sociologist Neal Caren describes in his entry on the theory in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, political process theory outlines five key components that determine the success or failure of a social movement: political opportunities, mobilizing structures, framing processes, protest cycles, and contentious repertoires.
  1. Political opportunities are the most important aspect of PPT, because according to the theory, without them, success for a social movement is impossible. Political opportunities - or opportunities for intervention and change within the existing political system - exist when the system experiences vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities in the system can arise for a variety of reasons, but hinge on a crisis of legitimacy wherein the populace no longer supports the social and economic conditions fostered or maintained by the system. Opportunities might be driven by the broadening of political enfranchisement to those previously excluded (like women and people of color, historically speaking), divisions among leaders, increasing diversity within political bodies and the electorate, and a loosening of repressive structures that previously kept people from demanding change.
  2. Mobilizing structures refer to the already existing organizations (political or otherwise) that are present among the community that wants change. These organizations serve as mobilizing structures for a social movement by providing membership, leadership, and communication and social networks to the budding movement. Examples include churches, community and nonprofit organizations, and student groups and schools, to name a few.
  3. Framing processes are carried out by leaders of an organization in order to allow the group or movement to clearly and persuasively describe the existing problems, articulate why change is necessary, what changes are desired, and how one can go about achieving them. Framing processes foster the ideological buy-in among movement members, members of the political establishment, and the public at large that is necessary for a social movement to seize political opportunities and make change. McAdam and colleagues describe framing as "conscious strategic efforts by groups of people to fashion shared understandings of the world and of themselves that legitimate and motivate collective action" (see Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing (1996)). 
  4. Protest cycles are another important aspect of social movement success according to PPT. A protest cycle is a prolonged period of time when opposition to the political system and acts of protest are in a heightened state. Within this theoretical perspective, protests are important expressions of the views and demands of the mobilizing structures connected to the movement, and are vehicles to express the ideological frames connected to the framing process. As such, protests serve to strengthen solidarity within the movement, to raise awareness among the general public about the issues targeted by the movement, and also serve to help recruit new members.
  5. The fifth and final aspect of PPT is contentious repertoires, which refers to the set of means through which the movement makes its claims. These typically include strikes, demonstrations (protests), and petitions.
According to PPT, when all of these elements are present, it is possible that a social movement will be able to make changes within the existing political system that will reflect the desired outcome. 

Key Figures

There are many sociologists who study social movements, but key figures who helped create and refine PPT include Charles Tilly, Peter Eisinger, Sidney Tarrow, David Snow, David Meyer, and Douglas McAdam. 

Recommended Reading

To learn more about PPT see the following resources:
  • From Mobilization to Revolution (1978), by Charles Tilly.
  • "Political Process Theory," Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, by Neal Caren (2007).
  • Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, (1982) by Douglas McAdam.
  • Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing (1996), by Douglas McAdam and colleagues.